Conservative study Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenkai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zenkai said:
The Bible says one thing and the historical-critical method says something contrary. I don’t have to interpret anything to realize that.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you asked this question, however I realize your loaded question planted seeds against the Catholic Church and planted seeds of questioning the Church. I am here to defend the Catholic Church in this particular case. If it were not for the Catholic Church to have the complexity and depth it has, and if it took one facet only of the many facets in the beautiful diamond it is I would never ever have even set foot in one, let alone go to Mass 3 to 4 times a week and read the bible as often as I do.

Unfortunately, this thread will not garner the types of defenders against your seed planting because it is buried in the Sacred Scripture forum of apologetics. If it were in the Apologetics main forum, you would have had many many catholics shutting you down right from the start with defenses for their faith.

Maybe the moderators can split this to apologetics if you are up for it?
 
StrawberryJam said:
I’m glad you asked this question, however I realize your loaded question planted seeds against the Catholic Church and planted seeds of questioning the Church. I am here to defend the Catholic Church in this particular case. If it were not for the Catholic Church to have the complexity and depth it has, and if it took one facet only of the many facets in the beautiful diamond it is I would never ever have even set foot in one, let alone go to Mass 3 to 4 times a week and read the bible as often as I do.

Unfortunately, this thread will not garner the types of defenders against your seed planting because it is buried in the Sacred Scripture forum of apologetics. If it were in the Apologetics main forum, you would have had many many catholics shutting you down right from the start with defenses for their faith.

Maybe the moderators can split this to apologetics if you are up for it?
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand me. I am not questioning the Catholic Church at all. I trust in the authority and the teachings of the Church. I’m just not a fan of the historical-critical method. From what I’ve read on here, most people don’t like it either.
 
Zenkai said:
I think you misunderstand me. I am not questioning the Catholic Church at all. I trust in the authority and the teachings of the Church. I’m just not a fan of the historical-critical method. From what I’ve read on here, most people don’t like it either.
Click to expand...
There is a distinct difference between liking something and declaring something is heretical if you do not like it personally. However, I am not able to make that point clear to you as you feel the backing of others personal opinions rule. Disregard the Catholic Church’s postion and go with the bandwagon of personal opinions that agree with your own!
 
StrawberryJam said:
There is a distinct difference between liking something and declaring something is heretical if you do not like it personally. However, I am not able to make that point clear to you as you feel the backing of others personal opinions rule. Disregard the Catholic Church’s postion and go with the bandwagon of personal opinions that agree with your own!
Click to expand...
I’m not disregarding the Church’s position.

From EWTN:

“However, the textual commentaries use primarily the historical-critical method, and thus must be read with discernment. The Church approves of the use of this method for the purpose of understanding the historical and literary foundations of the text (see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11-13), but finds it an incomplete method apart from the Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, that is, in accordance with what God has revealed in toto, as taught by the Magisterium.”

I don’t like the historical-critical method because it disregards Tradition. The Church says it is incomplete because it disregards Tradition.
 
Zenkai said:
I’m not disregarding the Church’s position.

From EWTN:

“However, the textual commentaries use primarily the historical-critical method, and thus must be read with discernment. The Church approves of the use of this method for the purpose of understanding the historical and literary foundations of the text (see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11-13), but finds it an incomplete method apart from the Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, that is, in accordance with what God has revealed in toto, as taught by the Magisterium.”

I don’t like the historical-critical method because it disregards Tradition. The Church says it is incomplete because it disregards Tradition.
Click to expand...
Incomplete. One facet of the diamond.

Just like your cut and paste. I have no context to work with here with your post. No link, nothing.

No one is arguing that you must take only the historical critical method, but I am arguing you can not call it heretical.
I am also wondering if you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by completely discounting anything in it.
 
Is it possible for ANY method of interpreting scripture to be heretical if it is MISUSED?

Of course!

Is it possible to use the historical critical method in a non heretical way?

Of course!

The method itself is not heretical but whether it is misused or not can make it heretical.

If you don’t believe that the historical critical method can be misused then you’ve never heard or read where Pope Benedict XVI says it can be!
 
Zenkai said:
It goes against what the Bible says. Therefore, it’s rather heretical.
Click to expand...
Blanket statements about such is simply not the case.

Have some misused such methods? sure?

But they are not per se heretical.
 
