Richard Marx is on in the background, so if I make sappy emotional appeals, don't say I didn't warn you.
Textual criticism, as with hermeneutics itself, has to be limited by something. The great difficulty with anything in this Protestant realm is in fact distinguishing human opinion from divine revelation. It had been the basic "liberal" contention that all manner of traditional interpretations, whether dogmatic or moral, were actually human inventions. Thus, the first step in rejecting any view had been to show that it had human contact points. On the other hand, one could embrace those contact points, and under the guise of fully respecting the context into which God spoke, reject whatever one wanted.
But what was traditional came from somewhere. To accept the Catholic Church's authority is not to presuppose its divine origin; it is merely to realize that the word of the Lord belongs to the People of God. And they have been as real, as tangible as the Incarnate Word himself. It's always been that way. The assertion to the contrary has always rather conveniently followed a separation from that People.
The only good reason to accept anything as dogma is that God has revealed it, and God cannot lie. Dogma cannot be revised, or changed. Nothing in that realm is subject to human refutation or challenge. This must include the canon of the Sacred Scriptures; they are either breathed out by God, or not. If the People of God have received the Gospel according to St. Mark up to and including verse 20, quite frankly, who am I to argue?
The teaching authority of the Catholic Church tends to say that the rule of faith allows for numerous valid interpretations of any one text. The hermeneutical methods are bounded by that teaching authority. This is one reason why that authority is living; books--even God-breathed ones--don't talk.
What does the Bible actually say, on the questions that matter? This is why I couldn't just "live with the tension" or the "inexact science" of criticism or hermeneutics; we're talking eternal life and death here; if we haven't been, we should all go home. We either have to pretend that a unity exists when it doesn't, or we have to commit the blasphemy of calling the Holy Spirit a liar.
"Classic Christian orthodoxy" or some other (ad hoc) makeshift heuristic,--to our great benefit--actually refers in way or another to some dogmatic determination of the Catholic Church. We just have to decide if that's the work of God, or fluky coincidence. For my part, it added up to a few too many fluky coincidences, especially when claiming to believe in a God who is faithfulness and Love.
Textual criticism, as with hermeneutics itself, has to be limited by something. The great difficulty with anything in this Protestant realm is in fact distinguishing human opinion from divine revelation. It had been the basic "liberal" contention that all manner of traditional interpretations, whether dogmatic or moral, were actually human inventions. Thus, the first step in rejecting any view had been to show that it had human contact points. On the other hand, one could embrace those contact points, and under the guise of fully respecting the context into which God spoke, reject whatever one wanted.
But what was traditional came from somewhere. To accept the Catholic Church's authority is not to presuppose its divine origin; it is merely to realize that the word of the Lord belongs to the People of God. And they have been as real, as tangible as the Incarnate Word himself. It's always been that way. The assertion to the contrary has always rather conveniently followed a separation from that People.
The only good reason to accept anything as dogma is that God has revealed it, and God cannot lie. Dogma cannot be revised, or changed. Nothing in that realm is subject to human refutation or challenge. This must include the canon of the Sacred Scriptures; they are either breathed out by God, or not. If the People of God have received the Gospel according to St. Mark up to and including verse 20, quite frankly, who am I to argue?
The teaching authority of the Catholic Church tends to say that the rule of faith allows for numerous valid interpretations of any one text. The hermeneutical methods are bounded by that teaching authority. This is one reason why that authority is living; books--even God-breathed ones--don't talk.
What does the Bible actually say, on the questions that matter? This is why I couldn't just "live with the tension" or the "inexact science" of criticism or hermeneutics; we're talking eternal life and death here; if we haven't been, we should all go home. We either have to pretend that a unity exists when it doesn't, or we have to commit the blasphemy of calling the Holy Spirit a liar.
"Classic Christian orthodoxy" or some other (ad hoc) makeshift heuristic,--to our great benefit--actually refers in way or another to some dogmatic determination of the Catholic Church. We just have to decide if that's the work of God, or fluky coincidence. For my part, it added up to a few too many fluky coincidences, especially when claiming to believe in a God who is faithfulness and Love.
Comments