And "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" is neither a pre-Conciliar, nor a Catholic document.
Here’s Why Catholics are not Fundamentalists
Janelle Lara | 4 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Oc7SegC51I
we're coming from a Catholic 2:19 perspective: Catholics are not biblical 2:21 literalists we are not 2:23 fundamentalists
Would you mind giving a good reference for that.
By good I mean sth like before Vatican II.
The man I call Antipope Ratzinger doesn't fit that bill.
2:37 "intellectual suicide"
Big words. Little substance.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
There actually are human limitations apparent in the Bible, but positive factual errors are not one of them.
Ratzinger loves big metalanguage, but I don't think "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" is actually giving even one concrete example on how we'd be intellectually better off for saying "Jesus said so and so just because as a human he believed his culture" ...
The problem with that approach is, Ratzinger was way too much a believer in his human culture, which took its mapping of past human cultural biasses as proof of the own superiority over the other ones.
He elsewhere is said to have taken a distance from the Syllabus Errorum, sometimes on the lines of there is no returning to it. To us actual Catholics there is also no returning to it, since we never left it.
3:05 God is not all the intellectual content of Scripture.
We also have:
"What does God say about this?" or "how does He react to that?"
And the this or that is usually something which human language is very adequate to communicating.
This is an extension from a discussion of Genesis 1, days. "What if they are days from God's pov, in God's language, which isn't human language?'"
Genesis 1 was written for men and God is quite capable of adapting the language to the audience. He is not able to distort the content to get through to the audience, God is not a liar, but He is capable of adapting the language.
3:16 Language is universally translatable.
Sometimes you may need circumlocutions, and sometimes you may find a translation error.
Four corners of the Earth, well, in Latin and Hebrew, it works just fine, but Greek "tes ges" or Germanic "of the earth" is not the good translation. In Germanic, it's better to write "of the land" in Apocalypse 7:1. I'm not sure what the best Greek would be, probably a word which the Semitic audience of St. John was swapping for "ge" by Hebraism, but I am sure, this geographic feature of the continents is verified by geography. Try Point Barrow, Anadyr, Hobart, Cape Horn, back to Point Barrow.
3:51 It's not the least idiotic.
When the meaning of a term changes, either it survives along the new meaning, or another term replaces it.
Language change in general, there are very few things that change in any kind of back and forth in each generation, most of language is actually fixed. This means there is time to repair for things that have changed meaning.
You sound as if you had never read "Language change, progress or decay" by the actual linguist Jean Aitchison, and relied on a super-exaggerated version of the Sapir-Whorf theory.
4:22 Very true.
And sacred tradition has taken Genesis 1 to 11 literally. Here is Haydock on the last verse but really all of Genesis chapter 3:
Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)
This only makes sense if Genesis was a literal event, Adam and Eve literally optimised a telling of it so it could be easily transmitted and memorised, and it was passed down to when it could be written down, in steps that are few because the patriarchal lifespans were literally 100's of years.
4:59 "historical critical lense"
In itself not a part of tradition.
When applied correctly usually corroborates tradition and therefore also a literal reading.
Very often applied incorrectly, unfactually, by people wanting to relativise that.
5:17 You are somewhat less blessed if you accept a false magisterium, like Antipope Ratzinger, who, as author of "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" proved, prior to election, he was not Catholic and therefore not eligible to papacy.
5:35 "intention for the lady" / "for the laity?"
The Biblical text doesn't have one intention for laity and another for clergy.
No comments:
Post a Comment