A tendency to read the Bible through the lens of “fundamentalism” threatens to undermine Catholics’ understanding of Scripture, the Vatican said Thursday (June 12).
The statement appears in the agenda for the next general assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which will bring prelates to Rome in October to consider the “importance of the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church.”
The 86-page document released Thursday emphasizes the need to increase Catholics’ knowledge and understanding of Scripture. While encouraging the faithful to read the Bible either alone or in study groups, it stresses that all interpretation must be in light of church teaching.
[blockquote] “Fundamentalism takes refuge in literalism and refuses to take into consideration the historical dimension of biblical revelation,” the document states. [/blockquote]
But the other extreme is to take refuge in so-called “expertise” that retreats into arcane jargon and sets up church practices manifestly inconsistent with even a reasoned, critical understanding of what the Bible says.
This is where a healthy, reformed tradition can be at its best – denying the idea that “anybody can throw open the Bible and teach doctrine” while respecting the authority of the Bible over the church’s teaching and practice.
Rome is making pre-Reformation noises in this article, IMO. TEC is a weird. burlesque expression of that position – a “unique polity” with secret knowledge that rules out clear Bible teaching as “sectarian” or “fundamentalist.”
The full text can be found here:
[url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20080511_instrlabor-xii-assembly_en.html]link[/url]
[i]a reminder from the elves. Long links cause problems in reading the blogs for some internet browsers. Please avoid them and use tinyurl.com or learn how to create a link using the url coding tags shown in the comment help.[/i]
I fully agree with this statement: “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church can be understood in its christological sense, namely, Jesus Christ in the Life and Mission of the Church. This christological approach, linked by necessity to the pnuematological one, leads to the discovery of the Trinitarian dimension of revelation. Looking at the subject in this way ensures the unity of revelation. All the words and deeds, recorded in Sacred Scripture by the inspired authors and faithfully guarded in Tradition, come together in the Person of the Lord Jesus, the Word of God. This is seen in the New Testament, which narrates and proclaims the mystery of his death, resurrection and presence in the midst of the Church, the community of his disciples called to celebrate these sacred mysteries. Because of the grace which leads to the destruction of sin (cf. Rm 6:6), his followers seek to conform themselves to their Master so that each might live Christ (cf. Gal 2:20). Such is also the case in the Old Testament which, according to Jesus’ own words, refers to himself (cf. Jn 5:39; Lk 24:27). Reading the Scriptures from a christological and pneumatological perspective leads from the letter to the spirit and from the words to the Word of God. Indeed, the words often conceal their true meaning, especially when considered from the literary and cultural point of view of the inspired authors and their way of understanding the world and its laws. Doing so leads to rediscovering the unity the Word of God in the many words of Scripture. After this necessary and ardent process, the Word of God shines with a surprising splendour, more than making up for the labour expended.”
After 30 years of studying the book of Genesis I feel that I am just now beginning to see its splendour, and it is the splendour of Jesus Christ!
Bishop Kallistos Ware has written a very good and very succinct essay, “How to Read the Bible.”
It begins,
[i]We believe that The Scriptures constitute a coherent whole. They are at once divinely inspired and humanly expressed. They bear authoritative witness to God’s revelation of Himself – in creation, in the Incarnation of the Word, and the whole history of salvation. And as such they express the word of God in human language. We know, receive, and interpret Scripture through the Church and in the Church. Our approach to the Bible is one of obedience.
We may distinguish four key qualities that mark an Orthodox reading of Scripture, namely
• our reading should be obedient,
• it should be ecclesial, within the Church,
• it should be Christ-centered,
• it should be personal.[/i]
It can be found on quite a number of websites and it very much worth the short time needed to read it.
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Mr. Fountain–
You offer a compelling argument a parody of I-know-not-who, but whoever it is, you beat them!
But as to the Catholic Church, I think it’s rather clear that anyone who has read the work of Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) or our other theologian-bishops will see their work places clear emphasis on the words of Scripture, so that Scripture speaks for itself. I must say that B16’s “Jesus of Nazareth” is a sterling example of just that.
Reading the Scriptures in line with the Church is Catholic ecclesial-speak for reading them in a Trinitarian light. Since Nicea, everyone has seen that (1) it is possible to read the Scriptures in a non-Trinitarian way; (2) but we must nonetheless read them in a Trinitarian way, in line with “the thought of the Church” which are the Creeds.
I find no meaningful difference between today’s Reformed or Catholic belief that Scripture must speak for itself but we must read it through the Church-affirmed Trinitarian lens. I dare you to find a meaningful difference after stepping beyond the biases your 6th grade religious education textbooks taught you and engaging contemporary Catholic theology.
