tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post737959193697874002..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: St. Lawrence of Brindisi and the Golden Age of Catholic biblical scholarship: He knew the whole Bible by heart, in its original languagesFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-15663364214832696812011-07-25T00:10:57.555-07:002011-07-25T00:10:57.555-07:00I apologize if my initial question came off as an ...I apologize if my initial question came off as an attack. I actually enjoyed your article very much, and I have to say I appreciate the work of Garrigou-Lagrange a great deal as well.<br /><br />I was not dismissing the CCC. Of course I accept it as authoritative doctrine. I merely said it is not a scholarly document, and it does not claim to be such.<br /><br />I did not by any means exclude the possibility of other meanings being included in the literal sense, which may or may not have been intended by the human author of the text. I merely stated that the intention of the human author is not unimportant, contrary to what you say in your definition of the literal sense.<br /><br />If you refer to my original question, I do not exactly contend that these Magisterial documents explicitly formulate a definition of the literal sense in which it is stated that the author's intention must form a part. But I have been referring to the Magisterium's exhortation of the diachronic method as important for determining the literal sense, which necessarily involves determining the author's intent.<br /><br />But if you want a clear statement from the highest of Magisterial sources, "Verbum Domini" (n.34) quotes "Dei Verbum" n.12, stating the following: "Seeing that, in sacred Scripture, God speaks through human beings in human fashion, it follows that the interpreters of sacred Scripture, if they are to ascertain what God has wished to communicate to us, should carefully search out the meaning which the sacred writers really had in mind, that meaning which God had thought well to manifest through the medium of their words." <br />This quotation in "Verbum Domini" occurs shortly after Pope Benedict quotes an address in which Bl.Pope John Paul II refers to a false split between the human and the divine in Scripture and here parallels scientific research with the literal sense (cf. n.33). And later in n.37 Pope Benedict states: "It is necessary, however, to remember that in patristic and medieval times every form of exegesis, including the literal form, was carried out on the basis of faith, without there necessarily being any distinction between the literal sense and the spiritual sense." Although he interprets this reality in a positive manner, as he is here addressing the need for a hermeneutic of faith as a unifying force for exegesis, the lack of a clear distinction in exegesis between literal and spiritual here mentioned stands in tension with the gist of your article.JBrothertonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56455031616054370882011-07-24T06:56:58.347-07:002011-07-24T06:56:58.347-07:00JB,
I checked the "Historicity of the Gospels...JB,<br />I checked the "Historicity of the Gospels" from the PBC ... I found nothing in there about defining the literal sense according to the intention of the human author ...<br /><br />Please provide the appropriate citation.<br />Or, have you made up a reference which does not exist?<br /><br />[n.b. the words "literal sense" or "intention of the (human) author" are not even used in the document]<br /><br />Now I am well aware that the document speaks of the modern methods of exegesis ... but my point is to say that the literal sense has never been defined by the Church (in her magisterial teaching) as what the human author intended ...Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-20509159696807348212011-07-23T20:16:55.400-07:002011-07-23T20:16:55.400-07:00JB,
By dismissing the Catechism of the Catholic Ch...JB,<br />By dismissing the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium) you have proven your worth and the value of your comments.<br /><br />Verbum Domini defines Literal Sense in just the way the CCC does ... no reference to the intention of the human author.<br /><br />Certainly, anything intended by the human author is part of the literal sense ... however, even many things which are not intended by the human author are also part of the literal sense.<br />Hence, as per the PBC "Int. of the Bible in the Church", we see that the words of Caiaphas "better for one man do die..." have two meanings according to the literal sense: one which Caiahphas intended and of which he was aware, another of which he was unaware but was intended by the Holy Spirit who spoke through him as High Priest -- and the PBC uses this as an example of how there can occasionally be multiple literal senses in one verse (one known to the human author and another unknown to him).<br /><br />Let's be honest, you came into this discussion guns blazing ... which is why you are now dismissing both the CCC and Verbum Domini ... take a deep breath ... <br /><br />In any case, I am very much in favor of discovering the intention of the human author ... it was something which was very important to the Divisio Textus of the Scholastic period ...Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68957476869853418472011-07-23T16:10:00.329-07:002011-07-23T16:10:00.329-07:00CCC 104 says: "The literal sense is the meani...CCC 104 says: "The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis..."<br /><br />You say: "that meaning which is conveyed by the words of Scripture themselves (whether this meaning was known to the human author is unimportant)."<br /><br />Those two statements are not the same. You should know better than to appeal to a passing fragmentary description in a book the Church wrote to summarize the basics of the faith for common folk, using it to "define" a term in a quasi-scholarly context.