Traditional Hermeneutics

[~Anastasia~]

In line with my last post I want to add two things.

The first is that sometimes (often!) when reading what a Saint has said about a particular passage, I feel two things. One is the immediate surety that this is right - recognition of Truth. The Holy Spirit can help us recognize truth. The second is often amazement. It's difficult to describe, but when I understand the whole context, all of human history from God's point of view, the way it fits together, it's amazing how the Saints paint this picture for us. It fits, it is fitting, it is true, it makes sense, it leaves no lingering doubt. And it's amazing that God made these things happen, inspired these words to be written about them, in such a way as to so deeply and intimately intertwine all these truths together.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to read something else into it at that point. So often this us why we don't need to interpret Scripture beyond this treasure we have been given. Yet God DOES sometimes illuminate further things to us, and we can add to our understanding to the glory of God, and encourage and enrich others if we share it.


The other thing I wanted to say is that in things that involve the Church itself, much I never understood as a Protestant. But now that I know how the Church does things, some passages make perfect sense without needing to interpret. The words clearly follow what I now recognize, where before I couldn't be sure. These are a minority of passages though.

 

[All4Christ]

Saint means to be Holy - to be set aside for holiness. We are all called to be saints, and yes, one use of the word refers to all believers.

In Scripture, certain people were specifically identified as being holy - sort of like heroes of the faith. Paul specifically refers to some Old Testament heroes of the faith and calls them Holy and righteous. Martyrs are pointed out in revelations as being holy. These men and women were sanctified - made holy.

We all are called to be holy and to be sanctified. The people we call Saints (in heaven) are those who have particularly shown the fruits of being sanctified - of being holy.

Not all Saints are canonized, and yes, as I said earlier, the living believers are also saints. However, in the same spirit that Paul pointed out the heroes of the faith and called them Holy and righteous, we recognize people who were particularly known to be Holy and righteous.

So what does that mean for us? We all are in the process of becoming more holy; we are called to become an icon* of God - who truly is the only Holy one. The Saints in heaven are not limited to those who were canonized; however, the canonization is a recognition of what happened - the glorification of the saints here on earth now in heaven.

*likeness or representation of the original; also participation in the original (in this case, sanctification and becoming Holy through God in His likeness)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Vicompte,
Thank you for your opinion, but I doubt that many other Catholics would agree. Let me provide another point of view for our readers.

As a 71 year old evangelical protestant trained in the scriptures (M.A. in theology, Bible teacher of adults for 25 years), I have debated these issues with Roman Catholics for a long time. Your last paragraphs about the current work of the Holy Spirit are very close to the arguments protestants make. Catholics are very much wedded to their traditions, almost as much as the Eastern Orthodox.

The primary arguments from this protestant’s point of view are about the error (even ecclesiastic heresy) of clericalism, the development of a separate elite (superior) ruling priesthood class—dividing priests from lay members and requiring obedience and undue honor be given to them. Thus, lay members are not even supposed to attempt their own personal interpretation of the scriptures, rather they are to always defer to the clergy and catholic traditions.

Clericalism is abundantly evident and was institutionalized in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

It was not Paul who made a big deal about the only priesthood that matters (of ALL believers), but Peter. “As you come to Him, the Living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to Him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. … you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:4-5, 9). Note that Peter is addressing ALL who “come to Him”, not just the Apostles, not just leaders. This was the only “priesthood” Peter ever wrote about (the priesthood of all believers), and Peter never assumed leadership, even in Jerusalem (where James the brother of Jesus was the leader). After his early gaffs, and after Pentecost, Peter learned to remain humble. He was only following the command of Jesus in Mark 10:42-44: “And Jesus called them to him and said to them, ‘You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all." Through Christ, all believers have access to the Father, all have salvation, all are siblings “in Christ”, and no one is qualified to “rule” over another brother or sister. Leadership is to be servant leadership (no special honors or privileges or fancy dress or titles or worldly powers).

