Absolutely No Personal Interpretation? Or Does God Speak to Us?

[TimothyH]

I have read on these forums many times, statements that we are not qualified to interpet scripture, that we don’t have the authority to do so, and that we should leave such things up to the Church. These types of statments frustrate me a little, and when I hear blanket statements in such absolute terms as these, I wonder if the person saying them actually reads scripture regularly.

I hope this dosn’t turn into a polarized debate along the strict lines of sola scriptura vs. Magesterium. That is not my intent.

My point is that every single person is open to the written Word of God. It is a great gift that we are able to have scripture so readily available to us. All we have to do is pray, open up the book, read, and there God is speaking to us. He speaks to humanity as a whole and speaks to us individually as his children right where we are here and now.

*"In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."

• DEI VERBUM -*

Catholics are free to interpret scripture, but we check that interpretation of scripture against 2000 years of Church teaching, Church Tradition, and Church guidance. We read scritpure within the framework of the Church. The Church is our guide and our shepherd, and we have to listen to the Church so that we don’t fall into error. As the Catechism says, “Read the Scripture within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church’.” We can never declare doctrine on our own nor contradict Church teaching.

God however, has much to say to us - to us personally - by simply opening up the book and reading it. Scripture is our Father speaking to us - us as a Church and us as individuals - and we should read it and struggle to understand it, pray it back to God, interiorize it, and live it out every single day of our lives. People who don’t do that are missing out on something very special in their lives.

-Tim-

 

[Crumpy]

You’ve covered a lot of intellectual territory.

OF COURSE God speaks to us in scripture. I heard a protestant preacher say that, if you pay attention, most of the New Testament is not addressed to the bishops, elders (priests), or deacons but to people.

And, what effect COULD it have in us but some form of inspiration, when we read it under the usual guidelines.

the last verses in John’s gospel tell us that Jesus did many things not recorded there, that, would if they were written down, fill all the books in the world.

Hmmm.

Well, first of all, where do I find the Church’s interpretation of this? and we know that there are not many official interpretations of scripture, in the first place.

OK, so if my goal was not to draft an official interpretation myself, what’s my next move to understand this verse, let’s say, for practical purposes? Where has the verse been addressed over the centuries, by people in the Church?

(You’ve hit a nerve, by the way.) One of the ways we’re SUPPOSED to understand scripture is in those four*** senses ***, right? OK, where are those four sense of these verses from John’s gospel?

Hmmmm.

I’ve heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa discuss this verse in a homily, and the upshot of his remark is that this shows that Sacred Church tradition fills in the void to explain where at least some of those things that Jesus said and done, are captured. So, this verse supports Tradition.

Hmmmm.

I have fancied an interpretation of these verses, that I’ve never heard before. I seldom have had an original thought in my life, by the way. So, I don’t guarantee that the following has never been said before. I just don’t know where it has been said, if it has been said.

I think what Jesus did that would fill all the books of the world is what he does in mercy and/or judgment in the life of everybody who has ever lived. Certainly Jesus HAS done somethings, many things, in my life. So, these things would be in a book, someplace, if they were written down.

Is there only one meaning of scripture? do those verses only refer to what John had in mind centuries ago? or, do those verses (and any verses for that matter) point to us today?

There’s complex issues in the preceding, that have occupied the musings of Jewish and Christian experts over many centuries.

From another angle, can anybody read scripture and NOT interpret it, somehow? I don’t think so. I think the thing is to keep an open mind, but to continue our lifelong study along the way of our journey to God. So, I will have my interpretation of these verses, thank you, and I will also keep an open mind for not only the inspiration that accompanies the reading of scripture, but the application of those scriptures to my life. But, if I do that, I will be even more humble, in general and specifically, to be attentive to the Word of God.

 

[po18guy]

Unbridled private interpretation has resulted in 29,999 of the sects that exist in Protestantism. Laissez faire Christianity. Yet, God’s word speaks to each and every human soul - but not without the overall guidance of the Church which is the living interpretive authority. And, there is where the problem lies.

 

[Crumpy]

Catholics are free to interpret scripture, but we check that interpretation of scripture against 2000 years of Church teaching, Church Tradition, and Church guidance. We read scritpure within the framework of the Church. The Church is our guide and our shepherd, and we have to listen to the Church so that we don’t fall into error. As the Catechism says, “Read the Scripture within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church’.” We can never declare doctrine on our own nor contradict Church teaching.

