Great Bishop of Geneva!: Apostatic Rejection of "Fundamentalism" in 1994 · New blog on the kid John Shelby Spong and Joseph Ratzinger
I got a newletter from Progressing Spirit, where the following was quoted, with attribution:
|
I started subscribing to it, because I want to be able to refute next bad thing from Gretta Vosper or Carl Krieg - however, the above quote is one that comes from their deceased hero John Shelby Spong in person, and one which they quote from time to time ...
I will now quote, in full, the passage on Fundamentalism, by Joseph Ratzinger, then styled Cardinal under one style "Pope John Paul II" - though his name does not appear on the following version of the document:
"The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993
(as published in Origins, January 6, 1994)
https://www.catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm
It would have appeared on this other version of the text, when I commented on it earlier:
The resource cannot be found.
Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm
That is the reason that in the following I attribute these positions to Ratzinger.
F. Fundamentalist Interpretation
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
The actual term fundamentalist is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation, equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "rereadings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
Historical questions, first. And I mean the ones about the history of Fundamentalism, not the ones about Biblical History.
Ratzinger claims that while the term comes from the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895, or from its result "five fundamentals" the method originated at the time of the Reformation, which seems neutral between Protestants and Catholics - you know the guys Ratzinger and his "Pope" were supposed to represent, except for the context.
- 1) a Catholic exegesis in a less important matter could theoretically arise at the time of the Reformation, like in answer to it, but when it comes to wide swathes of exegesis, basically all of the historic books (representing 680 chapters on my count out of 1184 - less if you exclude Daniel, Jonas and the Law, obviously, but still only pulls it down from majority to above 40 %), if it arises at the time of the Reformation, it would presumably either be exclusively Protestant or marginal within Catholicism;
- 2) next step is "after Enlightenment" and "in Protestantism" - so, basically doesn't much concern Catholicism?
- 3) final step being of course this congress of 1895, an exclusively Protestant event.
Overall, it is safe to say, Ratzinger paints Fundamentalism as a Protestant thing. He doesn't say in so many words here that it isn't Catholic, he knows it is wrong, but he pretends that it is mainly Protestant by omission. And by one direct untruth - lie or bad attention on his part, I don't know - namely that it "arose in the time of the Reformation" ...
Here are a few of the facts:
- 1) St. Thomas would have agreed on literal inerrancy and specifically as it was understood at Niagara Falls or even more strictly - and he predates the Reformation by two and a half centuries at his death;
- 2) Fundamentalism was so little marginal in the Catholic Church that it was the actual reason why Galileo was condemned;
- 3) whether earliest Protestant Fundamentalist first objecting to the Enlightenment or the ones needing to formulate the five points, the Protestant Fundamentalists were a minority within Protestantism, but the Catholic Church agreed with them, not where they agreed with liberals against Catholicism, but where they were Biblical litteralists against Liberalism.
I think it is easy to see where Ratzinger and Spong agree. Fundamentalism is illusory, requires the suicide of intellect, and whether the one stresses that this is unattractive to the world at large, and the other that it is seemingly attractive to some, that's an agreement that is pretty substantial.
There is a very interesting disagreement. Spong pretends that fewer and fewer can accept Fundamentalism ...
"renders the Christian faith unbelievable to an increasing number of the citizens of our world."
Ratzinger on the other hand says:
"As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics."
I would say Spong knew Newark pretty well, while Ratzinger knew the world pretty well. Ratzinger is the better sociologist of the two.
Now, for Ratzinger's critique, detail by detail:
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
Where do I begin? Unshakable adherence to doctrine is Biblical, and "rejecting all questioning and any kind of critical research" is parodic. The Bible doesn't say "believe what God has revealed if you feel like it" or "believe as much of it as you want" it says "believe or you will die" or in other words "if you want salvation, believe" - the Fundamentalists do quite a lot of questioning, just not the kind liberals and modernists like Ratzinger are used to, and make a research that is critical of quite a lot, except of course of God's revealed truth (it is beside the point that a Protestant Fundamentalist is critical of the revealed truths about individual salvation, sanctification, Church and Sacraments - that is because he is a Protestant, not because he is a Fundamentalist).
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself.
Rejecting the Historical-Critical method is very far from rejecting the historical character of biblical revelation.
Those who really do reject the historical character of revelation, namely it is revealed and authenticised as divine by miracles occurring in history, and who really do reject the incarnation are not the ones who are referred to Fundamentalists, least of all Catholic ones (as Ratzinger admitted there were), but not even most Protestant ones.
