Just In Case They Forgot...
Pope Benedict reminded biblical scholars that the Church holds the ultimate key to the interpretation of Scripture. Got to love this Holy Father. Check it out here.
"If exegesis also wishes to be theology, it must recognise that faith in the Church is that form of 'sympathy' without which the Bible remains a closed book. Tradition does not close access to Scripture, but it opens it. Furthermore it is the Church, in her institutions, that has the decisive word in the interpretation of Scripture. It is, in fact, the Church that is entrusted with the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God as written and transmitted, exercising her authority in the name of Jesus Christ".
posted by Russ Rentler, M.D. | 10:30 PM
7 Comments:
Amen! I was discussing this yesterday, with a couple of friends and said: "Either the Holy Spirit led the Church to put the canon of scripture together or he did not. There's no middle ground." One woman said, "when the bible was put together" it was "patriarchal" and now the Church really needs to have 'women priests.' I asked: "Did the Holy Spirit mess up? Jesus called 12 men and ordained 12 men to be priests. Women priests will never happen." It didn't go over all that well, but we parted in Christ's peace. We're meeting again next Tuesday, so thanks for this, TJ, it will come in handy. The CHURCH is to change us...not the other way around. Why is that so hard for people to comprehend? Oh yeah...Pride.
That's clear and understandable by the average Christian. Uh-oh...is that bad?
If the Holy Spirit led the Church to put the canon of scripture together, then it must've led Her to ordain only men priests. No? What's your authority for that?
There is a problem though. Papal speeches and documents do not solve what only administrative acts can solve. And Popes veer toward the former without particularly noticing that. For example for all the documentation we have on the care biblical theologians should exericise, Fr. Raymond Brown was on the Pontifical Biblical Commission both under Paul VI and John Paul II. Read Brown's "Birth of the Messiah" wherein for example on page 349 he opines that Mary never really said the Magnificat but that Luke placed it in her mouth and got it from Palestinian Anawim since Brown said that Mary would not have said those things but the other group would have. The problem is that without the magnificat, how in the world would we or Brown know what Mary would have said since excepting the magnificat, we have very little dialogue from her at all.
Brown went on to be influential in the Jerome Biblical Commentary and some minor names in biblical studies warned of him but no one paid the matter any mind including John Paul II and then Ratzinger.
Pan down to "criticism" at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
Papal speeches cannot act as a substitute for papal administrative action but they are often an evasion of that touchy duty.
Let's try that complete link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
Should it fail to print again completely...search Raymond E. Brown at wiki.
Bill said: "Papal speeches cannot act as a substitute for papal administrative action but they are often an evasion of that touchy duty"
True enough Bill, there does seem to be an issue of the authority of the keys and how that authority is appropriately applied. I find myself often thinking, "now if I was the pope...." However, until we walk in the shoes of the fisherman, I suspect we won't fully understand and or agree with all the ways he does or doesn't apply the authority given to him.
TJ
It is true that somethings require slow patience like changes in liturgy which require centuries for people to change and accept change.
The problem though is that we apply that slow motion patience and prudence to everything and, as in the sexual abuse period, slow motion prudence does not apply to every issue...that's why Christ made a whip of cords and acted quickly when "quickly" was requisite.
Much of what Benedict does not like in modern biblical studies can be found in the Jerome Biblical Commentary with an imprimatur and until we get non writers who are men of action as Popes, such things will stay as they are...despite speeches which address what administrative decions are not addressing. Read about the Renaissance Popes and you'll be stunned that none sought to be authors and were the other extreme as they were over involved with Euro power balancing and wrote next to nothing. As a Mahayana Buddhist once said in the context of their world... "is there not a middle way?"
Popes are no more immune to the human condition than any other men. Although we trust the Holy spirit to grant them grace for their extrodinary vocation so they can speak from Peter's chair when need arises, we also know them to to share the same limitations common to us all. Such is our original state: all sin (miss the mark) and fall short of the full glory of God.
In the end, the "proper" exercise of holy doctrine within the Church does not come down to the administration of any Pope, so much as how each of us responds to the universal call of Our Lord as given us by Christ through the Apostles, by His Word and as laid upon our hearts by the Holy Spirit in God the Father.
Post a Comment
Home