Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Sungenis on Finding Mary in the Old Testament

R. Sungenis: I think we have to be very careful when we attempt to use analogies and allegories to prove Catholic dogma. A tendency to use proof-texting, for example, is often utilized when attempts are made to prove Catholic doctrines about Mary from the Old Testament. Some are tempted to mold the allegory so that it will fit the doctrine, and since allegories are somewhat fluid, one can usually cut and paste them until he finds an impressive connection, after which we are prompted to marvel how the Old Testament teaches Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity or Assumption. In actuality, the Old Testament doesn’t provide any factual evidence supporting these three Marian doctrines, and the New Testament can only vouch for one, perhaps two, at best. In fact, some Old Testament allegories could be fashioned in such a way to deny some Marian doctrines. Marian doctrines are supported mainly by Catholic magisterial pronouncements, and the factual evidence regarding those doctrines comes mainly from Tradition, not Scripture. [source]

You go Bob!

67 comments:

Andrew said...

I really appreciate that kind of honesty. Mr. Sungenis doesn't seem to be afraid to just tell it like it is when it comes to the source of certain RC dogmas. I read Hahn's "Hail Holy Queen" quite a while ago and he made quite a few of those allegorical stretches.

Jordan Cooper said...

This is one of the best things I have heard from an RC apologist in a long time. Sungenis seems more honest than others in admitting that he does not need scriptural proof for dogma.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"Sungenis seems more honest than others in admitting that he does not need scriptural proof for dogma."

The Catholic Church has never taught that it has to find Scriptural proof for every dogma. It is mostly the former Protestants who have converted to Catholicism who feel they have to justify every doctrine and dogma with Scripture.

James Swan said...

Matthew,

You do realize that by aligning yourself with Sungenis on this point, you're directly attacking the positions of many professional Roman Catholic apologists like Madrid, Martignoni, Staples, etc.?

These men spend a significant amount of time interpreting the Old Testament exactly how Sungenis describes. Would you go on record, for instance, in saying those who interpret the Ark of the Covenant to be type for Mary are in error?

Ken said...

Those RC apologists do what Irenaeus said the Gnostics do:

Against Heresies,book 1, chapter 8, paragraph 1:

Chapter VIII.—How the Valentinians pervert the Scriptures to support their own pious opinions.

1. Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. In like manner do these persons patch together old wives’ fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma.

Rhology said...

I wonder if he'd extend that thinking to such ludicrous things as Mary as the woman of Rev 12?

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Bellisario said...

I am not aligning myself with or against anyone. Facts are facts. First, do you realize that Christians have been using the OT as a typological reference since the first centuries of the Church and beyond? Do you think all of those references to Christ that Christians make reference to in the OT were all there instantly in the first few years of the established Church? Or is it more likely that they developed over a period of time? Christians have developed OT typologies over the course of time.

I never said that there are no references or typologies that refer to Mary in the OT. Robert didn't say that either. He never mentioned the Ark typology did he? He specifically referred to Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and her Assumption. Robert is correct in that the OT does not explicitly support Our Lady's Immaculate Conception. In recent times Gen 3:15 has been used as a result of critical exegesis of the Biblical texts. As far as I can tell this typological reference does not date back to the early years of the Church. In this point I agree with Robert.

The other example however that you have questioned me on, which Sungenis did not mention, is found to be referenced to the early Church. The reference you made to Mary as being the Ark for instance, dates back at least to the 400s. The OT reference or typology used is Ps:131-8. (Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.) The reference to Mary as being referred to explicitly as the Women in the Apocalypse dates back to the 300s. Both of these OT typologies are supported from the early centuries of the Church.

James, I find it most troubling how you tried to extend Sungenis' statement from the specific references he provided, to other references that relate to Mary in the OT. Sungenis did not say that there are no references, did he? He said, "In actuality, the Old Testament doesn’t provide any factual evidence supporting these three Marian doctrines." Did he mention the others that you and your buddy Rhology brought up?

David Waltz said...

Hi Matthew,

You posted:

>> First, do you realize that Christians have been using the OT as a typological reference since the first centuries of the Church and beyond?>>

Me: Indeed; and perhaps even more importantly, one could say that typology was the primary hermeneutic of the apostles. I wonder how many realize that less than 1/3 of the OT quotations utilized in the NT by the apostles were used in a literal sense?

