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

[TimothyH]

I want to thank everyone who have participated in this thread thus far, especially po18 and promethius who answered my question re. reading scripture.

I still think, and want to emphasize, that blanket statements to the effect 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 do a great disservice to Catholics. Being in perfect agreement with what many have stated here, that we can never contradict the Church, stating unequivocally that we are in no way to ever to draw conclusions based on our own personal reading of scripture sends the message that even owning a Bible is a waste of time.

The image of a man sitting at a table in prayer with a Bible open in front of him is something which is foreign to many Catholics. Maybe such an attitude is a vestige of the counter reformation, and maybe it was right for its time. I really don’t know.

But I think it is time to take that image back. The Bible is ours, and we ought to take it back by make it ours, by making it part of our daily lives.

-Tim-

 

[Luvtosew]

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.

Yes and I was taught by the BC of 1891 which is pretty much like saying not necessary to read the Bible the Church is our guide. No it doesn’t state one should not read the bible, but when you tell someone its pretty much a waste of time because the Church is to be our guide,

How many people do you think are going to read the Bible. lets get real here. Few Catholics read the bible, just like the Church never interpreted the bible in English until the Geneva Bible and the KJV.

 

[Luvtosew]

I want to thank everyone who have participated in this thread thus far, especially po18 and promethius who answered my question re. reading scripture.

I still think, and want to emphasize, that blanket statements to the effect 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 do a great disservice to Catholics. Being in perfect agreement with what many have stated here, that we can never contradict the Church, stating unequivocally that we are in no way to ever to draw conclusions based on our own personal reading of scripture sends the message that even owning a Bible is a waste of time.

The image of a man sitting at a table in prayer with a Bible open in front of him is something which is foreign to many Catholics. Maybe such an attitude is a vestige of the counter reformation, and maybe it was right for its time. I really don’t know.

But I think it is time to take that image back. The Bible is ours, and we ought to take it back by make it ours, by making it part of our daily lives.

-Tim-

 

[promethius]

Yes and I was taught by the BC of 1891 which is pretty much like saying not necessary to read the Bible the Church is our guide. No it doesn’t state one should not read the bible, but when you tell someone its pretty much a waste of time because the Church is to be our guide,

Except you’ve conflated the idea that reading scripture is not NEEDED with the idea that it’s a waste of time… an injection which is YOUR personal assertion and has no bearing on what was actually stated by the Catechism.

As to the Catechism’s instruction, I’ll note that Catechisms are not infallible and unchanging documents. They are made to address certain attitudes of society at the time they were produced. In the protestant sects, there is some belief that without scripture one cannot be saved… and the HORRIBLE caveat is that this paints a picture of an evil God who damns the illiterate to hell for having the OUTRAGE to live in conditions where they were never taught to read. This is outrageous blasphemy, and the Baltimore Catechism of 1891 sought to combat such an evil attitude by declaring with finality that those who cannot read are taught doctrinal truth towards salvation by the same instrument which gave the world the scriptures… the Church.

The fact that you’ve taken that teaching and perverted it to say something it did not is no fault of the church or the catechism… that was entirely your own doing!

How many people do you think are going to read the Bible. lets get real here. Few Catholics read the bible,

Granted that reading scriptures has been indulgenced for 1,600 years, there are plenty of people who have taken the time to read the bible.

As to knowledge of the Bible, I would pit a catholic who attends mass every sunday against your average protestant in a test of scriptural knowledge ANY day.

The idea that Catholics are unfamiliar with the scriptures is a convenient myth fabricated by some protestant sects to demonize us. Don’t buy into the hype, the Church GAVE THE SCRIPTURES TO THE WORLD, and it is OUR book.

just like the Church never interpreted the bible in English until the Geneva Bible and the KJV.

I’m sorry, this statement is utterly dripping with falsehood. Prior to 1066 (the Norman invasion of England), English as we know it DID NOT EXIST. What existed prior to that time was OLD ENGLISH, and in that language an ongoing project lasting from 700 AD to 1066 was in progress to translate the latin vulgate into old english, involving bishop Aldhelm, the Venerable Bede, King Alfred, the translators of Wessex, etc etc.

Furthermore, the church is a universal and global body, so if we want to talk translations, let’s talk vernacular in general rather than hubristically discussing only english… MOST vernaculars the church came in contact with DIDN’T have a written form UNTIL the church introduced written versions of these languages… in the form of BIBLES written in vernacular!

Among various vernacular bibles, the old high german bible dates to 748 AD. The first translation into Czech occured in 1360. The Gothic Bible was a translation from latin into vernacular in the 4th Century. Translation into arabic began in the 9th century, with a full vernacular bible being produced by 1000 AD. French vernacular bibles first appeared in the 13th century along with the Catalan Bible and the Spanish *Biblia Alfonsina. *

Even disregarding ALL of those church projects to translate the bible into local languages, all of which predate your two cited versions, you’re still wrong on your facts. The first Bible produced in English was the now condemned Wycliff Bible, translated by, you guessed it, a CATHOLIC. Tyndale, Coverdale, etc, versions abound.

And with all of that, how can you POSSIBLY assert that we Catholics don’t know about scripture???

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Bible is ours, and we ought to take it back by make it ours, by making it part of our daily lives.

The Spirit is, assuredly, also given to individual Christians, so that their hearts can “burn within them” (Lk. 24:32) as they pray and prayerfully study the Scripture within the context of their own personal lives. This is why the Second Vatican Council insisted that access to Scripture be facilitated in every possible way (<Dei Verbum,> 22; 25). This kind of reading, it should be noted, is never completely private, for the believer always reads and interprets Scripture within the faith of the church and then brings back to the community the fruit of that reading for the enrichment of the common faith.

(Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1994)



The difference between individual and Magisterial interpretations, is that the Magisterium, when speaking from its official capacity, has the guarantee of the Spirit to interpret without error. The individual certainly may derive a correct interpretation, but should not presume he/she has an infallible guarantee as a charism.

 

[po18guy]

I want to thank everyone who have participated in this thread thus far, especially po18 and promethius who answered my question re. reading scripture.

I still think, and want to emphasize, that blanket statements to the effect 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 do a great disservice to Catholics. Being in perfect agreement with what many have stated here, that we can never contradict the Church, stating unequivocally that we are in no way to ever to draw conclusions based on our own personal reading of scripture sends the message that even owning a Bible is a waste of time.

The image of a man sitting at a table in prayer with a Bible open in front of him is something which is foreign to many Catholics. Maybe such an attitude is a vestige of the counter reformation, and maybe it was right for its time. I really don’t know.

But I think it is time to take that image back. The Bible is ours, and we ought to take it back by make it ours, by making it part of our daily lives.

-Tim-

The bible itself tells us that the Church must remain our guide. We are allowed some latitude in scripture interpretation, as God’s word applies to all souls for all time. Yet, if we interpret outside of Church guidance, we stand on a foundation of sand, as there is then no authority outside of the self to settle any disputes. Acts 15. We know that shepherds have been placed over us for this purpose.

When I use such phrases, or make such claims in threads, it is to those who see themselves as authentic interpreters of scripture - my intent is to be provocative and to cause them to examine those verses in the bible which may be uncomfortable for them to ponder.

I believe that we are far safer to view our own interpretation as perhaps being a private revelation, which even then must then be compared to revealed truth as kept by the authoritative Church.

It is complete fallacy to believe that only the Holy Spirits desires to lead us. All division in the Body of Christ has its origins in the demonic.