Traditional Hermeneutics

[Sola1517]

Lay persons and even priests are not supposed to interpret the scriptures. They have already been interpreted.

Wow, I couldn't do that.

 

[Sola1517]

I would say that the basic Catholic hermeneutic is this: if you want to prove something to a Catholic from the Bible, you need to be directly quoting something Jesus said or did.

Here's a way to look at it: if you want to discuss the Bible with Catholics, stick to Jesus.

Okay, thanks.

If you build an argument on Paul's letter to the Romans, Catholics will say "Ok, but what did JESUS say?" Because to Catholics, Paul is a bishop. So is James and John. Peter was a Pope, above the others, but of only the same authority as the Pope now...and the Pope now is subordinated to Jesus.

Which I find to be kind of funny considering in Galatians 2 Paul corrects Peter on an issue he's having. Maybe you can explain that?

 

[Vicomte13]

Okay, thanks.

Which I find to be kind of funny considering in Galatians 2 Paul corrects Peter on an issue he's having. Maybe you can explain that?

Yes. In Galatians 2, Paul is recounting his expression of disapproval to Peter for something that Peter was doing that Paul did not agree with. Apparently Peter was convinced by Paul's argument and modified his behavior.

The same thing happens routinely in the world. Right now, many Bishops have written the current Pope a letter spelling out things they think the Pope is doing wrong. The whole notion of infallibility applies only in limited circumstances (so limited that no Pope since 1950 has pronounced anything infallibly). Popes are men, and fallible. It's only when they speak officially, by the Holy Spirit, on a matter of faith and morals that they are not fallible.

That circumstance rarely inheres. Peter's dining habits were not something of that level. Paul admonished him about that, just as bishops today admonish the Pope for his habit of indisciplined public speaking.

Paul speaking to Peter does not establish Paul as Peter's superior, and it doesn't establish either of them as God. Jesus is Lord. What Jesus said is what matters.

Now, Paul's letter regarding the encounter with Peter doesn't go into very much detail. If one wished to argue the matter of the morality of what Peter was doing with a Catholic, one would not be able to point to Paul as some sort of final divine authority: he is a bishop, and he was speaking up to his superior, Peter, about a matter of concern regarding Peter's comportment If you wanted to explain to a Catholic why what Peter was doing was WRONG, you cannot rely on the fact that Paul didn't like it. Paul is not God.

You would have to go back to Jesus and see how what Peter was doing was not in line with what Jesus taught and said and did. if you did that, you would be dead center at the authority in the Bible that Catholics recognize and worship. You cannot do that with Catholics just on the authority of Paul, because Paul has no authority at all, standing on his own. He only has authority to teach what Jesus taught. And, being a fallible man, just because Paul taught it does not mean, perforce, that Jesus taught it. After all, Peter made mistakes. Paul could too.

And example of a Pauline statement that has been wrongly (and really quite foolishly) turned into law by Christians was his admonishing one church that men having long hair was a disgrace. Now, in a pastoral letter like that, to a specific congregation, Paul may have been completely correct. In THAT church, in THAT place, in THAT time, long hair on men was disgraceful because of some cultural aspect of it. It has been postulated that, in that place, men wearing their hair long did so to advertise as prostitutes. That fact pattern would make the long hair on men, in that place and time and under those circumstances, something pretty disgraceful.

But foolish Christians take this comment of Paul, perhaps just a cultural opinion of Paul, or perhaps a pastoral point regarding a specific local problem, and turned it into a Law for Chrisitans. "Paul said that long hair on a man is a disgrace." First off, it's not at all clear Paul did say that at all, and if he said it, that he meant it the way that it has been taken by some. Secondly, and far more importantly, Paul didn't like long hair. So what? Who is he? The Bible becomes an idol when the pretense is made that the presence of words anywhere in it elevate those words to the status of God and divine law. Jesus never said any such thing, and didn't act that way either. Paul is not God. The Bible can't elevate him to God by publishing his letter.

Third, and decisively, JESUS HAD LONG HAIR. We know that because we have his burial shroud, the Shroud of Turin, and on it we can SEE what he looked like, with the heavy beard and mustache and long hair, just as one would expect from one who kept the Torah and did not trim his beard or take a razor to his hair.