Once one understands and embraces Apostolic hermeneutical principles, one must modify the so-called “grammatical-historical” method—this is even demonstrated by some prominent Evangelical scholars (see THIS THREAD for examples and further reflection on this issue).


Grace and peace,

David

Rhology said...

The GHM includes typological interp, guys.

Jordan Cooper said...

Matthew- That is exactly the point I am making. The Roman church has not taught that it needs scriptural proof for every dogma. This is why I respect Sungenis more than many other former Protestant apologists. He actually believes what Rome teaches.

Jugulum said...

Rhology,

As a simplification, would you agree that GHM is about interpreting the meaning of the text, and typology is about applying that meaning?

GHM tells us what "out of Egypt I called my son" means--but not its typological application, which isn't about interpreting the text.

Rhology said...

Jugulum,

I guess you could put it that way, yes.
It's a different angle; what I meant was that the typological meaning is there and the GHM, correctly employed, sees it. They're not opposed to each other, as DavidWaltz seems to be saying.

Besides, one has to use the GHM to understand the meaning of the application too! :-)

Richard Froggatt said...

Where did Hahn or anyone else ever say that dogma's have to be scripturally founded?

Why put Sungenis at odds with them when they are not?

Sure, Hahn et al use typology concerning Mary, and they should be careful, but they can neither be proven wrong nor proven right, at least not in this lifetime. The worst one can do is disagree with the type based on a different application of a particular type. All Robert Sungenis has done is cautioned his peers, which is commendable.

David Waltz said...

Hello Rhology,

You said:

>>…what I meant was that the typological meaning is there and the GHM, correctly employed, sees it. They're not opposed to each other, as DavidWaltz seems to be saying.>>

Me: Hmmm…then the Ark as a type of Mary is an application of GHM ?

BTW, I never said in the post I linked to earlier that typological meaning and GHM are “opposed to each other”—what the EVs scholars I cited in the thread DID SAY is that the traditional GHM needed to be modified—perhaps you could critique them…

This IS what I said:

>> Now to the content; more precisely, the editors prolegomenon, which provides some insights into how they understand the relationship between apostolic hermeneutic/s and the “grammatical-historical literary method”.>>



Grace and peace,

David

Andrew said...

Richard,
I think the problem occurs when guys like Hahn, Madrid, etc...try and shoehorn RC tradition into bible passages that just don't contain the teaching in question. This seems to be done in an attempt to make the religion more palatable to Protestants. At least, that's how I usually see it. I appreciate that Mr. Sungenis (who despite some of his problems is, IMHO, one of the best Roman Catholic apologists out there) can just say plainly that those Marian dogmas are just not there. They are traditional and not scriptural.

David Waltz said...

Hello Andrew,

You wrote:

>>I think the problem occurs when guys like Hahn, Madrid, etc...try and shoehorn RC tradition into bible passages that just don't contain the teaching in question. This seems to be done in an attempt to make the religion more palatable to Protestants. At least, that's how I usually see it. I appreciate that Mr. Sungenis (who despite some of his problems is, IMHO, one of the best Roman Catholic apologists out there) can just say plainly that those Marian dogmas are just not there. They are traditional and not scriptural.>>

Me: IMO, there is a HUGE difference between saying that a DEVELOPED doctrine/dogma is not in Scripture explicitly, and saying that that a doctrine/dogma is in Scripture implicitly; for instance, try finding the explicit doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture—is it not there—however, the implicit material for the formulation of a DEVELOPED doctrine of the Trinity is there (at least to Trinitarians, though Arians and Socinians vehemently deny this). I think the thoughts of Dr. Brown are worth repeating:

“Three different figures, Father, Son, and Spirit, are brought into conjunction in the NT. Some NT formulas join the three; other references unite the Father and the Son; and still other references relate the Spirit to the Father and/or Son. Nevertheless, in no NT passage, not even in Matt. 28:19, is there precision about three divine Persons, co-equal but distinct, and one divine Nature—the core of the dogma of the Trintiy. Greek philosophy, sharpened by continuing theological disputes in the church from the 2nd to the 5th centuries, contributed to the classical formulation of the dogma. On the one hand one may say, the, that the precise Trinitarian dogma is not detectable in the literal sense of the NT, i.e., was not observably understood by first-century authors and audiences. On the other hand, reflection on NT texts played a crucial role in leading the church to the dogma to the dogma of three divine Persons and one divine Nature, a dogma that employed new terminology and embodied new insights as a response to new questions. There is no need to posit new revelation to account for the truth ultimately phrased in the trinitarian dogma, since that truth was already revealed when God sent Jesus Christ and when the risen Christ communicated his Spirit. Yet the development was not simply a matter of logic. In faith, one can claim that the Spirit guided the church as it moved from the NT triadic passages to perceiving and proclaiming the trinitarian dogma. Christians should not be embarrassed to affirm that they depend upon the Spirit’s guidance in such an essential dogma., for that guidance is really an application of Christ’s promise to be with his community and to send the Paraclete to guide them along the way of all truth…If ‘tradition’ implies that first-century Christianity already understood three coequal but distinct divine Persons and one divine Nature but had not developed the precise terminology, I would dissent. Neither the terminology nor the basic ideas had reached clarity in the first century; problems and disputes were required before the clarity came…Precisely because the ‘trinitarian’ line of development was not the only line of thought detectable in the NT, one must posit the guidance of the Spirit and intuition of faith as the church came to its decision.” (Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine, 1985, pp. 31-33 – bold emphasis mine.)



Grace and peace,

David

Alex said...

James, it is interesting how you expect us to treat and interact with fellow Catholic apologists in way you do not with your own White&Co team members. There is nothing wrong with taking our fellow apologists to task for things they have said or written, I just think that since you are requesting it, it might be well for you to do the same in your own camp.

Let's start seeing some blog articles aimed at the writings of White, Turretinfan, Rhology, and Triablogue here.

Louis said...

Sungenis wasn't being that specific, was he? It sounded as if he was addressing "analogies and allegories to prove Catholic dogma" in general. He then cites several Marian dogmas "for example". I don't read his point as being limited to those examples.

Richard Froggatt said...

Andrew, I appreciate your thoughts on this.

This is what Robert Sungenis said from the same source. Keep in mind also that the main point had to do with connecting the last supper with the Jewish Sedar meal.

Sungenis:
I’m not saying that it isn’t possible, rather, I’m only offering a few words of caution. Allegories can be good teaching tools, but more than often they can detract from the truth because they just don’t fit the historical events as precisely as the inventor wants them to fit.

Me:
IMO, analogies about Christ from the Old Testament can be objected to in the same fashion. In fact they are objected to by the Jewish religion. We accept those analogies only because we accept the Facts about Christ and we accept the New Testament as truth.

Rhology said...

David Waltz,

Hmmm…then the Ark as a type of Mary is an application of GHM ?

No, it would be an example of eisegesis.
I was referring more to, say, the parting of the Red Sea as a type of salvation and baptism.


I never said in the post I linked to earlier that typological meaning and GHM are “opposed to each other”—what the EVs scholars I cited in the thread DID SAY is that the traditional GHM needed to be modified—perhaps you could critique them…

Oh, sorry for missing that. Fair enough.



Alex,

Let's start seeing some blog articles aimed at the writings of White, Turretinfan, Rhology, and Triablogue here.

1) That would be a bad idea, since my arguments are bulletproof.
2) Do you think that we think that our church is infallible and that we have illusions of perfect ecclesiastical unity like your illusions? Hate to break it to you, but...

Alex said...

Rhology,

"2) Do you think that we think that our church is infallible and that we have illusions of perfect ecclesiastical unity like your illusions? Hate to break it to you, but..."

What in the world does this have to do with anything? I have to hold the belief that you consider your ecclesial body to be infallible in order for me to critique James’ request that he do the same as he asks us to do? Please explain the connection between the Magisterium of the Church in defining teachings, the writings of Catholic apologists, and “perfect ecclesiastical unity” as it fancies your mind in this rebuttal. Also, I’d be careful to not attribute to me any “illusion” that I have not espoused nor hold in your future rebuttals, unless you just enjoy beating on straw men.

Rhology said...

Alex,

What I'm saying is that whatever James' motivation to critique my writings, you should have MUCH more motivation, given Roman presuppositions. So you were trying to make excuses for your side's lack of self-policing by trying the "I'm rubber you're glue" argument, but it doesn't work b/c our side doesn't claim for itself what your side does.

Rhology said...

David Waltz,

and it is my sincere hope they will be as generous with me when I cite semi-liberal Protestant scholars on historical issues.

Why is that reasonable? Isn't it the RC position that you have all this unity and the truth on your organisation's side?
If you cite Elaine Pagels to me or sthg, why would I accept that? She's not part of my church; I would consider her a Christian in approximate zero ways. But R Brown is a bigshot theologian in good standing with your Magisterium, who apparently think he's A-OK.
The situation isn't analogous at all.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

*approximately

David Waltz said...

Hello Rhology,

You said:

>>Why is that reasonable? Isn't it the RC position that you have all this unity and the truth on your organisation's side?>>

Me: The Church on Earth has wheat and tares.

>>If you cite Elaine Pagels to me or sthg, why would I accept that? She's not part of my church; I would consider her a Christian in approximate zero ways.>>

Me: Pagels is neither Catholic nor Protestant, she is a Gnostic; and further, she is not semi-liberal, but liberal in the extreme sense—so, I am with you on this…

>>But R Brown is a bigshot theologian in good standing with your Magisterium, who apparently think he's A-OK.>>

Me: This is because, for all of his shortcomings, he does not deny official Catholic dogma (at least to my knowledge—if anyone has knowledge to the contrary please share).

>>The situation isn't analogous at all.>>

Me: That because you did not understand “the situation” I presented.


Grace and peace,

David

Alex said...

First of all I haven’t made any excuses for my side’s lack of self-policing. I had stated that if James is going to request us to do something, he should set the example for his own side. In line with the argument you have been giving so far, by self-policing I am to understand that it is my duty to address the errors of my fellow Catholics because my Church claims infallibility when it defines faith and morals, but because your ecclesial body does not claim infallibility when it defines faith and morals any protestant can espouse any error he likes and you simply do not have the duty to correct him. Or it might just be the unstated imaginative reality that no one in your group can possibly be in error according to the “self-policing” of those in your own group, and therefore you gentlemen are functionally infallible without so much as saying so.

Alex said...

"...you should have MUCH more motivation, given Roman presuppositions."

You should explain to me what these "Roman presuppositions" are instead of assuming that I even know what you are talking about.

Rhology said...

I had stated that if James is going to request us to do something, he should set the example for his own side.

OK, as long as you understand that the situation is not analogous, and given the same level of inaction, your side has far less excuse to continue in inaction.


by self-policing I am to understand that it is my duty to address the errors of my fellow Catholics because my Church claims infallibility

Yes b/c it claims infallibility. Three things total.
1) Your church claims infallibility.
2) Your church claims that its infallibility enables true understanding of doctrine and Scripture, whereas Scripture alone is unable to. So obviously we would expect to actually observe this correcting force in action.
3) Your church claims unity over and against the lame "30,000 denomination" argument.


any protestant can espouse any error he likes and you simply do not have the duty to correct him.

That's a load of bupkus. Let me encourage you to take a look at the most recent post on my own blog in which I seek to correct a "fellow" "evangelical".
My church practices church discipline.
My church also corrects other churches.
Finally, what do you think confessions are for?

And "Roman presuppositions" refers to RCC dogma. What else would it refer to?


David Waltz,

Christ's parable of wheat and tares refers not to the church but to the world.
Pagels was a bad example, you got me there. I should've just asked you for an example of one or two of these "semi-libs" you were considering. Once named, we'd just have to consider whether s/he does indeed deny official doctrine of my church. I suspect it will frequently be the case that they do.

Peace,
Rhology

Matthew Bellisario said...

Rhology said to David Waltz the following, "Christ's parable of wheat and tares refers not to the church but to the world."

Really? Where did you get your definitive interpretation from? St. Jerome and St. Augustine applied a symbolic interpretation of the text to the Church, and those within it, including pastors and bishops. Other Church Fathers and writers reference the passage as the sewing of heresies in the Church.

Saint Chrysostom disagrees with your strict interpretation as well, and he refers to heretics in the Church in his homily on this passage.

"Many of the prelates, I mean, bringing into the churches wicked men, disguised heresiarchs, gave great facility to the laying that kind of snare. For the devil needs not even to take any trouble, when he has once planted them among us."

Where did God tell you that this passage only refers to the world Rhology? Sources please.

Rhology said...

It's a great example of Scr's self-interpreting nature, Matthew.

Matthew 13:24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 “But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 “The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 “And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 “But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.


Other Church Fathers and writers reference the passage as the sewing of heresies in the Church.

Well, that would be an example of why we don't consider the CFs to be as authoritative or reliable as the Bible, now wouldn't it?


Peace,
Rhology

Matthew Bellisario said...

Rhology, once again we can why you are a Protestant. It is because you are truly ignorant of the Scriptures. It is plain to see that you don't understand the many levels of Sacred Scripture. Do you not understand symbolic interpretation? Did you even read my post? Evidently not. It is useless to even discuss anything with you because you don't read with any comprehension. The passage has more than one meaning, as demonstrated by the Saints of the Church. We can all see however that you know more than all of them put together.

Alex said...

Rhology: “OK, as long as you understand that the situation is not analogous, and given the same level of inaction, your side has far less excuse to continue in inaction.”

I don’t understand how the lack of analogy permits you to ignore error on your own side.


“Yes b/c it claims infallibility. Three things total.
1) Your church claims infallibility.
2) Your church claims that its infallibility enables true understanding of doctrine and Scripture, whereas Scripture alone is unable to. So obviously we would expect to actually observe this correcting force in action.
3) Your church claims unity over and against the lame "30,000 denomination" argument.”

1) Yes, and so how is this relevant to your decision to ignore error in your own group?
2) My Church claims that when it defines a doctrine, it does so infallibly. I don’t think you really understand the argument.
3) Once again, you do not seem to understand what the Church is stating when it claims unity.

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony." But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.


Rhology: “That's a load of bupkus. Let me encourage you to take a look at the most recent post on my own blog in which I seek to correct a ‘fellow’ ‘evangelical’.”

Is this what I had asked? No.

Rhology: “My church practices church discipline.
My church also corrects other churches.”

As does mine.

Rhology: “Finally, what do you think confessions are for?”

What do you think the Church’s councils, canons, and catechism is for?

Rhology: “And ‘Roman presuppositions’ refers to RCC dogma. What else would it refer to?”

The presuppositions could refer to whatever misguided understanding you might have of them. Therefore, you should probably spell them out so that we could possibly come to a better understanding of what you believe that you are talking about.

You have yet to show me how I might have a stronger obligation in correcting error on my side of the fence than you would on your side, but since it is the case that you do believe that we have a stronger obligation, I guess we should take that as a compliment and move on. A stronger obligation always rests upon the party with the higher calling.

Rhology said...

Alex,

It doesn't permit me to ignore it, but the onus on me is far less stringent than that on you and yours. Stop making excuses, just say "OK, on my honor I will correct other RCs when I see them make this lame argument" and I'll shut up.


2) My Church claims that when it defines a doctrine, it does so infallibly. I don’t think you really understand the argument.

I believe you're being oversimplistic. And how do you know when it "defines" a doctrine?


you do not seem to understand what the Church is stating when it claims unity.

My main point of reference for this is, as I already said, the counterpoint to the lame "30K denoms" argument.


As does mine.

RCC practices church discipline? When was the last time it did so?
And why do open dissenters like Pelosi and JF Kerry remain undisciplined?
Again, you don't want to go there.


What do you think the Church’s councils, canons, and catechism is for?

You've lost track of the argument at hand by this point.

Peace,
Rhology

Turretinfan said...

You have to love this:

Rhology writes: "Christ's parable of wheat and tares refers not to the church but to the world."

Bellisario responds: "Where did God tell you that this passage only refers to the world Rhology? Sources please."

Rhology responds: Matthew 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Bellisario responds: "Rhology, once again we can why you are a Protestant. It is because you are truly ignorant of the Scriptures."

LOL

Does this guy actually think before he writes?

Matthew Bellisario said...

We can also see that Turretin Fan doesn't get Scripture either. Did God tell you clowns that this interpretation is the only interpretation? Does God say there is no symbolic interpretations of Sacred Scripture. Once again, where does God tell you that that is the only, read, "ONLY", interpretation of the text?

Were all of these Church Fathers idiots, or maybe, just maybe, you two clowns are the idiots? Turretin Fan and Rhology are now telling us all that St Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom, among others, are stupid for interpreting this passage in this symbolic manner. They re chips off of the the old block. They follow their heroes like Luther well, they mock the Church Fathers and everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Rhology said...

Did I say they were stupid? Nope.

Did TFan? Nope.

Does Bellisario appear to be pretty angry, letting emotion cloud his thinking? Yep.

Just b/c one is fallible and wrong on one issue doesn't make you stupid. It just makes you wrong on that one issue. You asked if God had provided the answer. I showed you where. Now you're shifting the goalposts. Grow up. Move on.

Matthew Bellisario said...

OK, so now they are all wrong in interpreting the passage symbolically, is that your position?

Matthew Bellisario said...

The fact is, this Scripture can be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church. You are wrong in making your initial comment. Own up to it, and you sir, move on.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Come on Rhology, yes or no? Can the passage be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Oooops..Look what I found!

Hey, lets look at what John Calvin had to say about the wheat and the tares, shall we? I know it is hard to be proven wrong by one of your own, but here it is. Admit that you made an erroneous comment Rhology and maybe, just maybe, people will start to respect you.

"It is an appropriate comparison, when the Lord calls the Church his field, for believers are the seed of it; and though Christ afterwards adds that the field is the world, yet he undoubtedly intended to apply this designation, in a peculiar manner, to the Church, about which he had commenced the discourse."

This is from Calvin's commentary on these passages. Case closed; as usual, the facts prove that you both are wrong. Not only do the Church Fathers interpret it symbolically, as referring to the Church, but so does John Calvin. Rhology and TF undoubtedly will look for the nearest greasy spot to try and slither out of this one, but we all can see that they shot their mouths off before they did their research.

Rhology said...

Can the passage be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church?

Sure, it CAN be. The question is: Is it correct to do so?

And the answer is no, it can't.

And whoopie - you know how to read Calvin. MB, do you believe we consider Calvin to be infallible? Yes or no?

Alex said...

Rhology said: "MB, do you believe we consider Calvin to be infallible? Yes or no?"

Oh yes, this is the famous argument of "Nos es non infallible. Proinde, nos can exsisto in erroris."

Turretinfan said...

Bellisario wrote: "Does God say there is no symbolic interpretations of Sacred Scripture."

Uh ...

a) That's our line, for when folks irrationally take "This is my body" quasi-literally.

b) We've told you what the allegorical meaning of the field is: the allegorical meaning is "the world." We know that, because Jesus told us so explicitly, and that trumps John Calvin, or even Augustine, if they disagree.

Bellisario also wrote: "Were all of these Church Fathers idiots, or maybe, just maybe, you two clowns are the idiots?"

Which two of us: Jesus, Rhology, and Turretin all say the field is the world - so which two are you calling clowns?

Rhology said...

(Well, I'm certainly a clown, but I am right on this one.)

Matthew Bellisario said...

There can be more than one interpretation to Scripture passages. This is a perfect example. Rhology, it is you against your own Protestant hero Calvin, as well as the Church Fathers, who likewise applied this symbolic interpretation to this passage. I knew you would look for a greasy spot to weasel your way out. You failed, and you are wrong.

This is great. It is Rhology VS Calvin. They are both so sure that Scripture is plain and easy to understand, yet Rhology is telling us all that Calvin's interpretation here is wrong. What a joke. Who should we believe, you or Calvin?

Rhology said...

Jesus.

steve said...

Matthew Bellisario said...

"There can be more than one interpretation to Scripture passages."

So true. On the one hand, there's Bellisario's interpretation. On the other hand, there's the correct interpretation.

Richard Froggatt said...

The meaning of the verse in question is the Kingdom of God is analogous to the world. In that just as the world has wheat and tares so does the Kingdom of God. Hence the saying "the Kingdom of God can be compared to" Surely the Church is in the world, so yes, the verse can be applied to the Church just as much as the world.

It's rediculous to deny what every Protestant affirms when they reason with someone considering leaving a church because it's not filled with perfect people(read wheat).

Matthew has been saying all along that there is not "one only" interpretation, yet instead of conceding this point (on this particular verse) Matthew must be proven wrong, even at the expense of what experiece tells us is right.

Erwin Fleischer said...

It's rediculous to deny what every Protestant affirms when they reason with someone considering leaving a church because it's not filled with perfect people(read wheat).

But that is the wonderful thing about the protestant, they can just deny that the nonperfect church goer isn't really reformed.

Steve your comment equally applies to Calvin. It also equally applies to you.

Rhology said...

LOL, and RCs never, ever just deny that the imperfect churchgoer is really Roman Catholic?

