Pope: Don't Forget Bible Comes from God

[mdgspencer]

Interpreting the Bible as a mere collection of human words causes the treasure contained in Scripture to be lost, Pope Benedict said. To seek to discover the truth of the Sacred Books is to seek to know God more and more…
see www.zenit.org/article-32504?l=english

 

[Hokomai]

I followed some of this, but as usual was stumped by the Vaticanese in many parts. What could this possibly mean?

Finally, I would like to refer to the fact that for a good interpretation, it is not possible to apply in a mechanical way the criterion of inspiration, nor that of absolute truth, extrapolating a single phrase or expression. The context in which it is possible to perceive holy Scripture as the Word of God is that of the unity of the history of God, in a totality in which individual elements are mutually illumined and opened to understanding.

I can think of several things it **might **mean, but why does the Pope not use words to express whatever it is he actually does mean?

 

[Crumpy]

I can’t just “read the Bible in a year” like apparently a lot of people do.

I find myself missing significant things that I didn’t want to miss. I’m asking myself later, how did I miss that?

So, I’ve been reading slowly and deeply with whatever commentary seems to help, like Jewish commentaries or now, the Intervarsity Press series entitled the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. I’m reading the commentaries by early church writers (the publisher doesn’t seem to call them the early church “fathers” as I recall).

The first volume I was sent was the commentary on Romans. right off, this volume will tell you if you want to go further with this subscription series.

I couldn’t read Romans with understanding. This commentary tells me why – because it is so packed with information and ideas. I have to slow down and pace myself on this one volume. It’s not just a homily to the Romans. it involves some exposition on other parts of scripture.

I haven’t finished the commentaries on the first 9 chapters of Romans, yet. Yesterday and today I’ve been reading the whole sidebar on the topic of predestination and free will. how do these coexist? do they make sense? they do, and the “fathers” explain it, convincingly.

But, ,for sure, St. Paul doesn’t give away anything in this letter of his – you have to go after it and read a bunch of opinions to flush out the meaning. For me, it’s worth it. This reading has been very inspirational.

I’m at the age where I’m not remembering everything I read (probably influenced by various medication that I’m taking). I’d already have to review what I read, if I had to explain the book to anybody else. But, I’m saying, in this book, there haven’t been any wasted words, that’s for sure.

The Catholic Church teaches that scripture wasn’t written for the experts (only) but for each of us. I’m convinced of that. People neglect this at the risk of their salvation.

 

[Crumpy]

to continue a bit further:

The commentary discusses the mercy and justice of God, as the “payoff” to the discussion about predestination and free will.

How can God inflict “justice” on somebody if it says right there that God hardened this person’s heart?

Part of the answer is that it is part of his justice to be just – to “give it” to people who deserve it. God has mercy on people who repent, and God knows in advance who is going to repent.

This climaxes in a discussion of the Jews. has God abandoned them? Why didn’t they follow Jesus, en masse? Well, see Lv 33:19: God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. That’s true on two levels. It’s true theoretically and in individual cases, which goes right up to logically to a discussion of all the Jews in Jesus’ day. This principle has been illustrated over and over in Genesis (from which the Jews should have been able to know God’s will).

The discussion of predestination, the foreknowledge of God, and free will reaches its logical conlusion in a discussion of individual responsibility – which is implied in OT and NT times up to the present.

You have to look for the big picture, and you can find it.

 

[mark_a]

I followed some of this, but as usual was stumped by the Vaticanese in many parts. What could this possibly mean?

I can think of several things it **might **mean, but why does the Pope not use words to express whatever it is he actually does mean?

I find it impossible to believe that the pope didn’t say exactly what he means. Just because you (or I) find it difficult to understand doesn’t mean a thing.

Perhaps Scott Hahn or Karl Keating is more your (and my) speed.

 

[Mintaka]

Usually, what the pope actually says is pretty clear. When he first got out of grad school and was assigned to a parish, his bishop and his pastor got him assigned to teach religion classes from the youngest kids on up, so that he would learn how to communicate to normal people. From then on, until his sister wasn’t available anymore, he always had his sister listen to whatever talks he was giving, so that she could point out stuff that wasn’t clear.

How the Vatican translators translate his words into English – that’s maybe not so clear.

First off, here’s the whole message, so you can read it in context. He’s talking to bishops going to a Bible conference, so the translator was a little more high-falutin’ than normal.

