There are essentially two main disciplines to hermeneutics. But, yes, you are essentially correct. There are those that interpret the Bible is some pretty bizarre ways but as these are not considered “disciplined” (my word) approaches such as the interpretations of Jehovah Witnesses or other cults.
I still disagree that one can take a general term such as "hermeneutics" and claim there is one that is one method within that blanket term that is more "disciplined" than another and claiming that one religious thought mirrors one school and another mirrors another. This "may" occur, but you are flat out wrong to state the Catholic church uses ONE method, the allegorical method. She does not use merely ONE method as your post describes and maligns unfairly. Furthermore, the allegorical interpretation is not something that stands alone as a means to know the depth and breadth of the Biblical message, it is one avenue for some areas of Scripture, but it is NEVER a definitive interpretation by the very FACT that allegory does not MAKE definitive statements. Allegory as for delving into symbolic/representative meaning apart from the foundational beliefs of Christianity. If you rely merely on the H/G method of Biblical exegesis, "you are the salt of the earth" becomes silly UNTIL you turn to the metaphorical meaning. Historically and grammatically it is meaningless, metaphorically/allegorically, the depth and breadth of the meaning becomes clear both symbolically and literally. However, again--allegory is merely ONE means of coming to know. If exegesis tries to find the one and only key to understanding all of scripture, the exegete will inevitably amputate some of the richness of God's revelation in favor of the human desire for expedience.
A subset of allegory that hold specific significance is typology, and it is a means of coming to know that the Apostle Paul himself names and demonstrates as a means of exegesis of scripture within scripture itself. To make the Catholic use of this sort of exegesis akin to the pagan worship of Greek and Roman gods is indeed insulting, short-sighted, and anti-Biblical. I appreciate that you did not intend to be insulting, but nonetheless, the bias that supports this view of Catholicism is widespread, erroneous, unhistorical, and bigoted. I do not hold you personally responsible for it; I think you are a victim of misinformation and historical revisionism.
And the Catholic Church does take an allegorical approach when interpreting the Scriptures.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes she uses the H/G method. Thorough exegesis does not fit perfectly into a neat little box labeled the "historical-grammatical hermeneutic" and to try to make it fit that box is to impose a human desire upon the supernatural revelation of God. It becomes a means to hear what man wants to hear in the way he wants to hear it, rather than to remain open to the way God speaks to man through the written Scriptures.
Even the link you posted makes mention of allegory. Check out the link to
Origin.
I have not looked at the link yet, I will, but Origin is merely one voice in a chorus of voices, just as allegory is one means of interpretation among myriad that make up the symphony of meaning within Sacred Scripture.
“Use the Historical-grammatical method of exegesis on the terms "binding and loosing" and the "keys to the kingdom" to understand when Christ's Church began.” - Felicity
Actually, I would be interested in hearing from you what it means.
Apply your method. Jesus was very clear in his statement. His grammar was not complicated, and there is specific historical meaning to those terms with regard to how a Jew of Christ's century would hear those words. Another Biblical reference is to the "chair" of Moses which becomes what is now termed the "chair of Peter" or "ex Cathedra."
1Tim. 1:1-7
2Pet 1:16-21” [/B]– Felicity
I understand what you mean from 2 Peter. But where are you going with 1 Timothy?
1 Timothy points to what can occur when one believes the neat little package of interpretation is the one and only way to come to know the revelation of God. 1:4 refers to the "divine training" as described in 2 Peter 1:21, and when one "swerves" from that basic tenet and gives undue credence instead on the human means of coming to know the message of God, the result is vanity.
And, once again, I apologize. I did not intend to offend you or anyone.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Thank you. As I said, I don't hold you personally responsible, but I do feel it necessary to offer the apologetics when I see the misinformation put forth.