Pope Benedict XVI (who as Cardinal certainly pointed out the limitations of the HCM)

"32. Before all else, we need to acknowledge the benefits that historical-critical exegesis and other recently-developed methods of textual analysis have brought to the life of the Church.[97] For the Catholic understanding of sacred Scripture, attention to such methods is indispensable, linked as it is to the realism of the Incarnation: “This necessity is a consequence of the Christian principle formulated in the Gospel of John 1:14: Verbum caro factum est. The historical fact is a constitutive dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology, but a true history, and it should thus be studied with the methods of serious historical research”.[98] The study of the Bible requires a knowledge of these methods of enquiry and their suitable application. While it is true that scholarship has come to a much greater appreciation of their importance in the modern period, albeit not everywhere to the same degree, nonetheless the sound ecclesial tradition has always demonstrated a love for the study of the “letter”. Here we need but recall the monastic culture which is the ultimate foundation of European culture; at its root lies a concern for the word. The desire for God includes love for the word in all its dimensions: “because in the word of the Bible God comes to us and we to him, we must learn to penetrate the secret of language, to understand it in its structure and its mode of expression. Thus, because of the search for God, the secular sciences which lead to a greater understanding of language became important”.[99]
  1. The Church’s living magisterium, which is charged with “giving an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of tradition”,[100] intervened in a prudent and balanced way regarding the correct response to the introduction of new methods of historical analysis. I think in particular of the Encyclicals Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII and Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII. My venerable predecessor John Paul II recalled the importance of these documents on the centenary and the fiftieth anniversary respectively of their promulgation.[101] Pope Leo XIII’s intervention had the merit of protecting the Catholic interpretation of the Bible from the inroads of rationalism, without, however, seeking refuge in a spiritual meaning detached from history. Far from shunning scientific criticism, the Church was wary only of “preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain”.[102] Pope Pius XII, on the other hand, was faced with attacks on the part of those who proposed a so-called mystical exegesis which rejected any form of scientific approach. The Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu was careful to avoid any hint of a dichotomy between “scientific exegesis” for use in apologetics and “spiritual interpretation meant for internal use”; rather it affirmed both the “theological significance of the literal sense, methodically defined” and the fact that “determining the spiritual sense … belongs itself to the realm of exegetical science”.[103] In this way, both documents rejected “a split between the human and the divine, between scientific research and respect for the faith, between the literal sense and the spiritual sense”.[104] This balance was subsequently maintained by the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: “in their work of interpretation, Catholic exegetes must never forget that what they are interpreting is the word of God. Their common task is not finished when they have simply determined sources, defined forms or explained literary procedures. They arrive at the true goal of their work only when they have explained the meaning of the biblical text as God’s word for today”.[105]"
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html
 
I heartily endorse the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, RSV 2nd. ed. with commentary by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. It is a much more literal translation, as opposed to the “dynamic” translation which is problematic in the NAB.

At my college/seminary the Ignatius RSV is widely used. One wants to avoid the NRSV, which is not so recommended. Anyway, for scholarly research as well as for general reading by orthodox Catholics, the commentary by Hahn and Mitch is superb.
 
Zenkai said:
It goes against what the Bible says. Therefore, it’s rather heretical.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict XVI (who as Cardinal certainly pointed out the limitations of the HCM)

"32. Before all else, we need to acknowledge the benefits that historical-critical exegesis and other recently-developed methods of textual analysis have brought to the life of the Church.[97] For the Catholic understanding of sacred Scripture, attention to such methods is indispensable, linked as it is to the realism of the Incarnation: “This necessity is a consequence of the Christian principle formulated in the Gospel of John 1:14: Verbum caro factum est. The historical fact is a constitutive dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology, but a true history, and it should thus be studied with the methods of serious historical research”.[98] The study of the Bible requires a knowledge of these methods of enquiry and their suitable application. While it is true that scholarship has come to a much greater appreciation of their importance in the modern period, albeit not everywhere to the same degree, nonetheless the sound ecclesial tradition has always demonstrated a love for the study of the “letter”. Here we need but recall the monastic culture which is the ultimate foundation of European culture; at its root lies a concern for the word. The desire for God includes love for the word in all its dimensions: “because in the word of the Bible God comes to us and we to him, we must learn to penetrate the secret of language, to understand it in its structure and its mode of expression. Thus, because of the search for God, the secular sciences which lead to a greater understanding of language became important”.[99]
  1. The Church’s living magisterium, which is charged with “giving an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of tradition”,[100] intervened in a prudent and balanced way regarding the correct response to the introduction of new methods of historical analysis. I think in particular of the Encyclicals Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII and Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII. My venerable predecessor John Paul II recalled the importance of these documents on the centenary and the fiftieth anniversary respectively of their promulgation.[101] Pope Leo XIII’s intervention had the merit of protecting the Catholic interpretation of the Bible from the inroads of rationalism, without, however, seeking refuge in a spiritual meaning detached from history. Far from shunning scientific criticism, the Church was wary only of “preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain”.[102] Pope Pius XII, on the other hand, was faced with attacks on the part of those who proposed a so-called mystical exegesis which rejected any form of scientific approach. The Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu was careful to avoid any hint of a dichotomy between “scientific exegesis” for use in apologetics and “spiritual interpretation meant for internal use”; rather it affirmed both the “theological significance of the literal sense, methodically defined” and the fact that “determining the spiritual sense … belongs itself to the realm of exegetical science”.[103] In this way, both documents rejected “a split between the human and the divine, between scientific research and respect for the faith, between the literal sense and the spiritual sense”.[104] This balance was subsequently maintained by the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: “in their work of interpretation, Catholic exegetes must never forget that what they are interpreting is the word of God. Their common task is not finished when they have simply determined sources, defined forms or explained literary procedures. They arrive at the true goal of their work only when they have explained the meaning of the biblical text as God’s word for today”.[105]"
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Does the Historical-Critical Method have its limitations?? yes