Second – what the Pope’s saying is that, when you read a Bible passage, you want to read it in context. And that means: the context of that Bible passage, of related Bible passages throughout the Bible, of the whole history of God’s plan of salvation, and of what the Church teaches and has taught about it. (And the context of the language, the local literature, what Jewish authors taught about it… it goes on and on.) All this stuff sheds light on the text of the Bible.

But the Pope is asking the bishops to remember that God really is the oomph behind the Bible, so it’s in history but its connections are not totally constrained by history. The older and newer books of the Bible reflect on each other, even where that’s not humanly possible. The Bible is all the same Word of God, even though it’s made out of so many books written so differently. The Bible is one in God, Who is One. You can’t ignore the OT in favor of the NT, or vice versa.

You don’t have to do a doctoral thesis on every piece of Scripture you read, but you have to bear this stuff in mind.

 

[Timothysis]

I followed some of this, but as usual was stumped by the Vaticanese in many parts. What could this possibly mean?

I can think of several things it **might **mean, but why does the Pope not use words to express whatever it is he actually does mean?

I think he is saying that we must interpret the Bible in light of the continuous, historical Tradition of the Church.

 

[Hokomai]

I think he is saying that we must interpret the Bible in light of the continuous, historical Tradition of the Church.

If so, why could he not say something like that? Why does it always have to be dressed up in obscurity?

 

[Hokomai]

I find it impossible to believe that the pope didn’t say exactly what he means. Just because you (or I) find it difficult to understand doesn’t mean a thing.

Perhaps Scott Hahn or Karl Keating is more your (and my) speed.

Whatever he means, it cannot possibly be ‘exactly’ what he said, since what he said is the opposite of ‘exact’.

 

[Afra254]

But, ,for sure, St. Paul doesn’t give away anything in this letter of his – you have to go after it and read a bunch of opinions to flush out the meaning. For me, it’s worth it. This reading has been very inspirational. http://www.keyforex.info/iPad.gif

 

[Timothysis]

If so, why could he not say something like that? Why does it always have to be dressed up in obscurity?

The problem is that Pope Benedict is a theologian and speaks in the language of theology. There is meaning to every word he speaks and we must work a little harder to grasp the depth of his meaning. Let’s not ask him to dumb down to our level.

 

[Faith1960]

I find it impossible to believe that the pope didn’t say exactly what he means. Just because you (or I) find it difficult to understand doesn’t mean a thing.

Perhaps Scott Hahn or Karl Keating is more your (and my) speed.

The Pope is quite the intellectual. I’ll admit that I have a hard time following some of the things he says.

 

[johnnyjones]

I can’t just “read the Bible in a year” like apparently a lot of people do.

I find myself missing significant things that I didn’t want to miss. I’m asking myself later, how did I miss that?

So, I’ve been reading slowly and deeply with whatever commentary seems to help, like Jewish commentaries or now, the Intervarsity Press series entitled the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. I’m reading the commentaries by early church writers (the publisher doesn’t seem to call them the early church “fathers” as I recall).

The first volume I was sent was the commentary on Romans. right off, this volume will tell you if you want to go further with this subscription series.

I couldn’t read Romans with understanding. This commentary tells me why – because it is so packed with information and ideas. I have to slow down and pace myself on this one volume. It’s not just a homily to the Romans. it involves some exposition on other parts of scripture.

I haven’t finished the commentaries on the first 9 chapters of Romans, yet. Yesterday and today I’ve been reading the whole sidebar on the topic of predestination and free will. how do these coexist? do they make sense? they do, and the “fathers” explain it, convincingly.

But, ,for sure, St. Paul doesn’t give away anything in this letter of his – you have to go after it and read a bunch of opinions to flush out the meaning. For me, it’s worth it. This reading has been very inspirational.

I’m at the age where I’m not remembering everything I read (probably influenced by various medication that I’m taking). I’d already have to review what I read, if I had to explain the book to anybody else. But, I’m saying, in this book, there haven’t been any wasted words, that’s for sure.

The Catholic Church teaches that scripture wasn’t written for the experts (only) but for each of us. I’m convinced of that. People neglect this at the risk of their salvation.

The church may not teach that but at one time it was heaviy implied. In the middle ages the average person was presumed not capable of understanding scripture. Bibles were chained to the pew in churches. Interpretation was necessary by a man of the cloth. We have moved beyond that but for some sacred scripture needs a learned person to decipher passages. I somewhat agree with that.

 

[fred_conty]

Crumpy you said,

“I find myself missing significant things that I didn’t want to miss. I’m asking myself later, how did I miss that?”​

I know what you mean, I’ve done that so many times.
I think the reason I do it is multiple.

