/ Topic > Da Hermeneutical Church???!!! / Date > 19 July 1998 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, tnn.religion.catholic /
.
] On 13Jul98, textman wrote: Wut? The organization? You mean the Church? Christ set it up to do what?
] To interpret the Bible? That's what the church is for? Hermeneutics? Well! Now I've heard everything!
.
> Theodore M. Seeber wrote: Of course that's what the Church is for. Don't need it for anything other than that. -- Ted
.
 Dear Ted, surely you jest? ... ha ha? ... Yes, funny? ... I mean, no one could seriously believe such a proposition ...
Could they? ... If so, please explain this very bizarre thing please!

/ Topic > The Church teaches.....Intepretation of Scripture / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / From > "GRB" <sarc@sprynet.com> / Date > 27 Aug 1998 /
.
 Futhermore, to keep undiscipined minds under proper control, the council decrees that no one should dare to rely on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals affecting the structure of Christian doctrine and to distort Sacred Scripture that holy Mother Church has held and now holds; for it is her office to judge about the true sense and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Nor should anyone dare to interpret Sacred Scripture contary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers, even though such interpretations are never going to be published. -- Council of Trent, 4th session, April 1546
.
 However, the norms for the interpretation of divine Scripture which, to good purpose, were decreed by the holy Council of Trent with a view to restaining undisciplined minds are being explained in distorted sense by certain men. Therefore, We renew the same decree and declare that this is its meaning: in matters of faith and moral affecting the structure of Christian doctrine, that sense of Sacred Scripture is to be considered as true which holy Mother Church has held and now holds; for it is her office to judge about the true sense and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, therefore, no one is allowed to interpret Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense nor contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. -- Vatican Council, April 24, 1870
.
 The Bible says: Understand this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost - 2 Peter 1:20-21
.
 As also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction -- 2 Peter 3:16
.
 "Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy: deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man." -- Psalm 42:1

/ Re: The Church teaches.....Intepretation of Scripture / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 30 Aug 1998 /
.
> On 27Aug98 GRB wrote: <snip> in matters of faith and morals affecting the structure of Christian doctrine,
> that sense of Sacred Scripture is to be considered as true which holy Mother Church has held and now holds;
> for it is her office to judge about the true sense and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, therefore, no
> one is allowed to interpret Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense ... - Vatican Council, April 24, 1870 <snip>
.
 Dear GRB, are you looking for a fight? Or are you just trying to get my goat, eh? Perhaps you are in dire need of a sound thrashing, yes? That would be my guess. I also notice that you like to hide behind carefully selected quotes; after the manner of that swinehoount D.P. So you're attracted to the Church's once and former doctrine regarding biblical interpretation, I see. Yes, and it was adequate in the days of the fortress mentality, and intended to counter the errors of the Protestant Reformation ... LOL. Oh, but we are no longer in the Reformation period; are we? No; and the Church has much modified its views regarding the whole area of hermeneutics, oh yes. Indeed, John Paul II's various bible-related writings are most impressive in many ways. Perhaps you should seek them out ... although I suspect that they may not be very palatable to your reformation age mindset and affections. Woe and Alas! Some Cats have to be dragged (kicking and screaming) out of the past, and into the 21st century. This is the post-modern era, GRB ... And welcome to it!

/ Topic > Re: Genesis 3:15 and scripture interpretation / Date > 9 Dec 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> JasonTE wrote: The Catholics in this forum claim that we should let the RCC interpret the scriptures
> for us, yet the RCC is known to have erred in its scripture interpretations. <much snippage>
> Obviously, Jesus and the apostles said nothing about us needing a denomination in Rome to interpret
> the scriptures for us. And, obviously, the RCC has proven that it's not reliable as an interpreter of scripture.
> -- Jason   http://members.aol.com/jasonte
.
 Dear Jason, very well argued. I was not aware of this Genesis 3:15 business, thx. Your conclusion is also dead on. It seems clear that the Spirit of Truth was given to also help us understand scripture, but the RCC would much rather keep hermeneutical authority within the hands of the bishops so that they may be sure that the scriptures are always in agreement with the *vastly* more important episcopal teachings ... This inability to see beyond the self-serving interests of the cult necessarily means that the Church is unfit to interpret scripture; but, on the other hand, there are many individual Catholic scholars not connected to the Magisterium who are able to treat the Scriptures with at least some small modicum of respect.

/ Re: REPLY TO TROLL (WAS: Re: God's mother is Mary) / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 6 Aug 1998 /
.
