Monday, August 03, 2009

Akin: "This isn't exegetical rocket science"

Here's a "Blueprint For Anarchy" excerpt from Jimmy Akin, (snippets only). Akin concludes his treatment of John 6 by evaluating the misinterpretations of his priests by stating, "This isn't exegetical rocket science."

"Right now in the Sunday liturgy we're working our way through John 6, which contains the feeding of the 5,000 (John's version of it) and the Bread of Life discourse. Last Sunday contained the feeding of the 5,000, and I was annoyed when the priest at the Mass I was attending emphasized a perceived "sharing" aspect of the passage. He didn't go so far as to fully subvert the miracle. That is, he didn't say that it was a "miracle of sharing" where people's hearts were moved to share what they had rather than hording it for themselves--a repudiation of the physical miracle that occurred. But he seemed to be skirting the edge of that idea, without saying anything that would explicity [sic] mandate this interpretation."

"This Sunday there was a new priest, and he did the same thing. He didn't spend as much time on feeding (that was last week's reading, natch), but he did stress the generosity of the little boy sharing his lunch. He also misinterpreted the loaves as probably like rolls instead of probably like pitas or tortillas in form, though we can let that pass.

"And it's just annoying when preachers get so wrapped up in a sickly sweet, Hallmark card spirituality that they go off rhapsodizing about human sharing and generosity in a way that flies in the face of the text."

Well, its good thing Catholics don't have any problems with private interpretation. That infallible magisterium sure puts them at an advantage when they go to church. It's interesting to me that Akin corrects his priests by an appeal to... Scripture, and Scripture passages that lack an infallible interpretation. Perhaps instead of blogging his problems with his priests, he should contact a bishop? It all seems downright Protestant to me, but I'm biased.


Rhology said...

Hmm, once again, we can believe a pro apologist or a priest. Gonna be a tough choice.

Jugulum said...

Now, James. You know very well that God gifted the Magisterium with the perspicuity that he withheld from Scripture.

So much so that reading the Magisterium's writings requires no private interpretation. You just gotta read 'em.

And I'm sure the Church has given official interpretation of John 6 somewhere.

It's simple.

James Swan said...

Well, Akin appears to believe at least some parts of the Bible are clear enough without an infallible intepreter- the question though of course much? How much of the Scripture can breathe without Rome?

That's of course the irony most of you already know: Rome doesn't spend much time infallibly interpreting the Bible.

Jimmy Akin though, doesn't appeal to Rome for his problems with his priests.

He points them to Scripture. Just goes to show a bit of Van Til logic- their paradigm doesn't work, and they have to use ours.

Gojira said...

This was a good post (along with a previous one a scroll or two down the page -- it is the one where Matthew totally failed to engage the argument being made).

I kinda have to chuckle at Romish apologists, as they either never seem to get it, or are just on my low level of intelligence. LOLOLOLOL

Anyway, thank you James (and the other who post here), for making a person smile and actually be glad they have turned on the computer for a little blog reading.

God bless!