Hmm, What would Freud say?? Tsk, Tsk...a Catholic who would rather read Anne Rice than the Bible...Jack Chick couldn't make up something better (you may make it into his next tract...be warned)!
I think what you experience, more or less, is what many of us have gone through. Today I am not too freaked out by it, because I understand the Bible as a book of the Church, interpreted by the Church.
But nonetheless, I think a big reason evangelicals take an interest in the Fathers and the Catholic Church is because evangelicals can't give up on Scripture, but have no choice but to give up on some "plain meaning" of Scripture that is so obvious everybody will just figure it out from reading it.
uh - I don't understand the original post or David's comment. It seems to me that the Scriptures are fairly simple, but that these posts are not.
Correct me if I misunderstand, but are these posts indicating that "meaning" is not so important as simply "experiencing" the Scriptures? And that this is why some evangelicals enjoy the Catholic Church? This is not a jab - it's just an honest question. Is a mystical interaction with the Scriptures the pull? Or is it that the Catholic Church offers answers and so the average person in the pew does not have to worry himself with the details, and can therefore relax? I'm trying to understand, especially since you said that this post should provide some insight into your conversion, Chad. It's less psychoanalysis on you, and more trying to understand why two people apparently don't find the Scriptures satisfying outside a worship service.
Also, on a slightly different subject. I get fairly confused when I read a post like the one at the Pontificator, because interpretation is not so one dimensional as is portrayed. Since when did the Reformers advocate only a "literal" reading of Scriptures, and only a systematic approach to doctrinal thought?
Finally, I wonder where we might end up if we adopt the notion that we should just bask in the Scriptures and not worry about it's meaning. It is wonderful to simply enjoy the Scriptures being read, and at times meditating on particular passages can certainly be beneficial. But it seems to me that someone in each denomination decides on dogma. That requires hard work, thought, research and systematizing, as well as looking at the Scriptures in a linear way - the progression of thought and teaching through out the canon.
Confused,
nathan
Nathan, my brother!
You write: It seems to me that the Scriptures are fairly simple, but that these posts are not.
All these things describe either this blog post or the Bible:
1. You're reading the original.
2. You're reading it in your native language, dialect, culture, and time period.
3. You know the author, his family, his friends, and his hometown personally.
4. You can interact with the author and seek real-time clarifications.
5. It's a single author and style of writing, not a variety.
But seriously, I have no desire to dichotomize between seeking meaning and experience. I'd like it to be both. This is just my honest appraisal of my spiritual life: that most of the time I have trouble finding either! Catholicism didn't *fix* this problem, nor did I expect it to.
As far as psychoanalysis, I simply meant that if someone wanted to assume I was "never saved to begin with" or other nonsense, they might find ammunition here in my confessions. "Ah, see here! He never truly loved the Word of God!"
Did not the Reformers by-and-large reject the four-fold sense of scripture and "spiritualizing" the text? That's my impression, but you and Fr. Kimel (Pontificator) would know far more than I on the subject.
And I totally agree with your last paragraph. I didn't mean to contradict anything you said in that by relating what are my personal experiences and struggles.
Funny - and true - interpretation can be a complicated matter, though I think it shouldn't be. I don't believe that it's God's intention to confuse, and therefore we should try to seek first the easiest reading of any particular passage, and hopefully not get bogged down in frustrations.
I suppose I should not speak for all reformed writings, but I understand the position to be that we should try to understand the literal meaning of the passage, whether it be presented metaphorically, analogically, spiritually, or literally. In the end, through the uses of these particular literary tools we attempt to apply it's true meaning. In other words, the literal meaning may be derived from a metaphorical passage.
In fact, reformed writers are often accused of being over spiritual with the Old Testament, and less so with the New. Sometimes this is very true.
My personal path has lead me through some struggles such as yours. And that's why I asked the question. I was wondering if experience, which is not a bad thing in my book, might supersede meaning for you, which might be a bad thing in my book. Since that appears not to be the case, then we are stuck with trying to interpret the Scriptures. Fun eh?
Peace!
nathan
Nathan, about the interpretation thing:
. . .I understand the position to be that we should try to understand the literal meaning of the passage, whether it be presented metaphorically, analogically, spiritually, or literally.
This is still lacking compared to the Catholic view and what I understand to be the Patristic and Medieval one. And this is why the Pontficator can speak of it as insufficient, if I understand him correctly.
See paragraphs 115-119 of the Catechism here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/
p1...1s1c2a3.htm#III
Or maybe this article:
http://www.4marks.com/articles/
d...ULFQTAODBIXYHJM
I read through questions 109 to 119 and found this one to be very interesting:
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
It seems that the position is that once the literal meaning is found the other senses can be applied or understood. We reformers talk this way quite a bit. But it also seems to slightly contradict what you may be saying.
I do not deny the spiritual meaning, or even the mystical meaning of a passage. In fact, I see these things as quite important to many aspects of doctrine.
Also, though I did not bring it up in the first posts, I too agree that all of Scripture must be interpreted in the Spirit, which eventually is affirmed in the church. The flow, method, and context in which the Spirit has presented the Scriptures must be recognized. To reiterate, I believe that in order to understand, especially the spiritual sense a passage one must be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
I think where red flags start to go up as I read your Cathchism is here: 113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". [that's only part of the statement] I suspect that in context this means only the Catholic Church, and therefore, though we might agree on many principles of interpretation we may differ as to the universality of the Church. I even agree that the desert island idea is crazy, and that we should always take into account those that have gone before us, but when the church universal becomes very narrow I start to question. But I digress.....
Back to the "senses." It seems that the Catechism presents two basic senses, and out of the second, which is the spiritual, we find the remaining three "senses." It's confusing to talk about because of the repetition of the word "sense." But I think that a reformer, at least this one, would wholeheartedly agree with statement 116. Why then is the effort toward a literal understanding of spiritual passages called insufficient? Perhaps the word literal is insufficient. When I use literal I mean clear, or true, or real. Literal should not mean rigid, as some would make it out to be.
It seems to me that the Church must rest on literal dogma derived from literal meanings on literal and spiritual passages of the Scriptures, as it does today, both Protestant and Catholic. Otherwise we slip into deconstructionism. Language has meaning, and therefore can instruct us both propositionally and spiritually.
I suspect the bone of contention lies rather in how certain passages should be understood. I guess I'm having trouble seeing a substantial difference between the Catholic and reformed views here.
This is fun.
peace,
nathan
Commenting by HaloScan
