Monday, February 4, 2019

David Wolf Sees a Danger ... I don't agree on its nature

The Dangers Of Bible Reading In Public Education
David Wolf | 3.II.2019

1:50 How about the German model ... also in Austria.

IN public school, Catholic parents send Catholic children to Catholic catechism class, Protestant ones to Protestant catechism class (generally Lutherans and Calvinists are no longer that different in Germanies, they are a bit like United Church of Canada, to give a comparison from Americas). Jewish parents to Jewish catechism and in some Bundesländer Muslim parents to Muslim catechism.

I think even some Bundesländer by now (esp in former GDR) allow Atheist parents to send children to classes of Humane Ethics.

Either way, Catechism is not optional, all need to take it, but parents decide what confession. (In my case a back then Swedish High Church Lutheran mother chose Catholic catechism).

5:07 I am not sure what you mean by "sectarianism".

I am sure that the German model involves sectarian division, because Protestants by definition are not the Church, but a sect.

If this sect already exists, they are usually not first generation former Catholics, but the sect exists as a Protestant population where greatgrandfathers or further off is typical of the Catholic background, they are not to be wiped out by Inquisition and therefore their educational choices are to be respected.

2:50 In some cases they are doing so on texts where the Catholic Church has not decided on the interpretation.

For instance:

Genesis 11

[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.

Clearly includes Hebrew patriarchs and clearly includes whereever they were.

[2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

All, or just some? Including the Hebrews or excluding the Hebrews?

Of the Babel builders, all, or just the élite? Was Babel like a real global village or just a virtual one, like New York is these days?

I don't think the Pontifical Bible commission ever gave an answer on this one, so I think all three (at least) options are licit.

  • Hebrews included in Babel-builders?
  • Hebrews excluded, but all the rest concretely at Babel?
  • Hebrews excluded, an élite of the rest gather at Babel to build the tower, while others have some geographical spread?

I take this last possibility. CMI (who are Protestants) take the first.

I do not think there is any harm in us arguing this out. I most definitely don't think it is "dangerous" that we do so.

3:01 Yes, when it comes to Exodus 20:4 there was a council called Nicaea II, I agree.

The two Baptists with the Bible verse are in fact both rejecting it. So, arguably, they are not arguing about exact meaning of Exodus 20:4, since they erroneously think that images in and of themselves, not just as example of strange gods (Exodus 20:3), get a no no from one separate commandment.

This means, what they are arguing about between them is arguably sth Nicaea II did not decide.

3:09 "there is no point on even having a debate on this"

True for some points, like Exodus 20:4 or Colossians 1:15 on the basis of which Nicaea II argued that Incarnation had changed the deal about images.

Not true for certain other points.

3:36 Sure I agree on the council of Chalcedon and have had to defend Chalcedonian christology against what I have seen as examples of shockingly bad Christology in Evangelicals.

When dealing with them, I can not just refer to the Council, whose authority they reject, I have to back it by the Bible.

But when some say Mary is no longer Christ's mother, since Christ no longer has the body of flesh, or on same principle reject Eucharist as invisibly a bilocation of His body from heaven (using "bilication" loosely, it is actually a somewhat different miracle for Padre Pio than for the Eucharist), I needed to do two things:

  • have a shock at how non-Chalcedonian their Christology sometimes is
  • defend Chalcedon by the Bible, which they claim to believe.

6:57 Arguably Catholic and Protestant children in same classroom hearing teacher who could be either read the Bible is a very dangerous idea, but if there had only been a division, Catholic children in one classroom have the Bible Douay Rheims version with Haydock comment read by a Catholic teacher and in one or two other classrooms Presbyterians and Anglicans have KJV read with Presbyterian or Anglican comment by a Presbyterian or Anglican teacher.

Also, anyone who risks being in so clear a minority as to be an easy target for harassment should have a clear right to not go to school.