-Tim-

The preceding is a loose reference to Verbum Dei, from Vatican II, and probably also from the Catechism.

I don’t think that it has practical application for ordinary lay Catholics. the admonitions about checking with 2000 years of teachings goes to the scholars and students who have the resources to do it.

VERBUM DOMINI is the latest major document in the Church about scripture, from Pope Benedict XVI. I’ve read it once, some time ago. I don’t recall any specific discussion of this point.

Anybody more current on the guidance in Verbum Domini?

 

[TimothyH]

Unbridled private interpretation has resulted in 29,999 of the sects that exist in Protestantism. Laissez faire Christianity. Yet, God’s word speaks to each and every human soul - but not without the overall guidance of the Church which is the living interpretive authority. And, there is where the problem lies.

I am curious. Not trying to judge, but sincerely curious.

Do you read scripture regularly? I’m not talking about liturgical use of scripture such as the Liturgy of the Hours or Mass, but about reading the book privately.

I’m not trying to push you, and please don’t answer if you don’t feel comfortable.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

The preceding is a loose reference to Verbum Dei, from Vatican II, and probably also from the Catechism.

I don’t think that it has practical application for ordinary lay Catholics. the admonitions about checking with 2000 years of teachings goes to the scholars and students who have the resources to do it.

VERBUM DOMINI is the latest major document in the Church about scripture, from Pope Benedict XVI. I’ve read it once, some time ago. I don’t recall any specific discussion of this point.

Anybody more current on the guidance in Verbum Domini?

I don’t want to get into a quote war. The Catechism does however, have very clear statements about encouraging the ordinary lay faithful to read scripture regularly.

One has to ask why one should bother though, if one is incompitent to, or forbidden from reading the words on the page and subsequently forming an independent thought about what they have just read.

Personally, though I am just a guy in the pew, I consider myself a student, if not a formal scholar. And I think that was the whole point of Vatican II, that modern modes of communication and the fact that many of the laity are highly educated, makes it possible for anyone to take on the role of student or scholar.

To get back to my original point, is it incorrect to read scripture on one’s own? If private reading of scripture is permissable, or even to be encouraged, can one then say that we are never to have an independent thought about what we have just read?

I don’t see how the two positions are reconcilable.

-Tim-

 

[promethius]

I don’t see how the two positions are reconcilable.

They are reconcilable because of conscience. Scriptural study is to be taken in context of the church’s divine revelation, revealed in the summation of her teaching. To believe that we can somehow separate scripture from the magisterium and tradition is utterly wrong.

A well formed conscience, however, operating from the stable ground of tradition and magisterium, could read scripture all day and would arrive at one undeniable conclusion: that the Catholic Church has the truth of God and that the Bible is clearly a Catholic book.

 

[TimothyH]

They are reconcilable because of conscience. Scriptural study is to be taken in context of the church’s divine revelation, revealed in the summation of her teaching. To believe that we can somehow separate scripture from the magisterium and tradition is utterly wrong.

A well formed conscience, however, operating from the stable ground of tradition and magisterium, could read scripture all day and would arrive at one undeniable conclusion: that the Catholic Church has the truth of God and that the Bible is clearly a Catholic book.

Yes, my entire point is based on the assumption that scripture is read within the framework of the church and is not seperated from nor ever contradicts what the Church teaches. That is a given.

Given that however, are those only two (one) conclusions that we can arrive at through personal reading of scripture, that The Catholic Church is the true Church of God and that the Bible is a Catholic Book? Is that it? Is that the entire reason for personal reading of scripture and subsequent meditation and reflection?

Or is there more?

I think there is more. Lots and lots and lots more.

Promethuis, I am wondering if you too would answer - do you read scripture regularly? Please don’t answer if you feel uncomfortable. I am not looking to accuse anyone of anything, nor to judge, nor will I write further about it, but I am sincerly curious.

-Tim-

 

[NHInsider]

To get back to my original point, is it incorrect to read scripture on one’s own? If private reading of scripture is permissable, or even to be encouraged, can one then say that we are never to have an independent thought about what we have just read?

I don’t see how the two positions are reconcilable.