> somebody wrote about the chief troll: For this NG: Somebody posting anti-catholic rhetoric that
> has been refuted a million times already, but who still continues to repost the same stuff over
> and over again, until everybody is sick and tired of seeing their name pop up. Most such people
> get killfiled by everybody, eventually.
.
kirnercorp answers: then why is it necessary to demand goodness, "otherwise thou also shalt be cut off"?
just wondering
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 6 Aug 1998 / Topic > Re: REPLY TO TROLL (WAS: Re: God's mother is Mary) /
.
> Peter M. Dyga wrote: You trying to ascribe fault to the Church based on the sins
> or malpractice of its members is a little silly don't you think?
.
kirnercorp answers:  no
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 7Aug98 / Re: REPLY TO TROLL (WAS: Re: God's mother is Mary) /
.
] On 6Aug98, kirnercorp wrote: then why is necessary to demand goodness, "otherwise
] thou also shalt be cut off"? just wondering
.
> Theodore M. Seeber wrote: Mainly because we're tired of answering the stupid questions, and wish
> somebody would break through the mess with something NEW, or even at least an attitude of
> showing a willingness to learn. We don't care if you convert you, we just would like it if you'd bow
> out gracefully after losing a theological argument instead of posting anti-catholic insults.
> Ted mailto: seebercell@bigfoot.com
.
kirnercorp replies:  But Ted, I don't recall that the chief troll ever lost a theological argument. Did he? Nor is everything he posted full of anti-catholic insults. Did you ever even once talk to him? Or try to convince him that he is wrong? No? Then why did you kick him out of usenet?

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 11Aug98 / Subject: Re: REPLY TO TROLL (WAS: Re: God's mother is Mary) /
.
] On 7Aug98, kirnercorp wrote: But Ted, I don't recall that the chief troll ever lost a theological argument.
.
> On 7Aug98 Theodore M. Seeber wrote: That's because for about 6 months now,
> nobody's been arguing with him.
.
] Did he?
.
> Yes, many times. He often lies about the Bible, but more importantly, he denies the one
> essential truth of Catholicism that makes all of his arguments invalid: The right of the
> Church to interpret the scripture the Church created. <snip remainer of article>
.
kirnercorp replies: Now this is an interesting observation, to be sure; and a very important matter in any case. When you say 'the right of the Church to interpret ...' you really mean the *exclusive* right of the bishops. Yet they are the very ones who deny EVERYBODY else the right to interpret. The error in all this is plain for all to see: the bishops are NOT 'the Church'; they are only a small PART of all the churches (who together comprise the People of God). In fact, the Church also includes religious and laity; and some of these are bible scholars and church historians whose business it is to interpret scripture for the benefit of all the churches. They do not place themselves above and beyond the Sacred Scriptures; but the bishops lord it over the Word of God as they lord it over the People of God. Tyrants one and all, they are! They *always* interpret the scriptures to their *own* benefit. Never honestly, never impartially, never objectively, never historically; but always ALWAYS in support of their authority, and their priestly vision of all things! ... And then they dare to say that *they* are the ONLY ones who can VALIDLY understand scripture, and that the entire People of God must run to them to know what the Word of God *really* means!!!
.
 Well, here's a news flash for you: the bishops do NOT have an exclusive monopoly on the Spirit of Truth! Others have also been inspired to correctly understand the meaning and purpose of the sacred scriptures. The history of biblical scholarship clearly demonstrates the truth of all this; as does church history in general. The fact that the bishops are simply unable to accept this simple historical factoid, also clearly demonstrates that they are generally incompetent in the realm of hermeneutics, and that Christians place their faith in them at their mortal peril!

ON READING IT THIS WAY & THAT

> On 9Sept98 Sly wrote in arcrc: <snip> Not that I have 'attacked' your message, however,
> this requires a reply. Many here (if not the majority) do read the bible,
.
  Dear Sly, I tend to agree. Most Cats ARE exposed to the Bible's contents on a regular basis; if they attend church as canon law directs. And if they pay attention to the readings, so much the better. However, it is often the case that the lector reads not with conviction; neither does s/he remember for long what was read. In the same way, it is often the case that the following homilies are NOT designed to explain and expound the teachings of the Scriptures, but rather are meant to entertain and - incidentally - to 'make a point' (of something or other).
.
> and oddly enough come up with a different interpretation.
.