In Matthew 23:1-12, it is Jesus Himself who severely criticizes the Jewish leadership for just those kinds of tendencies developed by the Roman Church as it became increasingly institutionalized (worldly): “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. … Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

How did these clear commands of Jesus become ignored by the Roman Church? I can tell you why and how— because of human ego and the desire for power and public prestige. The governments and military in Greek and Roman lands were quite hierarchical in their power structure, and their cultures had a clear caste system. Once the Apostles were gone and the churches started to become larger and more organized, the churches co-opted some of these systems and turned it into clericalism…. quite against the command of Jesus and teaching of Peter. And Paul too revealed this leveling of the membership playing field (Gal 3:23-29, 1 Cor 12), reminding us that we are all part of the same Body, but we each have different gifts and thus different roles in the larger Body of Christ. So the separation of the Church into two classes of Christian was and is very wrong.

The Holy Spirit abides in each born-again believer and His role is to “lead us into all truth” as we pray and faithfully expect His help in our interpretations of the scriptures. Of course we will also listen to other believers over the history of the universal Church who by their writings can still teach us--- but except for the Apostles themselves in the scriptures, they have no authority over us. Jesus is our High Priest, He authorized the Apostles and other writers of the New Testament-- and we need no other "priests" to rule over us.

Forgive me sir but ...

You have sorely misunderstood how this works out in an Orthodox parish. And that is something of a pity, as you miss a beautiful interaction.

(I will let Catholics speak for themselves, as that is the purpose and rule of this forum. But by mentioning Orthodoxy only, I'm not meaning to imply anything about Catholicism one way or another.)

We call our priests "Father" (just as Paul states that he is Timothy's father) because that is more the role they exercise, in very much a serving mindset.

The local Church btw is run by a parish council - elected laypeople, who make administrative decisions. It is true that the presbyter makes certain spiritual decisions such as things that need to be decided about how the Liturgy will serve the spiritual needs of the people, but that is what we trust him to do.

The priest offers guidance, but does not "rule" over us. Strict obedience is expected from monastics who voluntarily place themselves under spiritual authority, but this is distinct from laypeople. In fact it is considered the mark of a problem if a priest desires such "obedience" from his flock. Rather, his role is supposed to be to guide, to teach, to support, and his desire is that each person grow into fullness of faith himself, learn to find answers himself and make decisions himself, govern himself. The priest is there to pray for us, counsel us, administer the Sacraments for our benefit. His role is very much servant - especially evident when people are suffering or struggling in any way, or sick or dying.

The closest thing to exercise of authority I have seen is counsel to avoid things that could be spiritually damaging to a person, and a quiet word to someone who might be disrupting worship or parish relations, and even that is done very kindly, judging by the reactions to it I have seen.

Forgive me, but I am saddened to see such misunderstanding of a pastoral role.

No doubt there are Orthodox priests who do not perfectly follow this model, just as there are pastors and priests who surely fail among Catholicism and Protestantism. But that is failure due to human weakness, not the system. Which incidentally, was established according to Scripture. All of the offices - presbyter (priest), episkopos/overseer (bishop), and the diaconate (deacons) are found in Scripture.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Btw, I of course do not deny that we are all part of a holy priesthood ... as human persons, bearing the image of God and with the seal of the Holy Spirit upon us, we exercise an incredible role over all of creation as its "priest" ... we should pray for all, through us all God acts in the world in ways large and small, and it is through the redemption of mankind that God will eventually restore all of creation, just as it was through the sin of man that all of creation fell. Our role is to be intercessors between the created and the uncreated, a priestly role. And I think very often we fail to understand or appreciate that. It's really pretty awesome.

 

[All4Christ]

Apparently I just posted this in a completely different thread, lol

Another note about the Saints in Heaven: in the Orthodox Church, the leadership of the Church does not identify the Saints that will be canonized. Rather, the laypersons around a Saint, who know or are aware that the person was particularly Holy, recognize him or her as a Saint in heaven. The Church canonization is officially recognizing what was first recognized by the people who knew or were aware of the Saint - and by those who were touched by the Saint in some way or another (through the Holiness God imparted to the Saint).

 

[All4Christ]

To get back to the OP... @Sola1517

Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, wrote this about the Orthodox attitude towards the Holy Scriptures: “If an earthly king, or emperor, wrote you a letter, would you not read it with joy? Certainly, with great rejoicing and careful attention. You have been sent a letter, not by any earthly emperor, but by the King of Heaven. [It is] a priceless treasure.” He continued by saying: “Whenever you read the Gospel, Christ Himself is speaking to you. And while you read, you are praying and talking to Him.”