By the way, here is the wikipedian account of background before the riots of 1844:

"During the 1840s, students in Philadelphia schools began the day with reading the Protestant version of the Bible. On November 10, 1842, Philadelphia's Roman Catholic Bishop, Francis Kenrick, wrote a letter to the Board of Controllers of public schools, asking that Catholic children be allowed to read the Douay version of the Bible, used by Roman Catholics. He also asked that they be excused from other religious teaching while at school.[6][7] As a result, the Board of Controllers ordered that no child should be forced to participate in religious activities and stated that children were allowed to read whichever version of the Bible their parents wished. Nativists further inflamed hostile feelings towards Catholics by reportedly twisting Kenrick's requests to the Board of Controllers as an attack against the Bible used in Protestant devotionals.[6][8]"

"Approximately one year later, a rumor was circulated that Hugh Clark, a Kensington school director who was Catholic, was visiting a girls school, where he demanded that the principal stop Bible reading in school. The story also claimed that the principal refused and that she would rather lose her job. Clark denied this version of events and claimed that after finding out several students had left a Bible reading to read a different version of the Bible, he commented that if reading the Bible caused this kind of confusion, that it would be better if it were not to be read in school. Protestants claimed that Catholics, with direct influence from the Pope, were trying to remove the Bible from schools.[8][9] Kenrick issued a statement[when?] asserting, "It is not consistent with the laws and the discipline of the Catholic Church for her members to unite in religious exercises with those who are not of their communion." [7]"

I have left out a paragraph stating how Philadelphia had had Orange societies forming to protect Orange supremacy / Protestant supremacy in face of Catholic numbers as early as 1830's.

This actually goes some way to explain where the twisting of a Catholic's words would come from, since these societies are clearly involved in anti-Catholic lying.

Note well, Kenrick was the Catholic bishop, Clark was just a Catholic school director. I'd agree with the sentiments of bishop Kenrick, you seem to prefer those of school principal Clark.

Bible reading, sure, as long as Catholics and Protestants don't need to do so in the same classroom with the same teacher from the same Bible.

8:50 "The United States has a history of this"

Has it occurred to you that the US or what became so also has an opposite history?

Lord Baltimore of Maryland, William Penn, two men who made sure that, while Charles II could secure no religious freedom for Catholics in England, he could do so in English colonies.

Note also, New England Puritans are much towted, but they are only Northern half (with consideration of Maryland and Philadelphia even less than half) of the 13 colonies.


jimmy c
You're right.

Peter warns in his epistle "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, " (2 Peter 1:20). And there is also 2 Peter 3:15-16: "And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think St Peter was writing to Romans, and that he was referring to some verses in Romans that later on Protestants also twisted to their own destruction ....

I most definitely do not think that he was speaking of having an opinion on geographical spread or opposite of mankind during Babel event.

II Peter 1:20 in Douay Rheims and with Challoner comment:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[20] "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation": This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

jimmy c
@Hans-Georg Lundahl are you saying the bible can no longer be twisted to one's own destruction and the message of those verses are bound by time?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it doesn't matter who he was writing to. The important lesson here is why he wrote it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jimmy c "The important lesson here is why he wrote it."


"are you saying the bible can no longer be twisted to one's own destruction"

Not at all.

I am saying that he had a heresy about how one is saved in mind, one that is rehashed by Protestants, but obviously any other heresy would also be twisting scripture to one's own destruction.

I am therefore saying, outside heresy we do have a liberty of interpretation, unless the magisterium has decided against one's point.

jimmy c
@Hans-Georg Lundahl and how did they rehash it? Through their own private interpretations. So no wonder we have so many protestant churches today that can't seem to agree on anything. That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jimmy c "That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own."

Did they really do so about matters like Biblical history?

For instance, the other day I saw St Justin Martyr claim King David lived 1500 years BC, which means he would have misunderstood Biblical history some, that usually being the date of Exodus.

@jimmy c "Through their own private interpretations."