Circumstances in my life change, and I see now things that apply as I am now.

Age too makes you look at things differently and notice what is important.

Growth in knowledge also gives meaning where there was none before.

Some days my mind works better.

And of course, the Holy Spirit opens up things to me that were right there and I didn’t see.

And the different phases we go thru in our life with God.

And then if we are studing a certain part of our faith, that too brings our attention to something specific that seems to be there that we missed before.

Just a thought.

 

[TimothyH]

The Pope is quite the intellectual. I’ll admit that I have a hard time following some of the things he says.

Sometimes I feel the same way. I wish that he would sit down in a chair next to a fire and have a weekly “Fireside chat” like President FDR did.

No flowery language, no pulling punches, just get on the TV every so often for fifteen or twenty minutes and explain the faith in simple language that Joe the plumber could understand. Just look into the camera like he was in your living room and explain why contraception is a sin, where Purgatory is in the Bible or why Mary is important to us as followers of Jesus.

I bet it would be the highest rated TV show in history.

-Tim-

 

[Hokomai]

The problem is that Pope Benedict is a theologian and speaks in the language of theology. There is meaning to every word he speaks and we must work a little harder to grasp the depth of his meaning. Let’s not ask him to dumb down to our level.

For there to be meaning it must be accessible to his readers. If it is not clear from the plain meaning of the words, then it does not have meaning. It has possible meanings, or possibly has no meaning. We should not have to work hard to grasp anyone’s meaning. Being clear is not being dumb. It is being clear.

 

[Mintaka]

The Italian is a lot clearer.

And it wasn’t just Bibles that were chained to shelves. Telephone books used to be chained to phone booths, remember? Was that so that nobody could use them?

All kinds of books have occasionally been chained, usually in libraries with a lot of students coming and going. They were usually reference works or works that needed to be consulted often (like Bibles); sometimes they were valuable and expensive books, or books that were hard to get. Either way, chaining a book kept it from “walking away” with some larcenous browser. Lectionaries and other prayer books were sometimes chained to a church ambo for convenience, including in Protestant churches. I’ve seen parts catalogs chained to desks in garages and auto parts stores. Theft and misplacing books happened in medieval times, and it happens in modern times.

 

[Hokomai]

Sometimes I feel the same way. I wish that he would sit down in a chair next to a fire and have a weekly “Fireside chat” like President FDR did.

No flowery language, no pulling punches, just get on the TV every so often for fifteen or twenty minutes and explain the faith in simple language that Joe the plumber could understand. Just look into the camera like he was in your living room and explain why contraception is a sin, where Purgatory is in the Bible or why Mary is important to us as followers of Jesus.

I bet it would be the highest rated TV show in history.

-Tim-

I would watch it.

 

[porthos11]

For there to be meaning it must be accessible to his readers. If it is not clear from the plain meaning of the words, then it does not have meaning. It has possible meanings, or possibly has no meaning. We should not have to work hard to grasp anyone’s meaning. Being clear is not being dumb. It is being clear.

I find the highlighted phrase clear enough at face value with no need for rewording. It’s just like a quantum physics dissertation is also clear at face value but I will, however, not understand a word of it. That phrase has only one meaning, and it is exactly as the Pope said.

It’s not that the Pope is not being clear. It’s just that people have different reading levels. This phrase is at a high reading level and the Pope (or anyone) is not obligated to draw a common denominator. Further, this high reading level is appropriate because the audience is the Pontifical Biblical Commission and is not meant for a popular (as opposed to academic or scholarly) reading audience.

 

[RobbyS]

The church may not teach that but at one time it was heaviy implied. In the middle ages the average person was presumed not capable of understanding scripture. Bibles were chained to the pew in churches. Interpretation was necessary by a man of the cloth. We have moved beyond that but for some sacred scripture needs a learned person to decipher passages. I somewhat agree with that.

Well, SOME Bibles were chained in the Churches, the big volumes used during the liturgy, But in the 13th Century, a version of the Vulgate was published in Paris by the THOUSANDS–hand-written books that look like they were printed–and used by friars in order to make up their sermons as they moved from town to town. About 10X5, they fit into the pockets of the gowns. A bit expensive, but they were available to anyone who read Latin, which was probably about ten per cent of the population. Any university graduate and many graduates of grammar schools like Shakespeare had a wørking knowledge of Latin. I have seen a copy, and was amazed how modern it looks. On very thin parchment, I think. St. Thomas, BTW, wrote tons and tons of commentary on the Bible, most of the books, I think. And his summas reflect an intimate knowledge of Scripture.