  There is nothing the slightest bit odd about this. Apparently, no two people read the Bible in quite the same way. This is why so many look to the Magisterium, as to a stable and consistent source, for reliable and authoritative expositions of difficult and troublesome passages. Alas, the episcopal vision of the Sacred Text is also shaped and directed by, how you say, "vested interests". They have NO motivation whatsoever to allow the text to speak for itself. Rather, everything therein MUST conform to the priestly vision of all things. ... Which, btw, is not always even Christian (which is to say: biblical). Think about it.
.
> We read the verses and don't come to the same conclusion as you.
.
  No kidding! This is because few people are able to empty themselves of hidden and explicit agendas; of their personal beliefs and ideas of what the Bible is, and what it's for, and who has the right to understand them aright, and who has the authority to truthfully teach the necessary and awesome revelations contained therein. One need only explore the world of biblical scholarship to see that no two scholars are of like mind on all matters pertaining to any one book. Nor should we be surprised at this; for the world of the Sacred Text is rich and abundant beyond measure. And no one person can possibly comprehend it all in all its boundless fullness.
.
> If I may say, the Roman Catholic Church interprets not via individuals but through the
> collective wisdom of the Magisterium in conjunction with scholars and theologians.
.
  Yes, many individuals serve the interests of the clergy and the vast impersonal machine that hides individuals behind a foggy shield known as 'the Collective'. Alas, the Collective is merely an aggregate of individuals, and the 'wisdom' thus gathered is merely a mountain of 'purified' and de-individualized opinions that are in harmony with the priestly vision of all things.
.
> Any conclusion is well thought out, both scholarly and prayerfully.
.
  Yes, it must be made to fit the Lie, else it is useless.
.
> I have yet to actually find how Scripture contradicts the doctrines of the Roman
> Catholic Church or its various traditions.
.
  My dear Sly, since you obviously have no interest in conducting such an enterprise in a thorough and exhaustive manner, it is hardly surprising that any such contradictions and confusions as may be therein will not jump up and bite your tushy for you.
.
> At the days end any written text is interpreted differently,
.
 This is because we all bring to the text the sum total of who we are, and all that we know. This is WHY it is so VERY important to humble ourselves before the text and ALLOW it to speak to us as the very LIVING Voice of our Lord (rather than a dead thing preserving ancient and unenlightened thoughts and teachings).
.
> be that Shakespeare or the Bible (I am not denying that the Bible is inspired, or
> even suggesting it is on the same level as Shakespeare).
.
 Of course not. It would be very silly to do so. However, this is not to say that the Bard himself was not - on occasion - sparked by the same 'divine madness'.
.
> We each come to our own conclusions, yet we must be responsive to the collective wisdom of a/the
> Church. Many here profess a Catholic faith, others Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Pentecostal -
> whatever denomination, we must firstly seek to understand more fully our own beliefs and then
> enter into dialogue (stress dialogue) with others. In this way we all learn and grow.
.
  Dialogue is very difficult to do when Cats have ALL the answers before word one is even broached ... But besides all that, the sacred scriptures are not something that we can or should dialogue about. Rather they are something that we all MUST OBEY. Yes, your very life depends on it!
.
> It is unwise to take Scripture and apply only the Scriptures to it.
.
  It is not unwise. It is simply impossible. The dead letters of the text only come alive when thoroughly mixed with a contrite and receptive heart. This the bishops do not know. Thus they serve not the Truth, as they claim; but rather use and abuse the uncomplaining text to make it preserve their own power and authority over the hearts and minds of the People of God.
.
> God has given us all the power of reason.
.
 Reason alone is VERY insufficient! The Faith is not about reason. It is about Faith. Not faith in bishops and priests. Not faith in the imaginary collective called "Church". But rather faith in Christ Jesus, our Lord and Master and Teacher and Brother. Yes, reason is a small and puny thing; especially when it knows not its true place in the scheme of things.
.
> With reason we can apply history, tradition, present insights and revelation to the text.
.
 And with reason we can ALSO twist history into any shape we desire; or fix Tradition so that all accords with our assumptions and pre-conceptions, so that we may present lies and fables and fantasies as truth, and insert any distortions we fancy into the text.
.
> We must all be conscious of a verse and its message, but we must equally be conscious of its context.
.
  Ah, yes. Well, that IS the tricky part, is it not? What is the 'proper context'? Many Cats assume that the proper context is nothing other than the Church itself; which is to say: the priestly vision of all things. Others suppose that the proper context is nothing other than the Bible itself. Both views are wrong, of course. There is only one proper context for each and every verse and passage found in the Bible. And that context is Christ Jesus, the Living Word of Power & Truth & Life!