<br /><br />More importantly, your qualification clearly indicates a bias against the necessity for determining the author's intention in order to reach the full meaning of the text, which is where the diachronic method comes into use. <br /><br />The PBC document "Historicity of the Gospels" is Magisterial because at the time of its publication the PBC was part of the CDF. The second document, "Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," was not strictly Magisterial because it was published after the separation, but it was approved and received by a public speech in which Pope John Paul the Great issued a speech summarizing much of its content. But of course you can dismiss that and all the writings of Pope Benedict as private theological opinion. If you let the document speak for itself, Verbum Domini echoes many of the same conclusions as these documents, which its sounds like you may deem modernist. I think we should not be afraid to combine old and new, like Sts.Jerome and Thomas, for example, and accept the fact that "Tradition" is not to be identified with its early written monuments but recognized as an organic reality still developing, as seen in the dogmas of Vatican I, Popes Pius IX, XI, and the teachings of Vatican II.JBrothertonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-33938278336877057172011-07-22T16:27:33.369-07:002011-07-22T16:27:33.369-07:00from Bill Foley
An interesting fact about St. Lawr...from Bill Foley<br />An interesting fact about St. Lawrence of Brindisi.<br /><br />Saint Lawrence of Brindisi versus the Moslems.<br />It was on the occasion of the foundation of the convent of Prague (1601) that St. Lorenzo was named chaplain of the Imperial army, then about to march against the Turks. The victory of Lepanto (1571) had only temporarily checked the Moslem invasion, and several battles were still necessary to secure the final triumph of the Christian armies. Mohammed III had, since his accession (1595), conquered a large part of Hungary. The emperor, determined to prevent a further advance, sent Lorenzo of Brindisi as deputy to the German princes to obtain their cooperation. They responded to his appeal, and moreover the Duke of Mercœur, Governor of Brittany, joined the imperial army, of which he received the effective command. The attack on Albe-Royal (now Stulweissenburg) was then contemplated. To pit 18,000 men against 80,000 Turks was a daring undertaking and the generals, hesitating to attempt it, appealed to Lorenzo for advice. Holding himself responsible for victory, he communicated to the entire army in a glowing speech the ardor and confidence with which he was himself animated. As his feebleness prevented him from marching, he mounted on horseback and, crucifix in hand, took the lead of the army, which he drew irresistibly after him. Three other Capuchins were also in the ranks of the army. Although the most exposed to danger, Lorenzo was not wounded, which was universally regarded as due to a miraculous protection. The city was finally taken, and the Turks lost 30,000 men. As however they still exceeded in numbers the Christian army, they formed their lines anew, and a few days later another battle was fought. It always the chaplain who was at the head of the army. "Forward!" he cried, showing them the crucifix, "Victory is ours." The Turks were again defeated, and the honour of this double victory was attributed by the general and the entire army to Lorenzo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40284866531957398212011-07-22T12:00:21.426-07:002011-07-22T12:00:21.426-07:00ttp://haydock1859.tripod.com/
http://www.catholic...ttp://haydock1859.tripod.com/<br /><br />http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/Lapide.htmMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-76624838564463919402011-07-22T11:40:37.809-07:002011-07-22T11:40:37.809-07:00JB,
I never said that the author's intention i...JB,<br />I never said that the author's intention is not related to the literal sense ... since the primary author of Scripture is God, it should be obvious to anyone that his intention is very important!<br />[however, I suspect that, when you say "author's intention" you refer (as do most modernists) to the HUMAN author's intention]<br /><br />The definition I have given is from the CCC ... you can complain to Bl John Paul II.<br /><br />Regarding the PBC docs, which are NOT magisterial in nature, you are quite correct that the PBC emphasizes the importance of discovering the intention of the human author ... I agree, it is good and important to find what we can.<br />However, the PBC cites St. Thomas Aquinas as its principal authority in emphasizing the importance of the literal sense ... and St. Thomas is quite clear: The literal sense goes beyond the intention of the human authors (since the primary author is God himself).<br /><br />If you are interested in a serious discussion, take a look at my earlier article on the literal sense: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/02/literal-sense-of-scripture.html<br /><br />Also, on Pope Benedict's presentation of the Literal Sense in the Magisterial Document, Verbum Domini: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/11/pope-benedict-on-senses-of-scripture.html<br /><br /><br />The way I explained the literal sense is the way it has been understood for 1800 years, most notably by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-70590144442782005532011-07-22T10:06:39.265-07:002011-07-22T10:06:39.265-07:00How can you imply that the author's intention ...How can you imply that the author's intention is unimportant in determining the literal sense when Ratzinger defends the diachronic approach albeit moderately and the PBC documents (one of the two Magisterial) exhort its usage as necessary to arrive at the fullness of the literal meaning of the text?JBrothertonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62286249579797099082011-07-22T08:31:20.508-07:002011-07-22T08:31:20.508-07:00@DDV, no, certainly there was NEVER a statement fr...