50 years ago, someone named Packer wrote a small book titled [i]Fundamentalism and the Word of God.[/i] The opening chapter of which demonstrates that no one really knows what fundamentalism is, but everyone knows what it is not. Therefore, he suggests, the word ought to be either tightly and positively defined in a way that people can recognize themselves as fundamentalists (or not), or simply discarded as not being helpful in any debate except to cast shadows of bogeymen on those being pinned with the label.
While I like Kallistos Ware’s points on reading Scripture, I would think that before those four points would come N.T.Wright’s definition that Scripture is where we hear the voice of God speaking with authority to his Creation. The issue is authority and I think Rome recognizes that as her people read Scripture and hear the voice of God, some of her own authority might erode. Thus she seeks to restore and maintain the balance she desires between Scripture and Tradition. The [i]ecclesial[/i] reading Ware mentions.
#6 – Rome is concerned that the laity, reading solely for themselves without reference to Tradition and the teaching office of the Church, will misunderstand or misinterpret the word of God and thus be lead into heresy or worse. Thus without respect for Tradition and thinking with the Church, one might go off and “marry” two male priests and think that was in accord with the Word of God.
Part of the problem is that the words “fundamental” and “literal” are thrown around without definition. Any first year seminary student knows that Scripture is made up of many different genres. That is history, poetry, apocalyptic, letters, wisdom, gospel, etc. Just as you don’t read every article in a newspaper in the same way neither do you read the different genres in Scripture the same way.
#7, really?! Do you really think that is the “fundamentalism” with which this document is concerned?
#8. Br. Michael,
Right on! It is also possible to see in the scripture which genres have been excluded. One of them is ‘science textbook’. I am a scientist and I love to read Genesis for the beautiful way it describes the work of our magnificant creator. I am sorry for those who attempt to parse it as a science text. I suppose they are sometimes called fundamentalists. The “how He did it” part is not presented and is left for us to probe. That detracts in no way from the truth that “He did it.”
When you get to your newspaper example, you failed to mention the comics section — often refered to in the south as the funnies. Whatever I read anything propogated by TEC, I subconsciously slip it over to the funnies section. This is quite involuntary and usually not funny as in “Ha Ha Ha, gasp, dear Lord, gasp”, rather as in “Oh No, Oh No, dear Lord, dear Lord”. Does this reaction ever hit you?
Best wishes, –Stan
Whatever I read should have been whenever I read. Whatever.
10, I ofter use the comics in newspapers as an example. The is a great deal of “literal” truth in Peanuts cartoons, but no one expects to see a don weraing a flight helmet flying a doghouse. In a newspaper we know the rules fore reading each genre so well that we don’t think about it most of the time, but with Scripture it is different.
And it doesn’t help that we don’t know Ancient Near Easter literary conventions so we apply modern ones and thus misread the text. And you are right Genesis is not a modern scientific texbook and can’t be read like one. On the other hand it is true as a theological recounting of creation and is absolutely fundamental to the understanding of the Christian thiestic worldview.
Thanks elves. I could not remember the site which allowed one to reduce urls. I appreciate you correcting my link.
‘…no one expects to see a don weraing a flight helmet flying a doghouse.’
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition either. But try visiting Oxfords. Lots of the dons there are barking.
Why do I get the impression that people reading this post haven’t taken the time to actually read Instrumentum Laboris? This is worth considering deeply.
When I study the Bible I use the NIV, The Jewish Study Bible, The Orthodox Study Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible. This permits me to read the range of interpretation and in doing so I have come to admire Catholic Bible scholarship.
Alice, have you gotten the complete Orthodox Study Bible yet? I’d be curious to hear your impression of their translation of the Septuigent (still can’t figure out why they used the NKJV for the NT, where it is NOT the official version of any Orthodox branch).
I still prefer the ‘old’ Jerusalem to the “New”. Have you used the English Standard? I [i]wish[/i] they would hurry up and put out the verson with the ‘apocrypha’ in the OT. It’s been promised for [i]ages[/i] now.
I also have “the Complete Parallel Bible” which places the New American Bible, NRSV, NJB and the Revised English Bible in four side-by-side columns for comparison. (the word complete refers to the fact that these four include the apocrypha as part of their publication, and don’t just omit them from the translation).
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Jim, I haven’t seen the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, but the NJB incorporates notes and introductions from the older version along with updated information contributed from archeology, linguistics and historical studies. The notes are excellent.
I use the Orthodox NT with Psalms and The Orthodox Study Bible because, as you noted, they are quite different, but both supply rich references to the Church Fathers. I was disappointed that the OSB assumes Mosaic authorship of Genesis when this is not agreed among the Church Fathers and that it fails to present some of the significant differences between the Fathers on key points, such as Lamech’s speech in Genesis 4. For example, see http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/07/chrysostoms-interpretation-of-lamechs.html
Another Bible with some helpful notes on Genesis is The Schocken Bible, Volume I. This is the only Bible that I have found that notes the meaning of Lamech’s wives’ names and in doing so lifts up the placement of the wives in separate households on an east-west axis (which would have been regarded as the height of spiritual arrogance!) For more on this, see http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/05/lamech-segment-analysis.html
On one level it is true, as a seminary professor once said, that “every problem the Church has ever had comes from people reading the Bible.” But then, every problem that the Church has ever had comes from reading it badly, corruptly, or barely at all.