.
> This is particularly true of the Book of Revelations - it is a dreams sequence, a symbolic
> representation of events in the mind of the writer John.
.
 Excuse me? Did you say "the writer John"? Are you not aware that John was not a writer? [His truly and excessively horrendous and barbaric Greek is more than ample proof of this!] Are you not aware that John WAS a prophet; and that what he teaches us through visions and symbolism is the truth of things; the shape of things that were, and are, and are to come?
.
> This does not lessen its value, but it does call us to be aware of the genre and style.
.
 The genre and style is that of apocalyptic prophecy (ie. prophetic literature). Which, of course, is something well beyond the soothing and intelligible boundaries of the narrow black box of reason.
.
> The Catholic Church (amongst many) has always encouraged its faithful to read
> and examine the Bible with an open mind,
.
 An open mind, you say? I think maybe not. Independent thought is the last thing that the clerical ones want. Rather, they want conformity to their interpretations and understandings of what the scriptures are *really* saying. This is what it means to be a Catholic. BTW, you really should examine church history more carefully to see just how many times your 'always' gathers huge gaping holes.
.
> allowing God to enlighten us through revelation and the use of the human intellect.
.
 Is there no place for the human heart in this over-simplified hermeneutical program of yours?
.
> It is dangerous to apply only one of these.
.
 The Bible has always been a dangerous and subversive menace. This is why the Church has always been only too glad to keep The Book out of the hands of those 'untrained' or 'unfit' to 'properly' read it! ... Read the life of William Tyndale, why don't you; if you want to see what became of those who wished to put the Word into the hands of all true believers.
.
> The greatest danger with any Bible quoting, is as I mentioned before and in
> other posts, is taking Scripture out of context.
.
 Oh, I couldn't possibly agree more! Now please tell it to those whose favorite hobby seems to be composing
fanciful lists of fascinating biblical snippets.
.
> We must be wary of applying, say St. Paul's letters to the Book of Revelations as they
> were written at different times, to different people, in a different style, for a different purpose
.
 The purpose of both is to lead Christians to the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
.
> and at a particular point in a spiritual journey. Are we to just ignore these  factors?
.
 Certainly not.
.
> These are all part of being human are they not?
.
 No. They are all part of being a true and loyal disciple of Jesus.
.
> And God became one of us did he not?
.
 Revelation reached its perfection ONLY in Christ.
.
> To finish, you use the passage about the women and the dragon to say that the Roman
> Catholic Church is the 'whore' (Rev 12). Here is a brief alternative position just to illustrate
> difference. Mary has always been held as the symbol of the Church.
.
 Would you include 'The Shepherd of Hermas' in this "always" of yours?
If so, then you have a lot of explaining to do.
.
> The dragon as you say is the devil and rightly interpreted. He does chase her, she being
> Mary the symbol of the Church. Indeed the devil did not defeat her and ancient Christian
> tradition says she was sinless
.
 Then she was not a human being, but rather, something else again.
.
> (so this passage can speak the 'truth' about this). So what does the devil do? He goes after
> her children; what better way to attack her and her Son but by attacking their children. Just
> a very brief interpretation,
.
 Yes, and not a very convincing one either, I might add.
.
> but maybe that illustrates how there can be many interpretations.
.
 I'm sure there are much better ways to illustrate such an obvious and perennial fact of biblical life.
.
> (for another example think of the Arian heresy, it used Scripture 'truthfully' to
> explain itself, yet it was wrong).
.
 Many good Christians of that generation did not think it was wrong. They were willing to shed their blood to demonstrate that it was
not wrong. In their hearts they were not the heretics. It is only in retrospect that we can know their error as error (ie. as opinion).
.
> Hmm, this went on a bit longer than I thought :)
.
 Isn't that always the way of it?  :)
.
> Oh well. Just some thoughts, but I think we must be wary of coming to any conclusions on our
> own without any reference to both history, tradition and context - especially if we are going to
> label our subjective findings 'truth'.   :)
.
  Well, OK; if you say so. But history, tradition and context together make for one mighty big ball of wax! It takes imagination,
passion, and endless determination to make a sensible structure out of those unruly materials. Who has the time or energy to
sort through that tangled and chaotic mess?

/ Re: A Critique of Fundamentalist Biblical Interpretation / 12Jan99 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> aquinasophile quotes from “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” by The Pontifical Biblical
> Commission, 1993: Section F. Fundamentalist Interpretation - Fundamentalist interpretation starts
> from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, is inspired and free from error,
.
 textman answers: Here is what sets the prophet apart from his fundy brothers and sisters: while I do agree that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, I most certainly cannot accept the notion that it is 'error-free'. Nor do I think it any great piety to claim that it is. On the contrary, since it is obvious that many errors have crept into the text over the centuries, it would be futile and ridiculous to hold to this silly error-free doctrine.
.
> should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands
> a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding
> the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development.
.
 A literal interpretation can never stand on its own in any case. On the other hand, the Church of Satan uses the 'historical origins' approach to its own ends. This is done in two ways: 1) the text is made to fit the Church's understanding of early church history, rather than the other way round. And 2) the historical approach invalidates any attempt to apply scripture to the post-modern world. As to point one: If the text of the NT provides some clue or evidence that runs contrary to the Church's grand design of how early church history unfolded, then it is ignored or dismissed or re-interpreted until it fits the model. Thus Luke was written before John because it is placed third in the canon. Thus James is an early Jewish-Christian document, and therefore of no relevance whatsoever. etc, etc. As to point two: The historical approach shows us that the prophet John was talking about things that obtained in his day. Thus the Beast refers to Caesar Nero AND ONLY to him. Thus the Whore of Babylon refers to the Roman Empire, and in no sense can it be applied to the apostate and corrupt Woman-Catholic Church of Canada. ETC
.
> It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historico-critical method, as indeed to the use
> of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.
.
 The reason for this rejection, however, is not so easy to dismiss. Fundies reject scientific exegesis because, for the most part, these interpreters do not have anything that even remotely resembles faith in Jesus, let alone sufficient respect for the text. On this point my sympathies are entirely with the fundies. They are right to suggest that those lacking faith are necessarily incapable of properly reading the text. Therefore this 'scientific' hermeneutics is fundamentally flawed right from the get go. ... On the other hand, there are fundies that do recognize the value of scientific exegesis, provided it is conducted by a faithful exegete who always demonstrates copious respect for the Word of God.
.
> The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a
> concern for the fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture.
.
 Yes. And such a concern was long overdue, I might add!
.
> After the century of the Enlightenment, it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
.
 Because liberal exegetes tend to distort & corrupt the intended meaning that the inspired authors gave to their writings.
.
> The actual term 'fundamentalist' is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held
> at Niagara, New York in 1895. At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five
> points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture;
.
 Which I do deny.
.
> the divinity of Christ;
.
 Which I do affirm.
.
> his virginal birth;
.
 Which I do deny.
.
> the doctrine of vicarious expiation;
.
 Which is both theologically and historically doubtful in the extreme. Deny.
.
> and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ.
.
 An apocalyptic fantasy of no real value or lasting relevance. Deny.
.
> As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise
> to other ways of interpretation – equally "literalist" – in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America.
> As the twentieth century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more
> adherents, in religious groups and sects, and also among Catholics.
.
 The reason being, of course, that people are searching for faith and conviction, not for those who have the most logically consistent and rationalized hermeneutics. On the other hand, many Catholics much rather prefer a spiritual interpretation of the text; especially when it comes to texts as 'literally' scandalous as the Song of Songs. ... To textman's radical hermeneutics, such a way of reading the Song is nothing less than an abomination!
.
> Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God,
.
 Do you catch that? A good and faithful Catholic must *affirm* the inerrancy of scripture!!!
... Sayeth the prophet: "Oy Vey!"
.
> and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting
> these truths is rooted in ideology that is not biblical,
.
 That is, in an ideology that does not mesh well with the priestly vision of all things!
.
> whatever the proponents of this approach might say.
.
 In other words, the Magisterium knows what Fundamentalism is better than those who *are* fundies!
... How's that for priestly logic?
.
> For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only
> source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible that rejects all questioning
> and any kind of critical research.
.
 Uh huh. Right. Just as the Catholic hierarchy demands an unshakable adherence to its rigid doctrines and fantasies; including those about how the Bible came to be. In the same way, prior to the twentieth century, the Cats ALSO rejected "all questioning and any kind of critical research". If you don't believe me, just look into the Church's handling of the early Modernists (eg. Loisy and Tyrrell). That ought to give you a good indication of what the Church thought - and still thinks! - of free and critical thinking!
.
> The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account
> the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the
> incarnation itself.
.
 A darn good point, to be sure. Without an equal respect for the historical process we are simply unable to fully grasp the implications of God's perfect revelation in Christ Jesus. On the other hand, the Church of Satan hardly abounds with respect for History OR Scripture ...
.