This is a great article about our approach. It’s long, but is worth a read

How To Read Your Bible | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 118[119]:105)“

 

[~Anastasia~]

Apparently I just posted this in a completely different thread, lol

Another note about the Saints in Heaven: in the Orthodox Church, the leadership of the Church does not identify the Saints that will be canonized. Rather, the laypersons around a Saint, who know or are aware that the person was particularly Holy, recognize him or her as a Saint in heaven. The Church canonization is officially recognizing what was first recognized by the people who knew or were aware of the Saint - and by those who were touched by the Saint in some way or another (through the Holiness God imparted to the Saint).

Good point.


I didn't realize until I became Orthodox, that even when there is a council or something similarly important, it isn't just a ruling passed down by the bishops. Everything is either accepted and ratified by the laity as being consistent with the faith we received from Christ and the Apostles - or not. Without the laity, a council is not recognized as an ecumenical council. The role of the laity is crucial.

An Orthodox priest also cannot celebrate the Divine Liturgy alone. Liturgy is a translation of a word meaning "the work of the people". If no one "amens" the priest's request for the Holy Spirit to descend during the Eucharist, it doesn't happen. The priest alone doesn't have that ability. The people are essential.


Edited to add: (I know you know this, A4C, just posting to the thread. Forgive me, I am somewhat off the original topic. Thank you for bringing it back.)

 

[Vicomte13]

I've belonged to a number of Protestant denominations, and to be honest, I find much more freedom in general to interpret the Scriptures as an Orthodox Christian. As long as we understand such things as God being Holy Trinity, agreed in purpose, good and loving and desiring the salvation of persons, Christ having literally died, descended, ascended, coming again to judge, and so on. The Church provides boundaries, and she provides an incredible richness of already interpreted texts by those who have gone before, and we know they are not wrong on various things. But otherwise we have tremendous freedom.

Yes, that is the Catholic view when it comes to Scriptures. Sure, there was a time, a few hundred years ago, in the throes of the Protestant Reformation, that the Catholic Church discouraged lay people to read the Scriptures without clerical guidance - and even today the Church strongly suggests that people, when they read the Scriptures, do so with a proper, approved version of the text, with all of the apparatus of scholarly Catholic footnotes and the like. But any notion that Catholics are discouraged from reading the Scriptures is outdated by a couple of centuries.

Catholics are very free to read and interpret the Scriptures as they see fit and as their reason and the Holy Spirit carries them. But of course if their interpretation takes them out of the lines of the eternal truths of the Church - that which is in the Creed, for example, then obviously the Catholic is drifting into error and ought to know that, at least if he has been well-catechized.

It sounds to me, from what you've said, that the Orthodox are the same as Catholics in this regard.

 

[Vicomte13]

Vicompte,
Thank you for your opinion, but I doubt that many other Catholics would agree. Let me provide another point of view for our readers.

.

I'll stand pat on what I said. That is generally how Catholics think. If any other Catholics would like to second me on this, that would be helpful - to say that yes, that really is the way Catholicism is. If other Catholics would prefer to step forward and say "Well, no, I don't see it that way", that too would show the wide diversity of beliefs and approaches to the Bible that are held within the Catholic Church. The Bible is important, and inspired, but it's not the SOURCE of the religion. God is, and Jesus gave the Church the authority that you give the Bible...which is why trying to wield the Bible against the Church, as you did, just doesn't get anywhere with a Catholic. It's like taking a copy of the Constitution into the Supreme Court and telling the Supreme Court justices that they are wrong about what it means - but the Supreme Court has the authority under the Constitution to SAY what it means, so they CAN'T be wrong about it, by definition.

I see that the Orthodox seem to think the same way, which does not surprise me. Orthodox, it seems to me, are MORE wedded to ancient tradition that we Catholics are, but that is mostly in terms of liturgical forms. The only place where I would say that Orthodoxy is more primitive than Catholicism is in ecclesiology and Mariology, and those two cases are special. Ecclesiological differences are very deeply rooted in the history of the East and the West, and what happened in those two places. The Greek and Latin halves of the old Empire never really understood each other all that well from the pre-Christian era, and had a degree of rivalry and animosity that pre-dated Christianity and that was incorporated into it. The French and the English were both Catholic for the better part of two millennia, but the cultural differences between the two societies definitely reflected in the practices of Gallican versus Anglican Christianity. The same can be said of the differences between the English and the Irish Church.