As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.
Ratzinger wants his reader to get the impression that:
- 1) Moses and Joshua had limited resources, since they didn't know the theory of evolution and heliocentrism;
- 2) we, knowing these theories, have less limited resources and can therefore bypass the actual words in their books.
The second part is left for us to infer. So are the actual examples involved in the first part.
For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit.
A very welcome opportunity to document that the approach is older than the Reformation era!
| Quaedam enim sunt per se substantia fidei, ut Deum esse trinum et unum, et hujusmodi: in quibus nulli licet aliter opinari ... | For some things are of themselves substance of the Faith, like God being three and one, and things like this: in which it is licit for noone to opine otherwise; ... | |
| Quaedam vero per accidens tantum, inquantum scilicet in Scriptura traduntur, quam fides supponit spiritu sancto dictante promulgatam esse: quae quidem ignorari sine periculo possunt ab his qui Scripturas scire non tenentur, sicut multa historialia: et in his etiam sancti diversa senserunt, Scripturam divinam diversimode exponentes. | But some are [of the faith] only "per accidens", namely insofar as they are transmitted in Writ, which Faith presumes to be promulgated by dictation of the Holy Spirit: which on the one hand can be ignored without danger by those who are not obliged to know Writ, like many historic things: and in these also the saints have sensed diversely, exposing divine Writ in different ways. |
So, while saints (in anyone using the word it means real believers and to St. Thomas specifically it means Church Fathers) have disagreed on the meaning, in the discussion at hand (it is from II Sent. Dist. XII q.1, a.2, the translation to English is my own) this being one-moment creation vs six literal days, the base line remains that the words of the Bible actually do belong to the faith, because the Holy Spirit has dictated them - or in Ratzinger's terms, the Bible text should (according to St. Thomas, and who am I to disagree!) be treated as "dictated word for word by the Spirit."
It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.
Unless the "language and expression" are supposed to be such as to induce readers using the grammatical sense into error, the Fundamentalist approach absolutely does not fail to recognise this.
Here is a clear example that does recognise it:
Many presume the pharaoh of the Exodus must have been a Ramesside king (and hence they adhere to a late date) because the Bible says that the Hebrews built the store cities of Pithom and Rameses (Exodus 1:11; cf. Exodus 12:37; Numbers 33:3). They point out that the latter site was likely named after Rameses II, and that construction occurred there during his reign. Or, at least, the city was named for one of the Ramesside kings, the first of whom (Rameses I) founded the 19th Dynasty. However, there are multiple ways we can account for the term ‘Rameses’ in Exodus 1:11 which do not require a late Exodus. See Case Study: Rameses.
One possibility is that, since the name of this site changed over time (it was previously known as Avaris and went by other names in other periods), scribes may have updated the name in the Scriptural text as well, so later readers would still be able to identify the city to which the text referred. This is not inconsistent with biblical inspiration since there are other clear examples where this happened. A robust concept of inspiration must include the Holy Spirit’s oversight of such textual updating. Genesis 14:14, for instance, mentions Abraham traveling to the city of Dan in order to rescue Lot. Yet the city of Dan was not yet called Dan in either Abraham’s time or the time of Moses, who wrote Genesis. The city was formerly called Laish and was not renamed by the tribe of Dan until the period of the Judges, as the Bible itself tells us (Judges 18:29). So the name of the city in Genesis 14:14 was updated well after the time of Moses.
Exodus evidence revisited
Feedback archive → Feedback 2022
https://creation.com/exodus-evidence
It specifically does state that the language of the Bible evolved - over copying, even - to adapt to changing nomenclature.
It pays no attention to the literary forms
I suspect this refers to "myth" being a literary form, when it isn't. It is a concept broadly speaking parallel to "classic" or "epic" - while epic properly speaking is a literary form, it is often misused as not being one. Myth and classic are not literary forms at all. The difference is that in "myth" we deal with a story that's important for a society, with "classic" we deal with a literary work which is so. But being important for a society, even being an "origins myth" is in no way shape or form being a specific literary form, for instance alternative to and excluding historic narrative.
and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Unclear what this refers to. A Protestant would ignore the implication of the last words in Luke 1:28 regardless of being a Fundamentalist or a Liberal. It refers to Jael and Judith and therefore implies Mary had killed an enemy of Israel by wounding its head, and in verse 42 the repetition along with the last addition makes it about the serpent, since Mary and Jesus are the woman and her seed of Genesis 3:15. She obviously had killed no human enemies of Israel, which is why she was perplexed by the greeting. But a Catholic who was a Fundamentalist would so much not be deaf to this.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.