> As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine
> and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human
> language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors
> possessed of limited capacities and resources.
.
 Hence my affirmation that scripture is NOT inerrant!
.
> For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word-for-word by the Spirit.
.
 A truly ridiculous notion.
.
> It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression
> conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human
> ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process
> extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
.
 In other words, Scripture is a dynamic spiritual reality, constantly changing and growing to meet the needs of newer and stranger generations of Readers. Any attempt to fix the Word of God - "in stone", as it were - is necessarily bound to fail. In the same way, the Woman-Church's rejection of Scripture because it is anachronistic, patriarchal, and misogynistic is equally misguided and futile.
.
> Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts,
> especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes
> material that from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is
> reported or recounted with verbs from the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the
> possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
.
 The diversity of literary forms is often tough to grasp. The Book of Jonah, for example, is clearly a work of fiction, but many still read it as though it were a straightforward historical account. Many wrongly suppose that by denying its status as fiction, they demonstrate a greater piety or respect for the text. In fact, True Believers are driven to acknowledge the presence of fiction and myth in scripture because Truth and Reality compel us to it!
.
> Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the
> biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one
> fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token, it fails to take account of the
> "rereadings" (relectures) of certain texts that are found within the Bible itself.
.
 There is, of course, no such thing as 'a perfect translation'. The Bible is not a finished product; neither is it complete. Much work remains to be done on the earliest surviving copies, and our understanding of the ancient languages constantly grows and improves, shedding new light on the meaning of ancient words, phrases, and literary types. Moreover, new translations will always be required to meet the changing needs of evolving cultures and languages.
.
> In what concerns the gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of
> the gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists
> have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).
.
 The Romish Church also practices such 'confusion'; especially when it is in her interest to do so.
.
> At the same time, fundamentalism neglects an important fact: the way in which the first Christian
> communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message.
> But it is precisely there that we find witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its
> direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the gospel itself.
.
 As does the Church of Satan ...
.
> Fundamentalism, likewise, tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of
> an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any
> dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a
> noncritical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes
> that are marked by prejudices – racism, for example – quite contrary to the Christian gospel.
.
 Thus the Church's critical readings of the Bible allow it to be superseded by the "greater wisdom" of the episcopal teachings (which they fancy is just as much the Word of God as Scripture)!
.
> Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone", fundamentalism separates the interpretation
> of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with
> Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form
> within the Christian Church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this Church, the existence of which
> preceded the composition of texts.
.
 By "this Church" the document means the Roman Catholic Church; which is the only church that really matters. In point of historical fact, however, there never was "the Christian Church" but only a bunch of small and independent local churches. It was these very unhomogenous early Greek churches that gave birth to the various documents that were later collected into a 'canon'. The Romish Church did not make the Bible. Neither do her 'traditions' supersede the truth as given in the Word of God.
.
> Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church;
.
 No. Fundies are anti-Catholic because they can plainly see what Cats cannot. Namely, that the Romish Church is in no way faithful to the traditions of the Apostles; neither does her faith bear any resemblance to the Faith of the early Greek-speaking Christians. One has only to read the Book of James to note the dramatic contradictions between Romish faith and the Faith of the NT (4X: favoritism and double-mindedness are sins in the NT, but virtues to the Woman-Church).
.
> it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines, and the liturgical practices which
> have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the Church itself.
.
 That is, they do not bend over and happily allow priests to sodomize them (literally and figuratively).
.
> It presents itself as a form of private interpretation that does not acknowledge that the
> Church is founded on the Bible and draws life and inspiration from Scripture.
.
 That's because fundies are well aware that the Church of Satan is NOT founded on the Bible, but rather on the priestly vision of all things. Neither does it draw life and inspiration therefrom, but rather it seeks to present the Word of God as seen through the distorting lenses of self-serving episcopal teachings. That is, insofar as Scripture can be used to serve the Church and her priests, it is acceptable. But insofar as Scripture criticizes and admonishes Church and priests, it is unacceptable. This is why the Magisterium insists so strongly that only bishops are fit to properly interpret Scripture for ALL the People of God!
.
> The fundamentalist approach is dangerous,
.
 To Satan and his loyal priests and priestesses ...
.
> for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of
> life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory,
.
 Granted.
.
> instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate
> answer to each and every problem.
.
 That's right. Life is not that simple.
.
> Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind
> of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine
> substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
.
 The Romish Church is, of course, well beyond all such limitations. Therefore all her interpretations are infallible.
.
... Sure they are!