The Ecclesiological differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism have a bit of a sad history and are unpleasant to contemplate on this fine day, so I'm not going to write any more about them. It will suffice for me to say something that I think that all of branches of Orthodox and of Catholicism would agree upon: the ecclesiastical disputes between East and West are not BIBLICAL at their root. Greek and Latin are not fighting over what the Bible means. That's just not the root of that.

When it comes to Mariology, certain of the distinctive Marian doctrines that are believed by Catholics come from direct revelations from God and encounters with Mary in France and Portugal, especially. Those apparations being accepted as facts, the things Mary revealed in them are taken as revelations from God that simply provide more information than was possessed in the times of the Apostles or since.

The Orthodox do not accept the doctrines because they did not experience those revelations, and suspect that the Catholics have exaggerated what Mary said, or twisted it, or added to it.

There isn't any resolution to that, because it's a question of fact. In any case, it is not a question of Scripture.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'll stand pat on what I said. That is generally how Catholics think. If any other Catholics would like to second me on this, that would be helpful - to say that yes, that really is the way Catholicism is. If other Catholics would prefer to step forward and say "Well, no, I don't see it that way", that too would show the wide diversity of beliefs and approaches to the Bible that are held within the Catholic Church. The Bible is important, and inspired, but it's not the SOURCE of the religion. God is, and Jesus gave the Church the authority that you give the Bible...which is why trying to wield the Bible against the Church, as you did, just doesn't get anywhere with a Catholic. It's like taking a copy of the Constitution into the Supreme Court and telling the Supreme Court justices that they are wrong about what it means - but the Supreme Court has the authority under the Constitution to SAY what it means, so they CAN'T be wrong about it, by definition.

I see that the Orthodox seem to think the same way, which does not surprise me. Orthodox, it seems to me, are MORE wedded to ancient tradition that we Catholics are, but that is mostly in terms of liturgical forms. The only place where I would say that Orthodoxy is more primitive than Catholicism is in ecclesiology and Mariology, and those two cases are special. Ecclesiological differences are very deeply rooted in the history of the East and the West, and what happened in those two places. The Greek and Latin halves of the old Empire never really understood each other all that well from the pre-Christian era, and had a degree of rivalry and animosity that pre-dated Christianity and that was incorporated into it. The French and the English were both Catholic for the better part of two millennia, but the cultural differences between the two societies definitely reflected in the practices of Gallican versus Anglican Christianity. The same can be said of the differences between the English and the Irish Church.

The Ecclesiological differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism have a bit of a sad history and are unpleasant to contemplate on this fine day, so I'm not going to write any more about them. It will suffice for me to say something that I think that all of branches of Orthodox and of Catholicism would agree upon: the ecclesiastical disputes between East and West are not BIBLICAL at their root. Greek and Latin are not fighting over what the Bible means. That's just not the root of that.

When it comes to Mariology, certain of the distinctive Marian doctrines that are believed by Catholics come from direct revelations from God and encounters with Mary in France and Portugal, especially. Those apparations being accepted as facts, the things Mary revealed in them are taken as revelations from God that simply provide more information than was possessed in the times of the Apostles or since.

The Orthodox do not accept the doctrines because they did not experience those revelations, and suspect that the Catholics have exaggerated what Mary said, or twisted it, or added to it.

There isn't any resolution to that, because it's a question of fact. In any case, it is not a question of Scripture.

Close, not not quite on a few counts.

I fear we may be drifting a bit from the topic. If the OP objects, we need to begin a new thread.

It is always safer, as you see, to let folks of a particular belief speak for that belief.

In actuality, we don't accept the Marian dogmas of Catholicism not simply because we didn't experience them. We are in fact prevented from adding to the Traditional faith by private revelation. We also believe the faith was once for all delivered to the Saints (by Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Apostles) and no actual changes of that faith can be permitted, and that God did not delay many centuries to reveal such important understandings.

Obviously Catholicism "does theology" a bit differently, and this DOES get back to our topic. You have stated that Catholicism believes in development of doctrines. History also demonstrates the willingness of Catholicism (perhaps restricted to her bishops?) to use scholarly input to interpret Scripture? This is a tendency inherited by most or possibly all Protestants, even being one of the "legs" of Anglican theology - Scripture, Tradition, Reason? I think all of the reformers had a similar mindset, which perhaps is more understandable, since they found themselves attempting to build "Church" using the Scriptures, which is opposite the way it was originally done.