Has it been misused? yes

But that does not mean it gets simply thrown out entirely. no.
 
Does the historical critical method DENY the infancy narratives of Jesus?

Some who use that method say so.

Does the historical critical method deny that John was indeed the author of the gospel of John and an eye witness to the events?

Some who use that method say so.

Did Jesus feed the 5,000? Did manna fall from Heaven to feed the Israelites? Did Jesus walk on water?

Many who use the historical critical method say these things DID NOT take place!

Bookcat: what is your opinion: are the people who say these things right or wrong?

Are they wrong because they MIS use the historical critical method or are they wrong because the method itself is bad?

Of course we’d say it is because they MISUSE the historical critical method.

But there is ONE thing I can guarantee you! ANYONE who is Catholic and does not believe that Jesus fed the 5,000 or walked on water or that manna failed to fall from Heaven to feed the Israelites IS heretical!

I’m sure that Pope Benedict XVI wouldn’t say such things so I’m sure that in these cases he would say that they MISUSED the historical critical method!

Now you may come back and say that people who CLAIM to use the historical critical method and say such things never happened do not exist but we both know that I can PROVE that they do exist!

Then it gets down to a PROOF war as to how many times it can be shown that the historical method is MISUSED.

Now I agree with Pope Benedict XVI and do agree that it can be used in the right way.

I will not be stifled by nonsensical arguments that claim to not wax poetic over the historical critical method is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water!

Those who SAY they use the historical critical method and do not believe the miracles of the bible have done far worse than that!

See the whole semantic warfare exercise over the historical critical method is to get people to shut up everytime the devil gets somone to MISUSE the historical critical method–that way the devil can foster non belief!

Who has more chance of going to Hell: someone who believes in an alleged historical critical method of interpreting the bible that DENIES a miracle in the bible

OR

someone who MISTAKENLY clings to a superficial interpretation of the bible out of fear of an erroneus historical critical method interpetation of the bible?

Lastly I will tell you this–there are MANY people who claim to use the historical critical method of the bible that DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus rose from the dead.

It is not scientific they claim–you can’t use CRITICAL analysis and believe such a tale!

I say: It is historical reality!

Anyone who doesn’t believe it IS HERETICAL!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Bookcat: what is your opinion: are the people who say these things right or wrong?

Are they wrong because they MIS use the historical critical method or are they wrong because the method itself is bad?

Of course we’d say it is because they MISUSE the historical critical method.

But there is ONE thing I can guarantee you! ANYONE who is Catholic and does not believe that Jesus fed the 5,000 or walked on water or that manna failed to fall from Heaven to feed the Israelites IS heretical!
Click to expand...
Too long to respond to everything…

But are there ideas that are held by some who use the Historical Critical method that are very very wrong? Yes certainly.

Has there been at times a misguided approach that seeks to say that it was not that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes…but that people shared…

Yes there certainly has (and I have spent time in providing to a friend documents for her that show that such is a very wrong idea --such as the Catechism and the homilies etc of Pope Benedict XVI on the subject.

As to heresy – such is a very particular thing – which involves not only being wrong but an obstinate denial…etc

CIC:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

As Pope Benedict XVI there is good in the HCM --but as he has critiqued prior to being Pope – problems can certainly be present.

For myself – I caution those who come to me to certainly be cautious – and very aware that the HCM has its limitations and that some scholars have come up with ideas that are not consistent with the Christian Faith (to put it mildly) --and that one very much needs to pay attention to the Documents of the Church on such and especially the work and example of Pope Benedict XVI such as in the document quoted above.

The Church does not endorse any misuse or distorted use of the HCM or any other method.
 
Thank you for all the Bible recommendations. The Ignatius study Bible seems to be pretty conservative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top