Here the "horsefoot" (do you say "goatfoot" in English?) shows.
Ratzinger wants us to believe the chapters Genesis 5 and 11 do not place 2025 to 3507 years (depending on text version, Masoretic being shortest, LXX longest and here its longest versions, Julius Africanus' reading of Genesis 5, a Genesis 11 of a LXX with a second Cainan and with Nachor being 170 rather than 70 when begetting) between, here it comes, creation of the universe and Abraham visiting a pharao.* He does not want us to believe that no fossils came before the creation of Adam or that they were laid down in the Flood of Noah.
It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
First, verbs in the past tense are verbs in the prophetic future tense too. Baruch 3:38 Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.
Challoner comments: [38] "Was seen upon earth": viz., by the mystery of the incarnation, by means of which the son of God came visibly amongst us, and conversed with men. The prophets often speak of things to come as if they were past, to express the certainty of the event of the things foretold.
Similarily in St. John's Apocalypse, a Greek verb in a past tense is often used about an image of the future yet to come. Many Fundamentalists do not make Preterism their conclusion of this. Neither do I.
He did not dare to - second - counterdistinguish historical with fictitious. He did counterdistinguish it with "symbolic or figurative" ... and according to St. Thomas this is a very bad counterdistinction.
Prima Pars : Q 1 The nature and extent of sacred doctrine : A 10 Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article10
I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. ...
...
Reply to Objection 1. The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.
So, the figurative or symbolic sense so dear to Ratzinger, does not belong to the words of the text, but to the history signified by the text. Hence it is in no way or shape an argument against taking the history as history, and as inerrant history because it is in the Bible.
Third, how does a book claim to be history? Including boring detail with no or little action attached to most would be a candidate for internal evidence of historic intention.
Genesis 4:[17] And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch. [18] And Henoch begot Irad, and Irad begot Maviael, and Maviael begot Mathusael, and Mathusael begot Lamech:
Genesis 5:[6] Seth also lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enos. [7] And Seth lived after he begot Enos, eight hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. [8] And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. [9] And Enos lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. [10] After whose birth he lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and begot sons and daughters.
[11] And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years, and he died. [12] And Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Malaleel. [13] And Cainan lived after he begot Malaleel, eight hundred and forty years, and begot sons and daughters. [14] And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died. [15] And Malaleel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared.
[16] And Malaleel lived after he begot Jared, eight hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters. [17] And all the days of Malaleel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died. [18] And Jared lived a hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Henoch. [19] And Jared lived after he begot Henoch, eight hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. [20] And all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died.
Iliad II : First the Boeotians, led by Peneleos, Leitus, Arcesilaus, Prothoenor and Clonius; they came from Hyrie and stony Aulis, from Schoenus, Scolus and high-ridged Eteonus; from Thespeia and Graea, and spacious Mycalessus; from the villages of Harma, Eilesium and Erythrae; from Eleon, Hyle, Peteon, Ocalea and Medeon’s stronghold; from Copae, Eutresis, and dove-haunted Thisbe; from Coroneia and grassy Haliartus, Plataea and Glisas, and the great citadel of Thebes; from sacred Onchestus, Poseidon’s bright grove; from vine-rich Arne, Mideia, holy Nisa and coastal Anthedon. They captained fifty ships, each with a hundred and twenty young men.
Next those from Aspledon and Minyan Orchomenos, led by Ascalaphus and Ialmenus, sons of Ares whom the fair maiden Astyoche bore to the mighty god, for he lay with her in secret, in her room in the house of Actor, son of Azeus. They brought thirty hollow ships.
Then the Phocians, led by Schedius and Epistrophus, sons of Iphitus, great-heart, Naubolus’ son, men who held Cyparissus and rocky Pytho, holy Crisa, Daulis and Panopeus; dwellers in Anemoreia and Hyampolis; those from Lilaea by the springs of noble Cephisus, and those who lived along its banks. Forty black ships were their fleet, and the leaders ranked their Phocians beside the Boeotians on the left, and prepared to fight.