-Tim-

You (we) are not only free to read Scripture on our own, we are encouraged, nay urged, to do so. 15 minutes of reading Scripture has been indulgenced since Pope Leo. And we should think seriously and prayerfully about the application of the Scriptures we are reading to our own daily lives and concerns. “All Scripture is inspired and useful . . . so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

What you are NOT free to do is decide, based on your personal interpretation, that the Church is wrong, that you, personally, have been given some new insight by the Holy Spirit which you then proclaim to anyone who will listen. THAT is how personal interpretation leads to confusion, crisis and schism. (2 Peter 2:16-17)

In fact, if your personal interpretation is contrary to the Church’s teaching, you should presume that you have been mistaken, since it was to the Apostles that Jesus gave His guarantee of the Holy Spirit’s protection. In those cases you should pray that the Spirit will reveal the truth to you, and until He does so, keep your contrary interpretations to yourself.

It’s rather like the private vs. public revelation thing. If you have a vision, even if it is determined by ecclesiastical authority to have been an authentic vision, the message of the vision is NOT binding on the whole Church - because public revelation was that entrusted to the Apostles.

 

[ahs]

This article may help clarify:

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catechism-promote-private-interpretation-of-scripture

 

[promethius]

Yes, my entire point is based on the assumption that scripture is read within the framework of the church and is not seperated from nor ever contradicts what the Church teaches. That is a given.

Given that however, are those only two (one) conclusions that we can arrive at through personal reading of scripture, that The Catholic Church is the true Church of God and that the Bible is a Catholic Book? Is that it? Is that the entire reason for personal reading of scripture and subsequent meditation and reflection?

Or is there more?

I’m at a loss for how you went from my statement, that there is one undeniable conclusion that can be drawn, to your statement, which is that I asserted this is the ONLY conclusion which can be drawn.

I think there is more. Lots and lots and lots more.

Indeed. There is a wide latitude for personal interpretation of scriptural teaching within the catholic church. However, that personal understanding cannot (and does not) conflict with Catholic teaching.

Promethuis, I am wondering if you too would answer - do you read scripture regularly? Please don’t answer if you feel uncomfortable. I am not looking to accuse anyone of anything, nor to judge, nor will I write further about it, but I am sincerly curious.

If you’re asking if I sit there and read a paper copy of the bible with a cup of coffee at night, the answer is no.

If you’re asking if I do “sword drills” to memorize a few verses (or even just their locations) out of context as many protestants train to do, the answer is no.

If you’re asking if I attend mass regularly and thus have been exposed to nearly the entirety of the Bible multiple times in my life, the answer is yes.

If you’re asking if I participate in scripturally driven apologetics discussions, and therefore reference and read the scriptures regularly in that context, the answer is a RESOUNDING yes.

So, it all depends, I guess, on what you want to consider “reading the scriptures”

 

[Luvtosew]

I have read on these forums many times, statements that we are not qualified to interpet scripture, that we don’t have the authority to do so, and that we should leave such things up to the Church. These types of statments frustrate me a little, and when I hear blanket statements in such absolute terms as these, I wonder if the person saying them actually reads scripture regularly.

I hope this dosn’t turn into a polarized debate along the strict lines of sola scriptura vs. Magesterium. That is not my intent.

My point is that every single person is open to the written Word of God. It is a great gift that we are able to have scripture so readily available to us. All we have to do is pray, open up the book, read, and there God is speaking to us. He speaks to humanity as a whole and speaks to us individually as his children right where we are here and now.

"In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."

• DEI VERBUM -

Catholics are free to interpret scripture, but we check that interpretation of scripture against 2000 years of Church teaching, Church Tradition, and Church guidance. We read scritpure within the framework of the Church. The Church is our guide and our shepherd, and we have to listen to the Church so that we don’t fall into error. As the Catechism says, “Read the Scripture within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church’.” We can never declare doctrine on our own nor contradict Church teaching.

God however, has much to say to us - to us personally - by simply opening up the book and reading it. Scripture is our Father speaking to us - us as a Church and us as individuals - and we should read it and struggle to understand it, pray it back to God, interiorize it, and live it out every single day of our lives. People who don’t do that are missing out on something very special in their lives.

-Tim-

Tim, I cant agree with you more, I’ve been reading the Bible for 15 years and I read it daily.
It is living and alive. One can read a passage several times and then read it again and see something different. I read it on my own, and also listen to some wonderful bible teachings. The Bible is my lifesaver. I also know that Protestants and the Catholic church has their own interpretations so I let it speak to me.

I would like to make a comment here, about how Protestants take scripture out of context, and well not all, do they agree with the Catholic church interpretations , no not most. Whose right or whose wrong, I decide for myself.

 

[NHInsider]

Tim, I cant agree with you more, I’ve been reading the Bible for 15 years and I read it daily.
It is living and alive. One can read a passage several times and then read it again and see something different. I read it on my own, and also listen to some wonderful bible teachings. The Bible is my lifesaver.

We are so privileged to have constant access to the written Word - most people in the world today, and most people in the world since the time of Jesus, have not had that access!

I also know that Protestants and the Catholic church has their own interpretations so I let it speak to me.

I would like to make a comment here, about how Protestants take scripture out of context, and well not all, do they agree with the Catholic church interpretations , no not most. Whose right or whose wrong, I decide for myself.

Letting Scripture speak to us is powerful. Deciding for ourselves what interpretation is correct is dangerous! (1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Thess. 2:15, in addition to the 2 Peter 2:16-17 warning cited before.)

 

[Luvtosew]

We are so privileged to have constant access to the written Word - most people in the world today, and most people in the world since the time of Jesus, have not had that access!

Letting Scripture speak to us is powerful. Deciding for ourselves what interpretation is correct is dangerous! (1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Thess. 2:15, in addition to the 2 Peter 2:16-17 warning cited before.)

I do listen to both sides , Catholic as well as Protestant, so I’m not completely on my own.
also I think both sides use it to suite their agenda. but I remain open minded.

 

[po18guy]

I am curious. Not trying to judge, but sincerely curious.

Do you read scripture regularly? I’m not talking about liturgical use of scripture such as the Liturgy of the Hours or Mass, but about reading the book privately.

I’m not trying to push you, and please don’t answer if you don’t feel comfortable.

-Tim-

I inferred that I was included in your OP. Yes, I read almost daily. I fully realize that God’s word is intended to speak to all, covering the vast differences in gender, culture and station in life unto the end of this world. And yet, it is offered to us within a framework. When we disregard that framework, we err. It is both confining in one sense, while being liberating in another, but is intended to be used with both direction and discretion.

For this very reason, we have shepherds placed over us.

 

[po18guy]

You (we) are not only free to read Scripture on our own, we are encouraged, nay urged, to do so. 15 minutes of reading Scripture has been indulgenced since Pope Leo. And we should think seriously and prayerfully about the application of the Scriptures we are reading to our own daily lives and concerns. “All Scripture is inspired and useful . . . so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

What you are NOT free to do is decide, based on your personal interpretation, that the Church is wrong, that you, personally, have been given some new insight by the Holy Spirit which you then proclaim to anyone who will listen. THAT is how personal interpretation leads to confusion, crisis and schism. (2 Peter 2:16-17)

In fact, if your personal interpretation is contrary to the Church’s teaching, you should presume that you have been mistaken, since it was to the Apostles that Jesus gave His guarantee of the Holy Spirit’s protection. In those cases you should pray that the Spirit will reveal the truth to you, and until He does so, keep your contrary interpretations to yourself.

It’s rather like the private vs. public revelation thing. If you have a vision, even if it is determined by ecclesiastical authority to have been an authentic vision, the message of the vision is NOT binding on the whole Church - because public revelation was that entrusted to the Apostles.

Very well said.

 

[Crumpy]

I heard a priest on EWTN giving a commentary on the sermon on the mount.

right off the bat, he addressed the first beatitude, “blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

His commentary was that “poor in spirit” means “poor in every way.”

Say what you want about following the Church’s interpretation of scripture, but I think this priest was just plain wrong.

First of all, what does “poor in every way” mean, anyway? Poor in health, poor in wealth, poor in social friendships, poor in education, poor in understanding of scripture, whew, I’m out of breath. I don’t know Aramaic, which is supposed to be rather “poor” itself in language capability, but I think “poor in spirit” means something particular, that this priest did not grasp.

Maybe the OP or somebody else thinks that I’m not supposed to use the brain God gave me, but I don’t agree with this priest. I said so to EWTN (viewer@ewtn.com). I never saw that priest again on EWTN – perhaps a coincidence to my complaint.

Jesus said we would know the truth and that it would set us free. We’re supposed to be sheep following Jesus – JESUS. Priests assume they’re always right, but I don’t agree.

As I said before, how can ANYBODY read scripture and not interpret it? If you think you have not interpreted it, I think you’re kidding yourself.

I think we all should read it, all of it, and thus be in a better position to respond to the teaching of the Church ABOUT it. (Believe me, I’m really not here in this thread to argue. What I’m saying here I think is just what is obvious about the subject.) I think reading scripture without interpreting it is like trying to not breathe air. How do you do it? I just don’t think you can say, “I don’t interpret scripture.” If you DON’T interpret it, what’s the point of reading it?

