Bible Interpretation and the Catholic Church

[zach_dunn]

Scripture reveals the character of God:
Isa. 48:17-18, 2 Sam.7:28, 22:29, Ps. 12:6,

I agree, but so do the Apostles and their successors. It was the Catholic successors to the Apostles that defined the nature of the Trinity and Christ’s two natures that you cling to. Scripture simply does not have the monopoly on teaching.

Scripture reveals divine judgment for sins:
Scripture reveals blessings for obedience.
Scripture reveals Jesus & His sacrifice
Scripture reveals God;s glory and Kingdom

No arguments here.

We can know Scripture is true: Gal.1:12, Psalm 19:8, Matt. 5:18, 1 Peter 1:25, Joshua 23:14, Deut.30:14 & Isa. 40:8

We know the teaching of the Apostles and Jesus is true too, see the many Scriptures above and in the previous post.

Scripture is our weapon against Satan: Eph.6:11-13, 17, Heb. 4:12, Jer.23:29, Ro. 1:16 & Matt. 4:4

Ephesians is not saying Scripture is the defense against the devil, that’s way off. The “armor of God” in verse eleven is referring to virtues [cf. 1 Thess 5:8] and the context after verse 17 shows Paul refers to the word of God as his preaching, not his writings. In Romans, the gospel is not the Bible [it’s in the Bible, but it isn’t the Bible itself], as I’ve showed previously, the gospel is what is preached by the Apostles (see previous post). The passages from Hebrews, Jeremiah, and Matthew all refer to the spoken word.

Scripture must be our greatest study: 2 Tim.2:15, Psalm 119:105, 1Tom. 4:13, Psalm 119:97, 2 Tim.3:16, 1Pet. 2:2 & Psalm 119:11 "Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You!"

All of these verses can be applied equally (even more so) to the spoken word.

Now, before you try to say I hate the Bible, etc., let me explain myself. The reason I’ve attempted to apply all of these verses to the spoken word (99% of them do) is not because I want to put down Scripture, I’m Catholic, I love the Scriptures and venerate them very much as does the Church, the purpose of these posts is to open your eyes and reveal that there is more to revelation than simply the Bible. I love the Bible, if I didn’t I wouldn’t waste my time using it to convince you of this truth, just know these facts before accusing me of anything.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach,

Yes. Twelve. Don’t know what I was thinking. I got the feeling after reading the scripture that it was important to maintain twelve. Is that observation correct?

Not so much to maintain twelve as it was to keep the office going. Not to say that twelve isn’t important, the number twelve has significance in the Bible, but, at the time, I think the more important thing was keeping the office (plus it fulfills a prophecy).

 

[osddso]

i would imagine if you read a catholic bible, there is no room for interpretation. it is right there infront of you spelled at. that is if you read a word for word catholic bible.

this is why i believe word for word is the way to go. we are servants of god. when he tells us to do something we do what he says word for word, not think about it.

 

[seth349]

Timothy, by your own reasoning, you have no reason to teach anyone anything about faith. Just hand them a bible and let the ‘spirit’ guide them. Even though they may disagree with you, and with one another, all are lead by the spirit, right? So, go your way and live on peace, knowing that the ‘spirit’ guides all Christians. I strongly suggest that you work on your protestant brethren, to heal the thousands of divisions that the ‘spirit’ has lead them to. Why so arrogant as to believe that God has sent you in some special capacity? Catholics are Christians and have the Holy Spirit - as a matter of fact one of our seven Sacraments is to receive the Holy Spirit in Confirmation. It appears that you have a self-appointed agenda to “Christianize” Catholics. You are dead wrong, and your time would be much better spent preaching to and teaching the unconverted.

po18guy,

My background is protestant, and good friend of mine is protestant (ex-catholic) and spends all his spare time in Bible study. He was showing me an online Bible guide that had several interpretations for each scripture. He, of course, had his favorite interpreter. I was never comfortable with that because, if God is not talking to you directly, who do you believe? Shortly before I retired he started a Bible Study group at work, and it contained Catholics as well as protestants. He was the leader and I am now wondering how this mix is working out. My guess was that the Roman Catholic church stands behind one interpretation and that is what I logged on here to find out.

