Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Can Allegory Prove the Papacy? - A Conversation About the Senses Of Scripture
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2022
- BENEATH ALL THE QUOTATIONS CAN BE FOUND
In this video I hope to add a contribution to the discussion regard the very nature of Holy Scripture's relationship to the dogma.
For, to ask a basic question, how do we prove dogma and our articles of faith? Can allegorical argumentation suffice for that? No, answers Western Christendom, from Saint Augustine, Jerome over Aquinas to the Reformers (as Johan Gerhard) and even the Counter-Reformers (such as Robert Bellarmine)
I hope that this addition to the conversation will spark some interested - Especially as it regards to the recent discussions about the papacy.
Aquinas Summa Theologici, Question 1, art. 10,
I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore, that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.
Reply Obj. 1: The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one-the literal-from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.
Augustine
So also those things which have been posited obscurely and wrapped in veils of metaphor ought meanwhile to be set aside and they can be interpreted according to our understanding and according to theirs. Indeed it is the task of clever men to judge and discern who might more credibly interpret these things, but we do not wish in this case to entrust in these contests of cleverness our argument which interests people.
De Unitate Ecclesia, chap. 5,9
In the same way, if they interpret something formulated obscurely and ambiguously to benefit their own opinion, if it is clear to us that it says something else there which resounds on our own behalf, what will be the end of this?
And yet not in such metaphors do I want us to seek the Church, although I do not see what else could be understood here. Meanwhile, let us set aside entirely those things that require interpretation of this sort; not because what is interpreted in this way from such metaphors is false, but, because they require an interpreter, I do not want our skills to be deployed in these activities. Revealed truth, however, shouts, shines, bursts forth on ears refusing to listen, strikes the eyes of dissemblers. Nobody seeks a place for his false opinions in these hiding places. Let it confound every attempt at contradiction; let it smite the brows of all the impudent.
Chapter 5
Perhaps he would say this is loftier to ascend over the setting sun than make it lie down at noon. These are mysterious, secret, symbolic; we beg of you something obvious that doesn’t need an interpreter.
Chapter 24
For what else is it than superlative impudence for one to interpret in his own favour any allegorical statements, unless he has also plain testimonies, by the light of which the obscure meaning of the former may be made manifest.
Aug., Ep. 93.8.24
For whenever a question arises on an unusually obscure subject, on which no assistance can be rendered by clear and certain proofs of the Holy Scriptures, the presumption of man ought to restrain itself
Aug., De pecc. merit. et remiss. 2.36.59
JEROME
The source Aquinas quotes from Jerome is found in his commentary on Matthew 13:33 which in Latin can be found in Migne’s 26th volume of the Patrologia Latina p. 92
This is a godly interpretation to be sure, but a doubtful understanding of a parable and an enigmatic saying can never advance the authority of dogmas
ROBERTO BELLARMINO
That said, we and our opponents are agreed that efficacious proofs should be sought only from the literal sense since the meaning that is gleaned directly from the words is surely the meaning of the Holy Spirit. The mystical and spiritual senses are diverse, and though beneficial, it is not always clear whether they are the intent of the Holy Spirit.
- De verbo dei book 3 chapter 3
I took a full grad course on the Senses of Scripture in St. Thomas and his commentators...would love to discuss this with you.
Sounds wonderful! We can set up a nice conversation on the topic. Our last discussion went very well
Hi Christian , would you recommend a UA-cam channel that teaches thomism , metaphysics etc at a basic level that I can build from there up . Because , i have no idea what you guys are saying half the time 🤣 all i hear is ' essence' ' substances ' and ' distinction' alot 🤣
@@conorspyridon7008 Try and look up some of the key terms online. This page is good to get an overview. You can use it to get an understanding of the key terms :)
plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
@@truthuntogodliness oh thank you very much sir ! I will do this 😇😇🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰
49:15 "This is a godly interpretation to be sure, but a doubtful understanding of a parable and an enigmatic saying can never advance the authority of dogmas". Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 13.33, [in:] Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C. 2008, p. 160.
Pius quidem sensus, sed numquam parabolae et dubia aenigmatum intelligenlia, potest ad auctoritatem dogmatum proficere. - in Latin from Migne’s 26th volume of the Patrologia Latina, p. 92
Thanks for the reference too!
Thank you for another great video! I hope your channel will flourish soon. Do you plan to comment on John Henry Newman's theory of the development of doctrine and how it is used by Roman Catholic apologists to defend Papal primacy and other controversial doctrines or practices?
Thanks for your kind words. I plan on doing that, but it will be in the semi-long future, hopefully later this year. I'd like to put much more effort and time of studies into that video as the topic really merits that. I think Newman's hypothesis is so important
@@truthuntogodliness Great news!
@@reformatorpoloniae btw feel free to share the channel around to help it grow :)
Great video! Thank you 🤗
I've always been annoyed by Luther's insistence on the single sense (literal, historical) and general rejection of the category of "4-fold sense"
If we take that too far, than the Old Testament has nothing whatsoever to say about Christ and only the literal, face-value narrative of the Jewish histories and laws. This is how we get Ken Ham and his obsession with the Ark but having virtually no clue about it's typological connection to the Church and the significance of the dove, the waters (BAPTISM), the eight saved through the 40 days/nights and the "singularly righteous" nature of Noah, the transformation of the earth, etc
Nope... it really happened and that's all there is to it. Very disturbing stuff, the Gospel is obscured.
Why do you think Luther rejected the usage of allegory? Luther uses allegory in most of his sermons and in many other of his writings
@@TheRedFox1995 I think (as usual, and thankfully) he's dreadfully inconsistent on the matter. He expressly condemns the High Middle Ages and the rhetorical preaching of that era of over-allegorization and lambasts the whole enterprise as playing monkey-business with the clear, literal sense of the text.
In practice, he didn't put his actions where his mouth was and preached Christ from the Old Testament -- because it's absurd not to.
@@vngelicath1580 I'm not at all sure that Luther ever rejected or even expressed disdain for allegory wholesale? For sure he condemn its excess but not any more than that?
Have you thought about inviting Suan Sonna on to talk about his case for the papacy from scripture.
Yes I have :) he and I have been talking about that quite a bit
@@truthuntogodliness Would be a great episode. I am from Cyprus and entering the Roman Catholic church very soon. I very much enjoyed your perspective and your discussion with Erik Ybarra.
@@angelosioannides8382 Thank you :) Erick is a wonderful man, indeed. While I'd obviously strongly advice against coming into communion with the Roman Catholic Church then I hope that God may use that, if that ends up happening, to lead you ever deeper into His truth!
@@truthuntogodliness thank you! Likewise.
the word "conversation" usually involves two people. The title should have been more appropriately called a "monologue".
He's talking to us, the audience. A discussion may be slightly more accurate though even that has overtones of twoness
@@vngelicath1580 how does he know anyone is watching?
I can see the views, also I engage a lot of hypothetical questions in this video, which are nothing else than common push back from the other side. Therefore, by engaging them, I think indeed that this is a conversation:)