Jesus never said a word about hair length. God made people to have hair that grows to a natural length in seven years and stays that long. Jesus wore his hair at that natural length. And he said not to judge by appearances. Therefore, IF Paul really meant that long hair on men is always a disgrace, everywhere, then what Paul said there in that letter is false, contrary to God, and error, and is to be called out explicitly as an example of Paul doing something completely wrong, just exactly as Paul called out Peter for his dining habits. Or one can salvage Paul's image here by allowing that Paul was speaking of something specific. Either way, what is COMPLETELY ILLEGITIMATE is for Christians to pretend that Paul is a lawmaker, that Paul's words on hair length are in fact God's word and law on male hair length for all mankind for all time.

The definitive word on hair length is this:
(1) God made us and our hair, to reach a natural length in about seven years.
(2) Jesus wore his hair long - we see this from his burial shroud.
(3) Jesus said not to judge by appearances.
(4) Jesus gave no law of hair length.

Therefore, men do not sin when they wear their hair short, or long, or in between. It's a matter of choice.

It was not a matter of choice for JESUS, because HE was a Jew under the Temple and had to obey the Torah, which forbade Jewish men in Israel from taking a razor to their hair. So therefore Jesus' hair had to be long, in fulfillment of the Torah. But we are under Jesus, not the Torah, so WE can wear our hair any length without question, because Jesus said not to judge by appearances.

Notice: Paul doesn't get a seat at this table. The authority is entirely Jesus' to wield, not Paul's.

Jesus had no tattoos, because the Torah forbade that to Hebrews in linear succession. That does not mean that Christians are barred from getting tattoos. Again, Jesus said not to judge by appearances, and he said nothing about tattoos. Therefore, you're free to get them or not, and it is not sin either way.

I personally detest tattoos. I won't get one, and I discourage others from getting them, because they are ugly. But I am not so arrogant as to take my personal opinion and claim that this is a commandment of God, because it is not. It WAS, for Hebrews in Sinai and Israel. And we are not that.

This is how all of that logic spills out. If you want to bind a Catholic by law, it has to clearly come from Jesus' mouth, and Jesus' silence on a matter implies LIBERTY on that matter, not a reversion to the Torah, which never applied to Gentiles at all. Certainly not a reversion to Paul or Peter or James or Jude - they were not God. They cannot make divine law. They could govern their churches, then, as bishops, but could not and do not govern all of mankind forever by their opinions.

The Catholic will stick to Jesus as the source of ALL BINDING DIVINE LAW. He won't let you put him under the Torah, and he won't acknowledge Paul as an additional source of law, because Paul is not God, and the inclusion of Paul's letters does not elevate Paul to having the authority of God. The "Word of God" aspect of the Bible does not make the Bible a God maker.

Of course every Protestant will resist this entire line of thinking. It is fruitless to claim, as somebody did up thread, that Catholics don't think this way: We DO. Most Catholics may not articulate is as clearly, because most Catholics aren't lawyers, but nevertheless that IS the Catholic hermeneutic when it comes to law and the Bible.

It is also a waste of time to argue with a Catholic that we are "wrong" to see it this way. We're sure we're right - at least as sure as the Protestants are, probably moreso.

Rather, to understand this should be a moment of epiphany for Catholics. Catholics WILL play "sola Scriptura" with you, but the only Scripture they recognize as a true source of Law are the words that come from Jesus himself, in the Gospels, in parts of Revelation and in Acts. Catholics will always recognize JESUS words as law. They will only recognize Paul's words as a REFLECTION of law that already existed, from Jesus (or the Church). They won't recognize Paul as a divine lawmaker, because he was just a bishop, and bishops are not God.

You can persuade a Catholic of your point if you can quote Jesus saying it. Because Jesus neither said "Bible Alone", nor left a single written word, you can't persuade Catholics of the truth of Sola Scriptura, because their ultimate source of authority - Jesus - did not espouse that doctrine.

