I wasn’t quite sure where to put this, and it didn’t seem to belong in Sacred Scripture where the Adam & Eve thread is currently residing.
Anyway one of the commentators objected to my reference to Valentin Tomberg and noted that she prefers to only debate with reference to scripture, CCC, and official commentary (which I understood her to mean Church Fathers, Doctors and approved biblical commentary in a Catholic Bible, such as the commentaries in the Haydock-Challoner DR Bible).
I basically agree with her approach, yet I find that there are at least two modern authors (there may be others of which I’m unaware, but would be interested in discovering) that though they hold some heterodox positions (or rather one holds some heterodox positions and the other was an Anglican) have enough unofficial Church support to be useful in scriptural discussions. Others may disagree and of course are free to discount or ignore me should I ever mention them.
In the first case, the hard case, (Valentin Tomberg), there is one noted historical precedent where the Church has considered someone who has held heterodox opinions to be authoritative - Origen is a Father of the Church but is known to have held at least two heterodox positions (it is unclear if he recanted one or both before death). I is my understanding, that it is because he held those positions that he was never Sainted, but despite those two positions, his devotion to the Church, encomiums from other Fathers, and his otherwise very well reasoned orthodox positions were sufficient to overlook those two points of heterodoxy. Tomberg similarly was known for his devotion to the Church, both Blessed John Paul II and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI were known to have read Tomberg, and as Cardinal Ratzinger permitted the publication of Tomberg’s primary work in Russia, there are other noted Catholic supporters of his main work, including Hans Urs von Balthasar who wrote the epilogue. None of this is official support, but it is, for me, sufficient recognition that Tomberg’s hermeneutics has real value.
C.S. Lewis is simpler, I know of at least one Catholic seminary that offers classes in C.S. Lewis’ Christian apologetics (I suspect others but am not up for an exhaustive search) and there are of course numerous articles by other Catholics viewing C.S. Lewis positively.
In both cases there are problems that aren’t found in the preferred sources, so I readily acknowledge that using either as an ‘authority’ in a scriptural discussion requires some prudence, but I am unwilling to abandon either of them merely because they aren’t perfect authorities.
Which brings up the other issue: which is that I find it least one source of authority: the CCC, severely lacking for indepth discussion. Reading the CCC I am reminding of nothing other than my notes for Law School exams back when I was at law school. A succinct description of all necessary topics, sub-topics, and sub-sub-topics, with the focus on “black-letter law” that despite trying to be as succinct as possible ends up hundreds of pages long because of the subject matter (I exaggerate, my contract outline wasn’t that bad 35-40 pages tops, then again I had to write 6 or 7 major outlines over that first year… so all told a couple of hundred pages). All of which leaves very little room for nuance. So I find the CCC has the same peculiarity (for me at least) of being authoritative on the subject but in most cases not very illuminating. Much like my contract outline, useful for passing an exam in Contracts, not so much for the actual practice of Law.
Frankly, it wasn’t until I started looking at actual commentaries that anything started really connecting. The Internet has brought a lot of bad things, but some good things as well: I do not have the the funds to spend hundreds of dollars on translated commentary but online you can find the original douay, glossa ordinaria (and Latin Dictionaries, and google translate), S. Aquinas, etc. All of which are both authoritative and illuminating on their subject.
The point of the long aside, is that there really needs to be a “modern Glossa” bringing together the CCC, the Fathers, Doctors and other appropriate commentators in one (multi-volume work). I want to read the CCC in context of the verse and in context with other noted commentators (Fathers, Doctors, and etc.). Then we get 1. Verse 2. Basic Teaching on Verse (CCC) 3. Nuance and Deep Exegesis (Commentators). And who knows, maybe we can even sneak in C.S. Lewis and Tomberg where appropriate Anyway, just my two cents.