@DDV, no, certainly there was NEVER a statement from the Church discouraging Catholics from reading the Bible, ever.<br />However, in the earlier centuries, because of the many many heretical translations out there, the Church did restrict the use of translations.<br /><br />This "restriction" of the Bible is largely part of the myth.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-85923271832999500482011-07-22T02:24:53.339-07:002011-07-22T02:24:53.339-07:00We should all keep in mind how much the human mind...We should all keep in mind how much the human mind has changed since 100 years ago. Because of the culture to do something like memorize even one of the books of the Bible seems impossible, but that's just because out brains have been programmed to be extremely flexible and have the ability to multi-task and switch from one thing to another quickly (this is due to the advent of the computer, cell phones, etc.). 100 years ago the human brain was programmed to do almost the exact opposite (focus on one thing for a long time). That said memorizing the entire Bible in its original languages is still an incredible feat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-64119891473300584042011-07-21T19:43:21.822-07:002011-07-21T19:43:21.822-07:00I was wondering if you could point me in the direc...I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of whe the claim came from that Catholics in the early 20th century were told not to read the Bible. Was it a Church document, a bishop's statement, seminary training, pastoral practice, or something else. I have heard this claim often, and I've been wondering about the history of it.<br /><br />-DDVAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-71236281877654630902011-07-21T15:17:26.624-07:002011-07-21T15:17:26.624-07:00Chatto,
Regarding the Scholastic emphasis on Scrip...Chatto,<br />Regarding the Scholastic emphasis on Scripture ... I think that the Scholastics are probably far more invested in Scripture than the theologians of any other period.<br /><br />St. Thomas, for example, allows the authority of the Church Fathers to provide only probably conclusions; whereas the Scriptures alone lead to certain and sure conclusions. Magistierial pronouncements of Popes and Councils are still further down on the list of sources...<br /><br />The Scriptures were both the starting point of the scholastic theology and also the principal source for settling disputes.<br />Certainly, the Scriptures are open to many many interpretations ... hence any particular verse of the Bible would have to be interpreted first and foremost by the Bible as a whole, then by the authority of the Fathers, then of the Popes and Councils.<br /><br />Later theologians (reacting to the excesses of protestantism) are generally less optimistic about such a strong emphasis on the Bible ...Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-79172712408608532872011-07-21T15:10:27.354-07:002011-07-21T15:10:27.354-07:00Chatto,
A Bible Concordance is an alphabetical ind...Chatto,<br />A Bible Concordance is an alphabetical index of words used in the Holy Bible, showing contextual occurrences of each word throughout the Bible.<br />This is what I meant. Hugh of St. Cher (aka Hugo de S. Caro) is credited as the first to put such a work together.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-24011038125469836102011-07-21T14:02:30.014-07:002011-07-21T14:02:30.014-07:00Father, thanks for this post - I always struggle w...Father, thanks for this post - I always struggle with the senses of Scripture. I hae a couple of questions:<br /><br />You said that Hugh of St. Cher published "the first substantial Biblical Concordance – collecting all the verses of Scripture in which each word is used." I don't get what you mean here - what do you mean by "in which each word is used"?<br /><br />Of the Scholastics, you highlight that they emphasised Scripture as the basis of theology in their arguments. Was this their approach in settling disputes, or the starting point for developing theology? Bl. Newman shows in <i>Development of Christian Doctrine</i> that it was always Sacred Tradition which the Church used to settle disputes, since anyone can interpret Scripture in their own way.Chattohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488939389859451887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-91533589319821390152011-07-21T11:37:04.190-07:002011-07-21T11:37:04.190-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-84934523445692794712011-07-21T10:11:29.141-07:002011-07-21T10:11:29.141-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.st boscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02777336005065896647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-16248232041975372202011-07-21T10:10:53.339-07:002011-07-21T10:10:53.339-07:00Loome Theological Booksellers does have both St. L...Loome Theological Booksellers does have both St. Lawrence's and Lapide's works available in Latin.Christopher Hagenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02314907570426413793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-16485674249858223012011-07-21T10:07:25.496-07:002011-07-21T10:07:25.496-07:00Thank you for citing Fr. Haydock. His commmentary ...Thank you for citing Fr. Haydock. His commmentary in the Duay Rhiems has been a tremendous help to me. It is the only Bible I use.<br /><br /><br />The whole Bible by heart and in the original languages!!! I guess he had an IQ of about 10,000. Or maybe he was privately inspired by the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Linus from KansasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com