It's really pretty easy to talk reasonably with Catholics about anything: Just quote Jesus and you're good. Start quoting somebody else, or asserting things that Jesus said, and Catholics won't leave their sheepfold to join you. They're not going to listen to anybody's voice but Jesus - especially not after the harrowing corruption and violence of the middle ages and Reformation period, or the sex abuse of our day. Catholics do not put full faith and trust in their clergy because their clergy have lost that absolute trust. They listen, but Jesus is the gold standard against which ALL things are compared.

If you try to complicate that with Paul, the Catholics will not follow you and you will get nowhere. If you try to claim that Moses, too, has legal authority, they will not follow you. Stick with Jesus, and they will follow you over the trenches into the machine guns - THAT is the basket in which Catholics place their eggs.

I think that answers your question thoroughly. I don't expect that you like the answer, but it does give you, and everybody else, the blueprint for having real discussions with Catholics...if you want one. Don't cite Paul. Don't cite the Torah. Don't talk about prophesies and the end of the world. Catholics simply don't give those things authority. Cite Jesus, just him, and do it accurately and honesty. And understand that if Jesus didn't make a rule, then Catholics think he left us in liberty to decide for ourselves. Long hair/short hair, jewelry or not, tattoos? - these things are not proscribed by God: Jesus said nothing, and therefore they are left to each of us to decide. You'll never get anywhere with Catholics trying to bootstrap something or somebody else up to the status of Jesus. They'll never listen to you and never follow you.

If Jesus said it, you'll never get them off of that point either. Especially given the lessons they've learned from the evils done by the Church in the past. Don't kill means that you can't burn witches or execute homosexuals or go on military crusades to kill the infidel, and we were wrong to have done those things in the past and won't repeat the error.

 

[Vicomte13]

How do the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches interpret Scripture?

I'm sort of looking for a process (if there is one).

To circle back to your original question, the short answer is that when Catholics use the Bible, they focus on Jesus - what he said and did. The Old Testament is seen as foreshadowing and giving types of Jesus, and the letters of the New Testament apostles are viewed as being the earliest forms of today's papal encyclicals and pastoral letters from bishops.

Lots of people would probably say the same thing. The difference in the Catholic approach is the degree to which Jesus almost completely eclipses everything else in the Bible. So when Catholics use the Bible, you'll usually see them quoting Jesus, and then for practical church governance you will see them quoting the recent Popes, mostly.

 

[All4Christ]

...

 

[~Anastasia~]

PLEASE READ THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY. IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK. PLEASE ADHERE TO THE SOP WHEN POSTING.

 

[Anhelyna]

Gentle posters on Traditional Theology

I would like to draw your attention to this :-

Discussion of non-traditional theology is considered off topic to this forum. If anyone wants to promote non-traditional theology, feel free create a thread in General Theology and post a link here. I recommend that everyone checks out this Welcome to Traditional Theology link, stickied at the top of the forum:

Welcome to Traditional Theology!

It was and still remains the desire of everyone involved in the formation of this forum that it be, as the Statement of Purpose says, first and foremost A forum dedicated to respectful discussion, and furthermore the focus of this forum is the discussion of traditional historic theological belief, thought and practice.

While everyone is welcome to participate in these discussions, this forum is NOT a place to refute these things, but a place to discuss, question and increase knowledge and understanding in these things in an atmosphere of Christian Fellowship.

Anhelyna - Senior Ambassador Member

 

[Anhelyna]

Gentle Folk

Once again this thread is moving away from discussion. I think it's time to ask everyone to look at the tenor of their posts before hitting the 'Post Reply ' button.

This thread will now be locked and reopened in 48 hours after this cooling down period. This will give time for everyone to re-read the SOP for this very special Board here Statement of Purpose - Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose and also the 'Welcome to TT' which explains a little bit further about the aims of this Board Welcome to Traditional Theology!

Anhelyna - Senior Ambassador Member

 

[~Anastasia~]

Apologies, did not see lock before replying.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
Some posts have been removed from this thread due to being out of line with the Statement of Purpose of this forum.​

If your posts are missing, it is because they either were, or replied to, such posts.​

Please adhere to the Statement of Purpose as the discussion continues.
MOD HAT OFF​