Another fine statement here of Scripture. Too bad too many RC faithful couldn’t begin to find Romans if you handed them an actual copy.
You know what I give up. Albany you are right Catholics do not know anything about the book of Romans. Mostly since the book is removed from Catholic Bibles by the Vatican Censor.
Instrumentum laboris is an interesting, stimulating document and deserves careful reading. The Religion News piece does the document a disservice: it makes it appear as if the heart of the document is the criticism of “fundamentalism” (which is, unfortunately, never clearly defined), whereas this criticism is only a very small part of the document.
Instrumentum laboris reflects the ongoing struggle to constructively integrate the historical-critical method into the Church’s exegesis of Scripture, while at the same time remaining faithful to the ecclesal-theological reading of Scripture. This has been a particular concern of Ratinger/Benedict over the years. Whether this integration can actually be done remains to be seen. The historical-critical method has long been dominant in Protestantism for well over a century (two centuries?) and has become widely accepted, perhaps uncritically accepted, by Catholic academics over the past fifty years. Some Protestant scholars have noted the destructive consequences of this method upon Christian theological reflection and ecclesial life (Brevard Childs’s name immediately comes to mind), but Catholic scholars have been a little late in recognizing these consequences, perhaps because the Catholic Church has not lived with this method as long as Protestantism has. Instrumentum laboris appears, at least to me, as a provisional attempt to mediate the question, affirming the historical-critical method yet at the same time subordinating it to the theological life of the Church. It will be interesting to see how it is received.
Parenthetically, I have no idea what Paul Loughlin means when she says that the book of Romans has been “removed from Catholic Bibles by the Vatican Censor.” Taken literally, the claim is clearly false.
Fr. Kimmel, it was my snarky response to the offhand insinuation that Catholics are ignorant of that book of the Bible. The veiled meaning (pure assumption here) being that we do not have the scriptural acumen to know how Rome has erred in its teachings on salvation.
You read too much in. I should have said James. In either case, my RC secretary doesn’t know the difference between an “Old Testament lesson” and an “Epistle” when preparing the bulletin. We have to go over it again and again. She responds, “We were never taught anything about the Bible.”
Now I know that’s a bit much, but truly it’s a common enough problem in general. Deep statements by the Vatican do not a biblically literate laity make. I would say that’s a problem in general to look at.
Albany,
It depends on the parish. Where I grew up, I attended a Catholic parish where the pastor (yes, he was one of the few who actually had that title!) did book studies instead of a homily on Sunday mornings (the one I remember clearest was the Gospel of John — it was magnificent!), and there was a women’s Bible Study on Thursday mornings, which I had the opportunity to attend a few times during the summer or between semesters. I would also attend a Charismatic Prayer Group at another parish during the week that also did fantastic themed Bible studies, and at the Charismatic mass the Word of God (written) was proclaimed boldly by the celebrant, an order priest from [url=http://www.ourladyofflorida.org/]Our Lady of Florida[/url], a local monastic retreat center run by the Passionist Order (on the crucifix in the parking lot is the sign “We preach Christ crucified”).
So, yes, many Catholics may have little knowledge of the Bible, but many do have wonderful knowledge of the Bible and it’s message.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
PS
Here is a link to the [url=http://www.ourladyofflorida.org/the_crucifix.htm]Crucifix[/url] mentioned above.
JE <><
Jim if you are in the North Palm Beach area I am somewhat in your neck of the wood. Port Saint Lucie.
Albany, I do apologize for coming on the defensive so quickly Another forum I participate in is full of rabid anti Catholics of the “whore of Babylon” ilk that I sometimes forget to differentiate between that and honest criticism done with all charity.
Paula,
No, I’m not there anymore. I permanently moved away in 1984, after graduating from college.
Paula,
Please, no offense at all. I do frequently deserve rebuke and often miss getting it at those times. My mother would just say I had it coming for one of those missed occasions of due justice!
As the old saw goes “spank your kids once a day if you don’t know what they did wrong, they do.”
One thing I do believe is that the Bible is not meant to be read only in isolation. We (whether Protestant or Catholic) are meant to be a Body, interdependent on each other. Offering support and even chastisement as needed. This does not mean we should not read Scripture outside of Church walls but that we should not become such isolationists that we grow cultish.
The purpose of Scripture is to make the Glory of God shine forth. We incorporate that into our worship so that we never lose sight of what has been revealed to us.