The Locrians followed Oileus’ swift-footed son Ajax the Lesser: inferior to, and not to be compared with, Telamonian Ajax. He was short, wore a linen corslet, but was more skilful with the spear than any other Hellene or Achaean. His troops came from Cynus, Opoeis, Calliarus, Bessa, and Scarphe, beautiful Augeiae, Tarphe and Thronium and the banks of Boagrius. Forty black Locrian ships he led from the shores facing sacred Euboea.
But, this characteristic can be mimicked in fiction (see Tolkien's appendices to Lord of the Rings!). A safer approach would be the external evidence for historic intent. No one is taking Lord of the Rings as a work of history, everyone is taking it as fiction meant to entertain (even if some** consider the appendices to result in boredom rather than entertainment).
So, to formulate this external criterium, it is not the text itself that claims to be historic, it is its status in a society claiming it for it, and the evidence for historicity is, first known reception of the text taking it as history.
Now, it is possible that for the Iliad Herodotus who put it in doubt is more ancient than Eratosthenes who used fall of Troy as starting point of well documented chronology.*** It is however to be noted that Herodotus expresses doubts on the story of the Iliad as a way of countering the Persian argument for invading Greece.° Herodotus is basically saying Homer was a bad historian. Or wait° I looked it up, and no, he is not denying historicity to the Iliad, he is refusing to make his stakes on the historicity of Persian and Phenician historiography.°
But when it comes to Genesis, the earliest known reception would be that in the Gospels and perhaps some early Talmud tractates from before Christ's time.°° They would agree - Christ with Hillel or Gamaliel or Shammai, if any of them touched the subject - that Genesis was historical. Here the argument is not about Christ being inerrant as being God. The argument is, the reception seen as giving credence as to facts to the Genesis text is earlier than any approach - say Ratzinger's own or John Shelby Spong's - that pretends Genesis history somehow should not be used for historic facts. This is an argument for the genre being historic narrative. Its words are prima facie evidence for historic facts. Don't leave the prima facie, unless there really is some stronger argument opposing it.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "rereadings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
Thank you for "often" and "a tendency" - in other words, it is a matter of varying talent and competence, not a matter of principle within Fundamentalism itself. Much as I value Kent Hovind on chariots and chariot warriors, or on a Gilligan's Island situation just after leaving the Ark, or showing forth polystrate fossils or things, I am far less impressed by King James Onlyism.
Or actually, not at all. As I am using the chronology of the Roman martyrology for Christmas Day, I am obviously not a King James Onlyist. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are also found in both Vulgate and LXX - with varying chronology, that of the Vulgate, therefore also Douay Rheims and Crampon, agreeing with King James. The ones in LXX (with one text variant for Genesis 11 agreeing with Samaritan Pentateuch) do not agree with King James.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).
I am sorry, but Ratzinger is the one who is naive in pretending to know a) there even was a "development of the Gospel tradition" rather than a straightforward and faithful tradition for the Gospels that depend on tradition (Luke and Mark) and b) a tradition rather than memory for the Gospels stating or being attributed to eyewitnesses. The product of modern reconstruction is no substitute for ancient documentation. There is no documentation for Matthew depending on tradition rather than on memory, and there is no documentation for tradition always and everywhere being a telephone game when there actually was a tradition and not a straightforward account by the eyewitness himself.
C. S. Lewis exposed the methodological ineptness of this modern scholarship in the essay Fernseeds and Elephants.
At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message.
It is very arguable that the Protestants do so when it comes to impacts like episcopal succession or upcoming conversion of entire societies, but Fundamentalism as a phenomenon is not tied to Protestantism, and this disconnect with evidence for episcopal succession is arguably as much there in Liberal Protestantism - once again Ratzinger is poisoning the well for Catholics, by attributing to Fundamentalism errors that should only be attributed to Protestantism.
But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
There is no evidence that this is the case. Fundamentalists will appeal to Sts. Irenaeus and Papias.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Pretending one point of view is "narrow" and another point of you is "broad" is an appeal to emotion. A given person can be narrow in such and such a way (favourite examples for Protestants being narrow: imagining Hislop as an Assyriologist or Kent Hovind as an expert on 1st C. Wine and Grape Juice productions), but this does not mean an actual point of view is narrow, even if actually expressed by a narrow person. The point of view that Christians should accept all cosmology that is proven to be Biblical is not a narrow one.