Private then in the sense of opposed to official magisterium.

Not the least private in their intentions. To Luther, his misunderstanding of Romans was meant to be Catholic dogma ... he just ditched the magisterium when it didn't comply with that.

Since he was not a private person studying the Bible from curiosity, he cannot be compared to someone having own ideas about how Biblical history works out with archaeology.

@jimmy c "That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own."

Sure you don't mean when heresiarchs did so without any reference to apostolic Church?

@jimmy c "So no wonder we have so many protestant churches today that can't seem to agree on anything."

There are limited variations, though.

Some totally off hook, as with ecclesiology, and some more like one position coinciding with Catholicism or even both positions being licit in Catholicism.

jimmy c
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Luther is just a prime example of how awry things can go when you pick up a bible an make yourself your own self appointed authority through your "own private interpretations" Hebrew 13:17 instructs us to obey &submit to our leaders? Countless sects with no leaders ..Sad ! Some protestants believe in infant baptism while some don't. Some believe in divorce; others don't. Some believe in abortion even partial births others consider it murder !!.Satan surely knows how to divide & take one away from the ONE Truth ...Baptist, Anabaptist, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, Seven Day Adventist, Born Agains, .....39000 + divisions no leaders, no truth, no unity... chaos & confusion. God certainly is not the Author of Confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jimmy c "Countless sects with no leaders"

Not true, each has leaders.

And Luther was a leader of one in Wittenberg.

The problem is not "I read the Bible and I take it as it seems to mean" (until I run into a difficulty and ask or consult Church Fathers or St Thomas Aquinas).

The problem is making up verse so and so means the opposite of dogma such and such.

And I mean dogma of the Catholic Church, not just of any leader, all Protestant churches (or sects) have leaders.

jimmy c
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you still don't get it. We're done here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jimmy c I'm not your inquisitor, feel free to leave the conversation, meanwhile, it has gone to my blog as well:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : David Wolf Sees a Danger ... I don't agree on its nature

Scroll down to Roman numeral V. That's us, starting with you.

@jimmy c Oh, if your point was any individual Bible reading or even casual act of interpreting sth one way or the other is wrong, that is not sth I don't get, it's sth I don't agree with, and neither did Challoner, if you see how he commented that verse.

jimmy c
@Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is there's too many Luther's.

“I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that ye use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death. I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, “entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chap. VI-“Abstain from the Poison of Heretics”)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jimmy c What exact poison of heretics would St Ignatius have been referring to?

Some people ten times more poisonous than Luther, and these guys do not seem to even base anything on misreading canonical Bible books. They seem to be discarding the Bible completely, which they do, since they are Gnostics.

Comparing Lutherans to Gnostics is like comparing Muslims to Hindoos. Muslims at least believe in Doomsday, Hindoos just in "next incarnation" or in avoiding it.

jimmy c
@Hans-Georg Lundahl so Ignatius is wrong and you're right. Thanks for revealing yourself to be exactly what he warned about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jimmy c "so Ignatius is wrong and you're right."

No, but St Ignatius was simply not talking about 2 Peter 1:20 in that letter. Why? Because the heretics he was dealing with were not accepting all books of the Bible anyway.

"Thanks for revealing yourself to be exactly what he warned about."

I don't think so.

I pleaded for a right to read Biblical history and to consider the events as they naturally appear to the reader. I claimed no such liberty for dogma. I also do not claim it where the reading seeming natural to one would conflict with dogma.

St Ignatius was definitely saying somewhere "do nothing without the bishop" and it seems BISHOP Challoner (he was bishop for English Catholics, he was not an Anglican heretic pseudo-bishop) laid down the limits and I claim to stay within those limits.

Contradicting your overheated misapplication of St Ignatius is not contradicting the Church.

jimmy c
@Hans-Georg Lundahl drink your own poison.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@jimmy c I hope no one drinks anyone's poison bc of me.

You have pointed out no actual heresy in me.

No comments: