|
A
point of clarity.
If the
sacred scriptures are to be held as an
authoritative text, someone has to be able to
interpret it with absolute authority. Otherwise, we
really are wasting our time debating whose interpretation is
accurate. Yours? Mine? His? Hers? (Did someone mention the sin of pride?).
No one
has that authority except the author,
the Church (by way of her divinely inspired writers).
The sacred scriptures (at least the NT) came from the Church,
not the reverse. The Church was established long before the
Bible was ever compiled as an anthology. In fact, as far as we
know....Jesus never said anything at all about writing matters down,
not the Gospels, not the epistles, nothing. (In fact...theoretically...the
Church could still exist without the Bible, and still have the same authority to
preach the Good News).
In
other words, the Bible emerged from the Church. It was
authored by (or at least through) the inspired members
of the Church. Therefore, only the Church has the
authority (and the Tradition) to interpret
the Bible.
Now...
it's quite possible that this is all bunk. (God help us if it is).
But,
if it is bunk...then once again... we are wasting our time debating
interpretations, for the Bible is, as I think Robert suggested, no more
significant than the writings of Orwell, Percy, or Weil. It's just another
interesting text.
Moreover, if the Church is mistaken and such things, I'm hardly
going to take my cues from anyone else.
In
short, either the RC Church has it right or she's full of crap.
I'm
placing my bets, as did Percy, that she's not full of crap.
Steve
|
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.