Ratzinger's way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith is that not just some few expressions of the faith are ignorant on fact and hence erroneous in opinion on fact due to the culture of the one expressing, but that this could also be the case even in hagiographers. Ignorance could or could not be there, but error not. There is no way one of the positions is culturally narrow and the other culturally broad because of the position that it is. It can happen that someone holding it holds it because of broad or narrow experience with culture and it seems Ratzinger is the one who has a narrow culture here.
Especially when he falls for Evolutionists claiming Fundamentalists are the ones blocking dialogue. Ah, no. Evolution believers are expert at blocking dialogue and pretending someone else's point of view is narrow is a favourite weapon in this game. How Ratzinger could miss this, is perhaps due to some overenthusiastic school teachers of Nazi Germany (if school start was at six years back in his time, he started school in 1933). The same can be said for his endorsement of "Gospel development" a favourite idea with Academic institutions of Bismarck's Second Reich, for which Hitler had a high regard. He's dupe of a weapon in the Kulturkampf, and that one on the wrong side of the quarrel.
Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible
So, the Bible should be read "critically" as in "what errors could have crept in into the sacred text?"
serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
It is ironic that all Fundies I know of are anti-racist, that some Catholics are considering me basically a dupe of Protestantism and Judaism are doing so because I am a Fundie and an Anti-Racist.
It is also ironic that the racist-leaning reading of certain texts do not depend the least on a coherent Fundamentalist approach - the Ku Klux Klan or such spokesman of it as I found on the web extols the "finding" of the clearly racist and clearly anti-Fundie Isaac La Peyrère, that Adam somehow weren't father of the blacks. Those who had an evolution based view of black inferiority in the 19th C. could clearly use the curse of Ham without any general Fundamentalism, and also Fundamentalist readings of it do not imply black inferiority.
But there is a very different area where Fundies generally do show attitudes that some would consider "political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices" - opposition to abortion, to contraception, to gay marriage, to encouraging gays to remain homosexual, as the gay movement does.
And John Shelby Spong would clearly have considered these oppositions as "quite contrary to the Christian Gospel" - and "Pope Francis" is clearly in agreement with this.
I left the Swedish Church partly in horror over its John Shelby Spongs. I did not in 1988 know a Catholic institution was going to contribute to the John Shelby Spong thing.
Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition,
While Protestant Fundamentalists have a tendency to attach Fundamentalism to "Scripture alone" it is the Protestant interpretations (found among people clearly not Fundamentalist), like a misreading of Matthew 6:7 based on a mistranslation of βαττολογειν and not the Fundamentalist ones that actually do separate the interpretation of the Bible from tradition. And the non-Fundie interpretations also separate the interpretation of the Bible from tradition.
from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith.
Oops! Developing tradition. Tradition changing its mind. Modernisms or nova making it to the status of tradition.
No, that is not a Catholic understanding of what Tradition is. It is also not what Newman understood in "Development of Christian Doctrine" which is also not a fully Catholic books, since he was specifically asked to write it from his standpoint when deciding conversion, and wrote it before receiving instruction.
It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church
Protestants fail to realise that it took form within the Catholic Church. But even so, they admit, if Fundamentalists, it took form within the Christian Church, which abusively they pretend to counterdistinguish from the Catholic Church.
and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts.
Preceded it by years to decades, not by centuries, as to the individual texts.
Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself.
This kind of anti-Church attitude is typical of a certain type of Baptism - and it certainly exists outside the strictest Fundamentalisms. It has its roots in the idea of Catholicism not being the New Testament Church, and the parallel idea of Baptist Continuity surviving in hiding.
It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
Would Ratzinger mind checking what kind of "private interpretation" the Church actually condemned at Trent? The one that comes to other conclusions than the Church Fathers. And the most typical expressions of Fundamentalism - Jesus really did walk on water, it really was demons He expelled, He was expressing both divine and human prophetic knowledge as well as correctly transmitted knowledge from the OT Church when He said there was no (at least significant) time between the first atom or light beam and the first couple, these clearly are in accordance with the Church Fathers.
But what about "the Church"?
"whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures"
Session IV actually says:
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; ...
If Ratzinger can somehow pretend before himself and his adherents that "a broader dialogue" (with Evolutionist and Higher Text Critical pseudo-science) is the sense the Church now "doth hold," he at least cannot pretend it is the one that the Church "hath held and doth hold" (the Trentine Fathers may have sensed a danger of Antichrist's takeover attempts if only stating "doth hold" at any given moment), nor that it is the one that has a unanimous consent of the Fathers.