Jesus spoke to crowds of people IN PARABLES. He wanted them to think about what he said. He spoke in memorable ways so that they would remember what he said. We do our best when we apply the scripture (and teachings of the Church) to our lives.

 

[Crumpy]

The NSRV-2CE is based historically on the KJV, which mistranslated one of the ten commandments. The commandment is not “thou shall not kill” it is “thou shall not murder.”

You have to study this matter and read further in scripture. Not much after this commandment is given, there are other commands to give the death penalty to people who do various things, like people trying to teach idol worship.

If you don’t read scripture and study it carefully, you may go down the wrong path.

In the NSRV-2CE around Isaiah 7:13, there is the controversy about how the verse is translated, that a “young woman shall conceive” or variously that a “virgin shall conceive and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”

The translator note said that “young woman” is variant to “virgin.”

Well, you know, it’s not as simple as that. There are separate threads on this subject. The issue behind this is more complicated. The Hebrew Masoretic text which Jews and Protestants follow, says “young woman”. It is the Septuagint (in Greek, which is older than the Masoretic text) which uses the word “virgin” which is picked up in the gospels.

It really comes down to the flip of a coin (except for the guidance of the NT and the Church) which text should be followed. The footnote in the approved Catholic NSRV-2CE waffles on this more-than-meets-the-eye subject.

As I said before, read the Bible and know what it says, go back and check it, but know when to stick-to-your-guns on translation and interpretation. even the “Catholic” bible can oversimplify an issue to the point of being misleading.

Those are not simply just alternate translations – those are different versions of the Bible COMPLETELY.

By the way, Fr. Mitch Pacwa SJ (EWTN) said recently that he studied the issue, and the Church NEVER said anybody wasn’t supposed to read the Bible on their own.

Before printing presses, the copies of the Bible were simply too expensive for the ordinary person to own. And, literacy wasn’t all that widespread. Pacwa makes these points over and over, if you watch his programs on EWTN. There were vernacular translations of the Bible before Martin Luther and the reformation came along.

 

[Luvtosew]

Your right, I have the Nab (Catholic) NIV, and KJV and I’m always checking to see what each says and the footnotes. There is a bit of difference in them all, not dramatically , but a few words here or there, but like virgin or young woman , in those days a young woman was usually a virgin, but well even Protestants and Catholics alike I think agree that Mary was a virgin, I don’t know about most Protestants and I have a select few I listen too, one must be careful.

I am surprised how I learned that in the 90’s how the catholic church started to encourage reading scripture, but like Ft Mitch says, yes on EWTN, one must always refer to the Catholic interpretation. Growing up and even in the Baltimore Cathechism it says its not encouraged or recommended to read the Bible as the Church teaches one, I know some did read back then tho, but many didn’t. I don’t know any Catholic from our families to a few other people who ever read the Bible. My parents never did, and I know we had one, with pics and imp. papers in it, Ha Ha , but never used.

We must do everything with an open mind and then question. It sure doesn’t hurt anyone to read the Psalms and the Proverbs, but I do think one should read from beginning to end a few times to get the whole story so to say, the history and how the NT fullfills the OT.

I know I really enjoy my time reading it.

His commentary was that “poor in spirit” means “poor in every way.” Your right not a good interpretation!!!

 

[promethius]

Growing up and even in the Baltimore Cathechism it says its not encouraged or recommended to read the Bible as the Church teaches one, I know some did read back then tho, but many didn’t.

That is not entirely true… er… well… at all. The 1941 Baltimore Catechism clearly states:
23g. Are Catholics encouraged by the Church to read the Bible?

Yes; Catholics are encouraged by the Church to read the Bible, especially the Gospels, which tell about the earthly life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man.

The Baltimore Catechism of 1891 does not address this question. Instead it states it differently, asking if one NEEDS to read scriptures or consult tradition. This is a very different question… it answers:

*Q. 561. Must we ourselves seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe? *

*A. We ourselves need not seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe. God has appointed the Church to be our guide to salvation and we must accept its teaching us our infallible rule of faith. *

You’ll note that the baltimore catechism, while stating that one does not NEED to seek in scriptures or traditions in order to discern what to believe, does not EVER state that one should not read the scriptures. It does not even state, as you claim, that it is not encouraged or recommended to read the scriptures.