Or deny that the guy who disagrees with RC dogma is really a Roman Catholic?

Matthew Bellisario said...

So Rhology, is your interpretation of this passage infallible? There is the one interpretation that you subscribe to, and all others are wrong, correct? Calvin was wrong, St. Augustine was wrong, St. Jerome was wrong, St. Chrysostom was wrong? Their interpretations were not infallible, but yours is, correct?

The we have Steve, in typical Protestant fashion, now making me the proponent of this symbolic interpretation. Steve said, "So true. On the one hand, there's Bellisario's interpretation. On the other hand, there's the correct interpretation." My interpretation? How about Calvin's interpretation and the Saint's interpretations? You are all frauds here. Who has the infallible interpretation? Rhology, Steve and Turretin Fan? But of course not Calvin or the Saints.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Hey Alex, where is James Swan? I figured he has the duty to correct his fellow Protestants here. After-all, isn't that the responsible thing to do? Maybe he agrees with them? If a fellow Catholic made an error like this they would surely want us to correct our brethren, no?
I doubt however that we will witness such an event today. In order to serve their Protestant cause, they must stick together on such issues.

Erwin Fleischer said...

LOL, and RCs never, ever just deny that the imperfect churchgoer is really Roman Catholic?

Or deny that the guy who disagrees with RC dogma is really a Roman Catholic?


Rhology grow up a bit, will ya?

We don't pretend to believe in the once saved always saved/nothing can cause me to lose my salvation canard that we hear from you.

beowulf2k8 said...

I thought you Prots found Mary in Isaiah 7 along with Jesus. I don't. I find the prophetess and Mahershalalhashbaz because I don't read Isaiah 7-8 in fantasy land.

Turretinfan said...

Bellisario asked: "So Rhology, is your interpretation of this passage infallible?"

Rhology's interpretation in this case is "the field is the world." This is the one infallible interpretation of the "field" that exists, not because Rhology said it but because Scriptures say it.

But your claim that the fathers thought that the field is something other than the world, is interesting. I notice that you haven't provided much documentation - just an ambiguous fragment from Chrysostom.

Irenaeus says: "The Lord, indeed, sowed good seed in His own field; and He says, "The field is the world." But while men slept, the enemy came, and "sowed tares in the midst of the wheat, and went his way." Matthew 13:28 Hence we learn that this was the apostate angel and the enemy, because he was envious of God's workmanship, and took in hand to render this [workmanship] an enmity with God." (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 40)

Augustine says: "He said, "The field is the world;" He said not, "The field is Africa."" (Letter 76)

"For the field is the world — not only Africa; and the harvest is the end of the world — not the era of Donatus." (Answer to Petilian the Donatist, Book III)

"For it is the Church which the Son of man has sown as good seed, and of which He has foretold that it should grow among the tares until the harvest. For the field is the world, and the harvest is the end of time." (Letter 93)

Jesus says: "the field is the world"

But Bellisario says: "Do you not understand symbolic interpretation?"

and: "You are all frauds here."

-TurretinFan

Alex said...

Turretinfan stated in response to Bellisario: "I notice that you haven't provided much documentation..."

I find it ironic that you are concerned with documentation. Why? You don't have a problem with asserting something and then not following it up with documentation as seen in the other post.

Interesting.

Turretinfan said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Alex.

David Waltz said...

Hello TF,

You wrote:

>>I notice that you haven't provided much documentation - just an ambiguous fragment from Chrysostom.>>

Hmmm…reminds of the old saying: “Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones.”

Allow me to refresh your memory…

In your attempt(s) depict St. Athanasius as one who “opposed” Liberius, you invoked a “fragment” (a fragment that some scholars believe to be spurious): “S. Hilar. Oper. Hist. Frag, vi.”.

In the same thread you wrote:

>>UPDATE: While we are at it, we might as well point out Hilary of Poitiers' reaction, described here by Henry Edward Manning:>>

Yet another error, the author of the piece that you cited, “as provided in the Church Quarterly Review, Volume 9, pp. 510-11 (1880)” was most certainly not Cardinal Manning; the anonymous writer was “reviewing” 4 books that pertained the Papacy, one of which was Cardinal Manning’s Petri Privilegium (the entire journal can be accessed HERE).