With the kind of "cultural luggage" scenario on hagiographers, so that their texts are not inerrant, he no doubt is not far from a similar scenario not making the actual wording of Trent Session IV infallible either.
Like a liberal racist cherrypicking (and misinterpreting) the curse on Canaan, but denying universality of the Flood, he can cherrypick (and misinterpret) the "whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures" but ignore the ensuing words.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
The Church hath not held and doth not hold that there is such a distinction within what the Bible says. There may be human limitations in what a hagiographer does not say. But they do not appear as errors in what he says.
When Ratzinger describes the attitude of one believing the Bible in a Fundamentalist way as "intellectual suicide" he is the one who is offering a false certitude namely in Science. He invites Catholics to Scientism, to taking Science as the criterium of factual truth. That is his false certitude. Apparent, and amply, in the earlier words.
And if Ratzinger had nothing to do with the document, too bad, sorry, but I find that unlikely.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XXth Lord's Day after Pentecost
23.X.2022
Update next day:
This is referred to in:
Great Bishop of Geneva! : Question on Epistemology
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2022/10/question-on-epistemology.html
* Actually, one could make it even shorter, namely combining 1307 years up to the Flood of the Samaritan Pentateuch with the 292 years from Flood to Abraham's birth from the Masoretic, plus, common to all versions, 75 years up to his vocation which is prior to his visit to Egypt. 1307 + 292 + 75 = 1674 years, from Creation of Sun and Moon and Stars and Adam and Eve and few days before that heaven and earth, up to early Pharaos. But one cannot with full respect for the Biblical text make it longer than 2262 + 1170 + 75 = 3507 years.
** While I have read Aragorn and Arwen, I could not win The $64,000 Question on Tolkien by answering correctly on all the kings and stewarts of Gondor.
*** My memory served me well, Herodotus is more ancient: Herodotus (Greek: Ἡρόδοτος; c. 484 – c. 425 BC) / Eratosthenes of Cyrene (Greek: Ἐρατοσθένης; c. 276 BC – c. 195/194 BC)
° He provides us with this discussion in Book I, at the very outset.
3. In the next generation after this, they say, Alexander the son of Priam, having heard of these things, desired to get a wife for himself by violence 4 from Hellas, being fully assured that he would not be compelled to give any satisfaction for this wrong, inasmuch as the Hellenes gave none for theirs. So he carried off Helen, and the Hellenes resolved to send messengers first and to demand her back with satisfaction for the rape; and when they put forth this demand, the others alleged to them the rape of Medea, saying that the Hellenes were now desiring satisfaction to be given to them by others, though they had given none themselves nor had surrendered the person when demand was made.
4. Up to this point, they say, nothing more happened than the carrying away of women on both sides; but after this the Hellenes were very greatly to blame; for they set the first example of war, making an expedition into Asia before the Barbarians made any into Europe. Now they say that in their judgment, though it is an act of wrong to carry away women by force, it is a folly to set one's heart on taking vengeance for their rape, and the wise course is to pay no regard when they have been carried away; for it is evident that they would never be carried away if they were not themselves willing to go. And the Persians say that they, namely the people of Asia, when their women were carried away by force, had made it a matter of no account, but the Hellenes on account of a woman of Lacedemon gathered together a great armament, and then came to Asia and destroyed the dominion of Priam; and that from this time forward they had always considered the Hellenic race to be their enemy: for Asia and the Barbarian races which dwell there the Persians claim as belonging to them; but Europe and the Hellenic race they consider to be parted off from them.
5. The Persians for their part say that things happened thus; and they conclude that the beginning of their quarrel with the Hellenes was on account of the taking of Ilion: but as regards Io the Phenicians do not agree with the Persians in telling the tale thus; for they deny that they carried her off to Egypt by violent means, and they say on the other hand that when they were in Argos she was intimate with the master of their ship, and perceiving that she was with child, she was ashamed to confess it to her parents, and therefore sailed away with the Phenicians of her own will, for fear of being found out. These are the tales told by the Persians and the Phenicians severally: and concerning these things I am not going to say that they happened thus or thus, 401 but when I have pointed to the man who first within my own knowledge began to commit wrong against the Hellenes, I shall go forward further with the story, giving an account of the cities of men, small as well as great: for those which in old times were great have for the most part become small, while those that were in my own time great used in former times to be small: so then, since I know that human prosperity never continues steadfast, I shall make mention of both indifferently.
°° While the Mishna as a whole is later than books of the New Testament, some of its tractates are earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment