Eens

[Paddington]

First, remind yourself of the 100 other threads you have read on EENS.

Okay, so there are definitely lines drawn on the doctrine. They can be difficult. People can disagree. Blah, blah, blah.

In another way, there are only 2 Catholic views on EENS - Optimistic and Pessimistic.

Maybe St. Jerome would've been one of the Optimistic people.

"We eat the Flesh of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ, not only in the Mystery of the Mass, but also through reading the Scriptures." - St. Jerome

(hint: Many Protestants are reading the Scriptures like it is going out of style.)

Thoughts?

[Apotheoun]

Reading scripture in the light of the Apostolic Tradition and in harmony with the mind of the Church has great value, but reading scripture according to the tradition of men (e.g., in agreement with the views of Marcion, Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Pyrrhus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.) has no spiritual benefit.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1395560' date='Sep 30 2007, 04:01 PM']reading scripture according to the tradition of men (e.g., in agreement with the views of Marcion, Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Pyrrhus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.) has no spiritual benefit.[/quote]

Joe Protestant read the Bible twice today. First with some Calvin in mind and second with a 100% open mind.

I think he benefitted by Catholic standards the second time and a little bit the first time.

Your move, Sherlock.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1395569' date='Sep 30 2007, 11:39 AM']Joe Protestant read the Bible twice today. First with some Calvin in mind and second with a 100% open mind.

I think he benefitted by Catholic standards the second time and a little bit the first time.

Your move, Sherlock. [/quote]
The first time was pointless; and, as far as the second time is concerned, you must define what you mean by reading with an "open mind"? Some men are so open minded that what goes into their head at one moment, falls back out the next.

St. Paul never spoke of reading scripture with an "open mind"; instead, he said that a man must be of one mind with Christ. Besides, faith comes by hearing, not by reading.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Paddington]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1395580' date='Sep 30 2007, 04:18 PM']The first time was pointless; and, as far as the second time is concerned, you must define what you mean by reading with an "open mind"? Some men are so open minded that what goes into their head at one moment, falls back out the next.
St. Paul never spoke of reading scripture with an "open mind"; instead, he said that a man must be of one mind with Christ. Besides, faith comes by hearing, not by reading.[/quote]


1. I disagree that the first time would be pointless by Catholic standards. Many of the reader's conclusions would still be Catholic.

2. An "open mind" is whatever good thing you think of when you hear the phrase.

3. I'm assuming that you were quoting this verse.

"Faith comes through what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ*." Romans 10:17

* Or [i]about Christ[/i]; other ancient authorities read [i] of God [/i]

NRSV, footnote included.

That quote can't be exclusive to reading. That is unless you think the Scriptures are not the word of Christ or alternate translations. I'm assuming you didn't really mean to take it that far.
It is just St. Paul saying something in a normal way that happens to not be a mouthful of doctrine.
Also, you don't have to be Sola Scriptura to notice that the Scriptures are pretty "high on themselves." The Old Testament books alone are "able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:15, NRSV)

[Apotheoun]

St. Paul is not talking about reading the scriptures as an isolated individual, and in fact he is not talking about reading at all, for as he said, ". . . faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ." It is in the liturgy that the written word of God becomes a living, and life-giving, reality, because that is how the [i]anamnesis[/i] of the events of Sacred History are made manifest and operative for the People of God. Thus, private reading of Scripture -- although commendable -- cannot compare to the Church's worship of God in the liturgical synaxis.

Finally, I do not subscribe to the Protestant notion that Scripture is perspicuous; instead, I hold – in agreement with the teaching of the Church Fathers -- that Scripture must be read in the light of the Apostolic Tradition and the living faith of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1395622' date='Sep 30 2007, 12:30 PM']Also, you don't have to be Sola Scriptura to notice that the Scriptures are pretty "high on themselves." The Old Testament books alone are "able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:15, NRSV)[/quote]
Scripture is also pretty high on the Church, which is called the "pillar and bulwark of truth"; and moreover, the text from 2nd Timothy does not involve the implication that Scripture read in isolation brings the knowledge of salvation. It must always be borne in mind that the ancient Jews never read the books of Scripture in a "private" manner, but always proclaimed the Holy Books liturgically, just as the Church continues to do to this day.

[Paddington]

Thanks for your very good answers.
I can see basically see where you're coming from.
Because you said private reading is "commendable," I assume you think it has benefits that could be better.
Are you sure that Jews never read in private?

[Apotheoun]

Private reading of Scripture is a modern phenomenon.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1395655' date='Sep 30 2007, 01:33 PM']Because you said private reading is "commendable," I assume you think it has benefits that could be better.[/quote]
Scripture is meant to be publicly proclaimed in the liturgical assembly, because that is where it truly becomes the living word of God.

Nevertheless, private reading is a pious exercise, i.e., as long as the individual defers to the authority of the Church in matters of doctrine.

[goldenchild17]

I think Apoth is right. We would do well to remember the Eunuch in Acts 8 who was reading Scripture and when asked if he understood what he read, replied: "how can I, unless some man shew me?" I think it is a reading of Scripture in light of its historical understanding that is meant here.

[thessalonian]

The most open minded of men still does not posses even the knowlege to understand and interpret the scriptures correctly. He will benefit from what he does get correct but the errors he will come to are not just nuetral. I think that is perhaps the biggest error in where you are looking at his Calvinist reading. Bad theology has negative consequences. They hold man back from attaining the spiritual good that God has from him.

God is so far above the individual man, so much so that without the teaching of past generations there would be no way he could be a nuclear physicist of any worth, so man cannot attain sufficent knowledge of God without the past generations of the Church and it's sacred Oral Tradition. One will attain some good but likewise the bad they will attain will be offsetting to much of it. Further he will not attain the heights in this life that God desires of him for the glory of the kingdom. There is no way, not having the Eucharist for instance cannot be considered a HUGE lack of grace for his life. There is no way that having his mind formed correctly in the truths of the Catholic faith can be exchanged for the toilet water theology of Protestantism. Not saying this to be mean. It looks clean and pure but if you knew you would not drink it. God's word is pure and he protects it's purity, though his Church which is the pillar and support of the truth.