Though the most of the author’s “review” was pretty much yet another anti-Catholic diatribe, I did appreciate this portion (which is also in the quote you provided):

>>It is curious to read the gentle, forgiving, and compassionate language in which S. Athanasius himself speaks of this fall, dwelling in preference on the Pope's earlier confessorship (Ad Solitar.}, and then contrast it with the burning indignation of S. Hilary of Poitiers.>>


Grace and peace,

David

Turretinfan said...

David,

Thanks for your contribution. Your comments would be more appreciated if they were honestly couched, but your corrections are nevertheless appreciated despite the spirit in which they are offered.

You are right about the authorship of the article. That was my mistake. I've updated the article to correct the error.

-TurretinFan

David Waltz said...

Hello TF,

You wrote:

>>Thanks for your contribution. Your comments would be more appreciated if they were honestly couched, but your corrections are nevertheless appreciated despite the spirit in which they are offered.>>

Me: You are welcome TF. As for “honestly couched” comment, I honestly thought I was being totally honest. I also believe that the ‘style’ I used in my response was keeping in line with the general spirit/tone of the thread and combox. But, if I offended you, I apologize.

>>You are right about the authorship of the article. That was my mistake. I've updated the article to correct the error.>>

Me: Cool.

BTW, I have posted a rebuttal of sorts to the notion that the wheat and tares parable of Matt. 13 did not have the visible Church in mind. My thoughts on this matter are found in THIS THREAD. If you can have the interest and time, I would be interested in your thoughts…

Grace and peace,

David

Turretinfan said...

I'll try to find some time to carefully read your wheat/tares/church post.

You may have noted that one of my quotations above actually mentions the church:

"For it is the Church which the Son of man has sown as good seed, and of which He has foretold that it should grow among the tares until the harvest. For the field is the world, and the harvest is the end of time." (Letter 93)

Matthew Bellisario said...

This gets more amusing with each post. Now Rhology disappears and TF tries to come in with damage control. No sources? What about your buddy Calvin? Was he so stupid not to come to the conclusion that you guys have come to? Or do you all think that you are wiser and more in tune with Scripture than he was? He obviously didn't think that your interpretation was the ONLY interpretation. So much for your "Perspicuity of Scripture" series that you spent a whole week on TF. You Protesters can't even agree on this simple passage, let alone one concerning Baptism, the Eucharist and salvation. What a joke. Its the modern Protesters VS their forefathers.

Turretinfan said...

Matthew Bellisario:

You still haven't answered my question. Rhology, Jesus, and I agree that the field is the world. You called two of us "clowns" for that. Which two, and why not the third?

-TurretinFan

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF, can you read??? Did I say that your interpretation wasn't a legitimate one? You once again prove your dishonesty by trying to say that I said such a thing. I said it wasn't the ONLY one. Do you understand the difference? Or are you that dull? Jesus never said that there were not other symbolic interpretations that could be applied to the Scripture passage did He? You and your buddy Rhology said that. So don't include Our Lord in the list that subscribes to your private opinion about Scripture.

The clowns are the ones who have taken this passage and applied one strict interpretation to it. That list so far included no one except you and your buddy Rhology. Scripture has many levels of interpretation. Calvin at least understood that much. But since you and Rhology are the two infallible interpreters here, I guess we should just ignore everyone else who came before you two.


"It is an appropriate comparison, when the Lord calls the Church his field, for believers are the seed of it; and though Christ afterwards adds that the field is the world, yet he undoubtedly intended to apply this designation, in a peculiar manner, to the Church, about which he had commenced the discourse."

From your hero, John Calvin. The Protestant forefather who disagrees with you and your buddy Rhology.

Turretinfan said...

"The clowns are the ones who have taken this passage and applied one strict interpretation to it."

So, sticking with the interpretation Jesus gave is why you call us clowns?

"So don't include Our Lord in the list that subscribes to your private opinion about Scripture."

Jesus, Rhology, and I all agree what the passage means. You now say that some other interpretation is legitimate. Whose interpretation has divine authority, and whose interpretation is private opinion?

"Jesus never said that there were not other symbolic interpretations that could be applied to the Scripture passage did He?"

He doesn't have to do that, does he? Is it really necessary for Jesus to explicitly say every time, "and don't go interpreting my words other ways than the ways I explain them"?

-TurretinFan

bkaycee said...

I wonder if the literal interpretation of "world" is one of the possibilities out of the many for RC's?