Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Pope Benedict on Exegesis

One thing which I believe is a cause of "concern" — in the positive sense of the word — to all of us, is the fact that future priests and other teachers and preachers of the faith must receive a good theological training; we therefore need good theological faculties, good major seminaries and qualified theology teachers who not only impart knowledge but inculcate in students an intelligent faith so that faith becomes intelligence and intelligence, faith.

In this regard, I have a very specific wish.

Our exegesis has progressed by leaps and bounds. We truly know a great deal about the development of texts, the subdivision of sources, etc., we know what words would have meant at that time.... But we are increasingly seeing that if historical and critical exegesis remains solely historical and critical, it refers the Word to the past, it makes it a Word of those times, a Word which basically says nothing to us at all; and we see that the Word is fragmented, precisely because it is broken up into a multitude of different sources.

With Dei Verbum, the Council told us that the historical-critical method is an essential dimension of exegesis because, since it is a factum historicum, it is part of the nature of faith. We do not merely believe in an idea; Christianity is not a philosophy but an event that God brought about in this world, a story that he pieced together in a real way and forms with us as history.

For this reason, in our reading of the Bible, the serious historical aspect with its requirements must be truly present: we must effectively recognize the event and, precisely in his action, this "making of history" on God's part.

Dei Verbum adds, however, that Scripture, which must consequently be interpreted according to historical methods, should also be read in its unity and must be read within the living community of the Church. These two dimensions are absent in large areas of exegesis.

The oneness of Scripture is not a purely historical and critical factor but indeed in its entirety, also from the historical viewpoint, it is an inner process of the Word which, read and understood in an ever new way in the course of subsequent relectures, continues to develop.

This oneness itself, however, is ultimately a theological fact: these writings form one Scripture which can only be properly understood if they are read in the analogia fidei as a oneness in which there is progress towards Christ, and inversely, in which Christ draws all history to himself; and if, moreover, all this is brought to life in the Church's faith.

In other words, I would very much like to see theologians learn to interpret and love Scripture as the Council desired, in accordance with Dei Verbum: may they experience the inner unity of Scripture — something that today is helped by "canonical exegesis" (still to be found, of course, in its timid first stages) — and then make a spiritual interpretation of it that is not externally edifying but rather an inner immersion in the presence of the Word.

It seems to me a very important task to do something in this regard, to contribute to providing an introduction to living Scripture as an up-to-date Word of God beside, with and in historical-critical exegesis. I do not know how this should be done in practice, but I think that in the academic context and at seminaries, as well as in an introductory course, it will be possible to find capable teachers to ensure that this timely encounter with Scripture in the faith of the Church — an encounter on whose basis proclamation subsequently becomes possible — can take place.

-Pope Benedict XVI, "Audience with the Bishops of Switzerland," 7 November 2006.
Complete text available from EWTN.

Labels:

5 Comments:

Blogger bilbannon said...

Well...both John Paul II (with Ratzinger working in the CDF) and Paul VI appointed Fr. Raymond Brown to the PBC and there was little protest but it at least existed. Brown was a genius but also very prone to outdoing the non catholic scholars at the game they began two hundred years ago: ie...what can we disbelieve in the gospels so as to shine in academia....and be new.
Ergo Brown inter alia believed that Mary never said the Magnificat (Birth of the Messiah) but that Luke stuck it in the gospel after he probably got it from Palestinian anawim and he stuck it there in Mary's mouth in order to make the passage resemble other parallel OT moments of women speaking thus after receiving a mission. Fiction as well intentioned strategy. So what is the point of endless academic like speeches even by Popes if such people freely publish and attain positions despite the very results in them that Benedict fears. What Benedict needs to do is find concrete examples of what he warns against and find them within Catholic authors and do something about it that is concrete. Our Popes decrying things in general speeches and then doing nothing concrete is getting very old. Without our knowing it they have become authors first and administrators ...???...second....third??? Does Benedict agree with Brown that the maginficat is fictional? I don't think so and if he does, he should say it out loud to the whole world if he is honest.

11:09 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

I think the problem is more complex. You're right that recent popes have been very reluctant to swing the ax, but I think that is a papal response to earlier historical times when the ax fell too freely and too frequently. When you suggest the Holy Father should do something "concrete," I take that to mean censure, ecclesiastical trials, disciplinary action of some kind or even excommunication. These are the harsher tools at his disposal. And the recent popes have used them for certain abuses--like the ordination of women, for example.

But academic matters are inherently complex. And the truth triumphs in the end--ultimately speaking. I think the popes have withheld their disciplinary prerogative and consistently taught the truth, so that we can draw on their teaching and use it in ecclesiastical and academic settings. The experience of the early 20th century, especially under Pope St. Pius X, was very difficult. I think the more recent popes look back on that era--specifically the condemnation of the Modernists--and shudder because they see the pope's action as actually having done more harm than good.

The post-Modernist-condemnation era was one of anti-intellectualism and the strictest orthodoxy. Many people who had been sympathetic to the Modernist ideas or even to the wider world of Protestant historical criticism had to go underground because they risked their careers if they spoke openly. This was part of the seedbed for later problems in the Catholic academic world. The pendulum swung too far in one direction and then it came swinging back the other way--with a vengeance.

So--that's my read on what the recent popes are doing by teaching a lot and disciplining only a little.

6:09 PM  
Blogger bilbannon said...

Thanks but..... one does not solve the old extremes by introducing their opposite: complete non action accompanied by general speeches....when in fact books like Birth of the Messiah are actually deleterious to young people looking for intelligence without rationalism on the Scriptures.

Picture Benedict rather citing a passage in the above book and taking a stand against Brown's casual manner of arriving at it...(the Magnificat case was the result of casualness).... while praising aspects of Brown at the same time. Young people would then be on the alert when reading Brown.

Right now...thanks to general speeches...they do not know what to be on the alert for. And little in Catholic writing warns them about some Catholic biblical works....and Rome won't do it because they appointed Brown twice and probably with only a sketchy knowledge of what he actually wrote.

11:46 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Benedict has actually done something like what you are suggesting as Cardinal Ratzinger. Check out this paragraph from the Preface to the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church:

"The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office. Thus the present document was established. It contains a well-grounded overview of the panorama of present-day methods and in this way offers to the inquirer an orientation to the possibilities and limits of these approaches."
-Cardinal Ratzinger, Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, 18 March 1994.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/
CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

Though he was president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission which authored the document, he clearly states that it is not a magisterial document. The only American on the commission at the time of this document was Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ.
---
In another arena of theology, I came across another move he made at the very beginning of his pontificate, which has the same flavor. Check this out:

"But our understanding is limited: thus, the Spirit's mission is to introduce the Church, in an ever new way from generation to generation, into the greatness of Christ's mystery. The Spirit places nothing different or new beside Christ; no pneumatic revelation comes with the revelation of Christ - as some say -, no second level of Revelation."
-Pope Benedict XVI, Homily for the Mass of the Possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome, 7 May 2005.

He casually condemns a position that some hold--probably some of the theologians present listening to him speak. And notice that he makes this move as he teaches officially from the Chair of Peter for the first time--not that this is an "ex cathedra" statement.

So it is subtle, but the Pope does defend the truth and true Catholic dogma. As Jerome says, "He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me."

8:59 AM  
Blogger bilbannon said...

Mark
All that is still general. There is two stories going on at once....that the PBC is not an organ of the teaching office....and yet they: "enjoy the confidence of the teaching office".
Stalemate and generalism which nets out in protecting the PBC from criticism which is why Toynbee said we had a problem with mimetic aspects of an arrested culture...and he generally liked us.
As to Jerome: "As Jerome says, 'He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me'." That does not mean that each Pope is conducting the See well. I believe in the papacy but with the conditions and circumscribing that the Church itself gives it implicitly in Vatican I and II. To read the blogs, one would think each choice of a Pope is grand and that is not Catholic dogma.
Pope Nicholas V in 1455 in Romanus Pontifex mid 4th paragraph gave Portugal the right to invade and reduce to "perpetual slavery" "all other enemies of Christ". He died that year and his successor Callixtus III incorporated that bull in his Inter Caetera of 1456 which was confirmed by two subsequent Popes. Would Jerome have gone along with all four Popes giving imperialism and slavery and preemptive war the sanction of the Vicar of Christ? In about 1530 Paul III tried to undo all that they had done with his own bull against new native slavery but even he later ruled in favor of Rome not being a sanctuary city for fleeing slaves and the next Pope reversed that and said it was such a sanctuary. Unfortunately Jerome would have gone along with each version of each Pope if we take his words literally and the results of the imperialism bulls are now condemned in the 80th section of Splendor of the Truth which calls slavery an intrinsic evil....which itself is not accurate either since God permitted the slavery of foreiners to the Jews in perpetuity and God did not permit intrinsic evils to the Jews like bestiality. Slavery is a contextual evil not an intrinsic evil. The economies of our modern times make it evil since there is everywhere viable alternatives.
The last word is yours unless you make an historical error. I gave you some exercize. As the OT says.. "As iron sharpens iron, so does man sharpen his fellow man."
Believe in the Pope....don't idolize his every move as wise. Augustine said that we only grow by both grace and rebuke...not grace alone. By remaining general in our rebukes, no one is growing. Christ was very exact with the pharisees before him and to their face and with anger. As Chrysostom said.. "without anger, sins flourish". Benedict must advance to getting angry about the abuses of the modern techniques.

11:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home