It would go in circles without concrete examples, because of course we (Orthodox) can use reason in studying Scripture. I suppose the difference is in what we can arrive at. We can discover wonderful truths by examining Scripture, but we reject certain things Catholicism has reached as a result of such inquiry. I won't list them here, but we would consider such things as the Marian dogmas and especially the ecclesiastical organization you mentioned to be on a level of unchangeableness.

Such scholastic inquiry sometimes leads to even more drastic changes to what we believe, which we must utterly reject, such as denial of the Virgin birth.

To give very many examples just risks sidetracking the thread even further though, as we are all tempted to explain and/or defend our beliefs if they are challenged. Though I fear without them I might not be making myself clear.

 

[Vicomte13]

We are in fact prevented from adding to the Traditional faith by private revelation.

What about public revelation?

 

[~Anastasia~]

What about public revelation?

By apparitions?

Ahhhhh ..... you'd have to be more specific. But I rather doubt it.

There has been much revelation given to the Church. It is usually submitted for discernment, and sometimes rejected easily as inconsistent. Where it has been cautiously approved, the person might write about it, share it. But it is still regarded in a different category from Holy Tradition received by the Apostles, and including Holy Scripture.

Nothing that comes by any sort of mystical revelation can actually change received Holy Tradition or contradict Scripture, ever.

Things on the order of prophecies can be accepted as prophecies, then we see whether they happen, or not. But revelation by apparitions would not ever be considered authoritative above Holy Tradition or Scripture, I don't think.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm just asking questions, but thank you.

Even as a protestant I believe the early church was the correct church.

We have the New Testament pattern for the local church!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Gentle reminder -

Everyone please read the Statement of Purpose for Traditional Theology, if you are unfamiliar with it. You might not have been aware that is where you are posting.

Thank you.

 

[All4Christ]

Perhaps we should start a different thread for continued discussion on this? So we can keep on topic for the OP?

 

[Vicomte13]

Vicompte,
Thank you for your opinion, but I doubt that many other Catholics would agree. Let me provide another point of view for our readers.

No other Catholic ever did chime in you agree with you and disagree with what I said about Catholicism. I doubted any would, because what I stated is, in fact, what the bulk of Catholics believe and is, in fact, the way we think.

 

[Vicomte13]

Perhaps we should start a different thread for continued discussion on this? So we can keep on topic for the OP?

I don't know that that's necessary. I think that we are actually answering the OP's question. It's just that for the bulk of the Christian Church (which is Catholics and the Orthodox combined) the answer is not found in the Bible, and the position of the Bible itself simply is not the same as it is for Protestants.

There is vastly broader interpretive liberty, in Catholicism anyway, than there is in Protestantism, precisely BECAUSE the Catholic Church is not based UPON the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a RECORD of the early Church and a HISTORY of what came before. What it is NOT, for Catholics, is a law book. And therefore, while it is immensely respected by Catholics, it simply is not as IMPORTANT as it is for Protestants. This is because the LAW for Christians does not come out of the Bible. The Bible is not the "Constitution of the Church", and it is not the "Final Authority" in the Church, and therefore it simply does not MATTER as much when individual Catholics interpret it as they see it. The dogmas of the Church are the rules, and they do not COME FROM the Bible. They come from God and the Church, and God and the Church are not synonymous with "The Bible" for Catholics. They ARE for Protestants, so there is a great deal more at stake for the Protestant interpreting the Bible than the Catholic.

I dare not speak for the Orthodox at all, as Anastasia pointed out that I have some understandings wrong. So I'll let Oriental Orthodox speak for themselves, and Eastern Orthodox speak for themselves. I don't see any other Catholics on this thread, so I'll speak for the Catholics. And I'll speak for us with a pretty strong voice because I am well-educated in Catholic belief, at any rate.

 

[gordonhooker]

[Staff edit].

And some of us in the Anglican communion - don't forget us

 

[Vicomte13]

And some of us in the Anglican communion - don't forget us

Yes, you too! I don't dare go to far in asserting what others believe, because I've seen how wrong others get Catholicism, and don't want to repeat the same error.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, folks, thank you. I really didn't want to step on any toes, or post anything official.

It's just a tenet of TT that we allow each Tradition to speak for themselves. That way no one is allowed to make false charges.

Thanks for understanding.