Now in regard to 2 Peter 20 I found this in a Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible online. It has the scripture and an interpretation. Do you consider this a valid source? A valid church position?

20 “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise

 

[po18guy]

No one can understand Scripture unless you first become a Christian. You might be able to read the gospel message in the Bible and God may chose to remove the veil, then give further understanding.

Huh? What about those who have been lead to Christ via reading scripture? That took understanding while they were yet in pagan status, right? However, from scripture, there are incidents of reception of the Holy Spirit before Baptism (Acts 10:44-48), as well as Baptized Christians who had not yet received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17). So, the Spirit blows where He will (John 3:8).

The truth of God always irritates people; just as God said it would. Another reason i love the Word of God; it does what it says.

But, misuse of the Word irritates God. Him we must fear, Who can cast both body and soul into hell. Also, the Word of God is not the bible - “The Word is not some thing. The Word is Someone. Jesus Christ” - Fr. John Corapi.

 

[seth349]

Not so much to maintain twelve as it was to keep the office going. Not to say that twelve isn’t important, the number twelve has significance in the Bible, but, at the time, I think the more important thing was keeping the office (plus it fulfills a prophecy).

Ah. A Prophecy. I see, and once the prophecy was fulfilled they could expand as necessary I suppose. Another question I had was that they prayed to the Lord for guidance and then drew lots, which I assume is casting a vote. Is that what it is? Can we assume they got that guidance by it having been mentioned that they asked for it?

 

[po18guy]

po18guy,

My background is protestant, and good friend of mine is protestant (ex-catholic) and spends all his spare time in Bible study. He was showing me an online Bible guide that had several interpretations for each scripture. He, of course, had his favorite interpreter. I was never comfortable with that because, if God is not talking to you directly, who do you believe? Shortly before I retired he started a Bible Study group at work, and it contained Catholics as well as protestants. He was the leader and I am now wondering how this mix is working out. My guess was that the Roman Catholic church stands behind one interpretation and that is what I logged on here to find out.

It is a shame that your friend never came to a belief in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. He would never have left. But, belief in the Eucharist is a grace form God.

Now in regard to 2 Peter 20 I found this in a Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible online. It has the scripture and an interpretation. Do you consider this a valid source? A valid church position?

20 “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise

Absolutely. The Douay-Rheims is a very good translation, and the commentaries are sound. Not so with the Catholic New American Bible, many have found. The footnotes there are questionable, to say the least. Catholics are allowed freedom in interpretation, as long as it does not conflict with the truth as revealed to the Church. This obedience to Church authority is why there are not thousands of “Catholic” denominations. There are enough spirits to lead every man, woman and child who have ever lived. But, only one of them is the Holy Spirit, and He always leads Christians to the denial of self, to obedience, and to unity in Christ.

 

[po18guy]

Ah. A Prophecy. I see, and once the prophecy was fulfilled they could expand as necessary I suppose. Another question I had was that they prayed to the Lord for guidance and then drew lots, which I assume is casting a vote. Is that what it is? Can we assume they got that guidance by it having been mentioned that they asked for it?

Having an even number of Apostles was important, as Jesus sent them out two-by-two (Luke 10:1). Casting lots was pretty much like throwing dice, and was a common cultural practice of the time. They trusted that God would direct the lot to His choice of successor.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

So what you’re telling me is that Matthias took up Judas’ apostleship? I’m glad we’re in agreement on that!

Actually, this passage makes Apostolic Succession explicit, Matthias took Judas’ apostleship as you agreed in the previous part of your post. All of Scripture and history is against you on this one Tim.

No because the term Apostleship was reserved for the 12 in the sense it is used in Acts. Based on your human reasoning, then their should be 12 Apostolic successions; meaning there should be 12 Popes at all times.
Explicit means it is spelled out in no uncertain terms; this is large stretch of human imagination or invention.

Nope, you haven’t even looked at the history of Apostolic Succession, have you. We can trace back every single successor of Peter, Eusebius kept record of that for us. It’s all in Scripture and history, Tim.

Have you looked at the warning from Scripture about this type of activity? Maybe you should. You are like old Israel who keep up with their tribes until God came and messed it all out and Ironically through Babylonian captivity.

Believe what you must/chose and I will do likewise. God bless you!

 

[zach_dunn]

No because the term Apostleship was reserved for the 12 in the sense it is used in Acts.

Not true, Matthias took Judas’ apostleship, he was an Apostle. Also, Paul was an Apostle as well, are you going to ignore the clear testimony of Scripture?

Based on your human reasoning, then their should be 12 Apostolic successions; meaning there should be 12 Popes at all times.

You do not understand Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession does not say that every successor is a pope. Only the successor of Peter is the pope. The successors of the other Apostles have the authority of the apostles in respect to Scripture interpretation, administering the sacraments, etc., but only the Bishop of Rome (successor of Peter) is the earthly shepherd of all the faithful.

Explicit means it is spelled out in no uncertain terms; this is large stretch of human imagination or invention.

You make it uncertain with your previously held beliefs.

Have you looked at the warning from Scripture about this type of activity? Maybe you should. You are like old Israel who keep up with their tribes until God came and messed it all out and Ironically through Babylonian captivity.

I’m honestly not sure what you’re getting at here, Apostolic Succession is very different than the tribes of Israel.

Believe what you must/chose and I will do likewise. God bless you!

“Different strokes for different folks,” huh? I don’t know about you, but I disdain relativism. As Paul says, there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” [Eph 4:5]. I intend to defend that faith until the end.

God bless.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Contrary to your understanding, your “standard” is not the Bible, it is your interpretation of the Bible, which are two completely differing and opposed things.

Do you hold the Scriptures above Jesus’ actual oral teaching? Jesus did not hand out Bibles to people, he taught them by mouth and some (not all) of these teachings were written down:

John 21:25
“25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

Clearly everything Jesus did and taught is not contained in at least the Gospels, this is made explicit in another passage:

Acts of the Apostles 20:35
“35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: ‘It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.’”

This teaching of Jesus is not found anywhere in the Gospels, it was passed on through oral teaching all the way down to Paul. There are also verses such as the following:

Matthew 13:34
“34 All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables he did not speak to them.”

Mark 4:11, 33
“11 And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables. . . . 33 And with many such parables, he spoke to them the word, according as they were able to hear.”

The majority of these parables do not appear in Scripture. Who are you, then, to completely throw out all of Jesus’ oral teaching and replace it with all that was simply recorded of Him? Another problem with Protestants and the Word of God is that they see “word,” “the Lord’s word,” and similar utterances and assume it is referring to Scripture: it is not. 99% of the time, the Lord’s word is referring to God’s spoken word, not what is written. An example:

1 Peter 1:25
“25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.”

Also:

Acts of the Apostles 8:25
“25 And they indeed having testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel to many countries of the Samaritans.”

In these passages we see that the word of the Lord is preached, it’s spoken; the Bible is not given out to believers. The second passage is also important because we see that the spoken word of the Lord is synonymous with the gospel, Catholic Tradition is the complete gospel. There is a small portion of the biblical data on the word, it’s not simply written.

How do you know that those 26 books of the New Testament belong there? How do you know that you’re not missing one, or two? How do you know that you do not have an uninspired book that should not be included in the New Testament?

You seem to know what was not revealed to us by God; even though the Scripture say the traditions already existed at the time. Probably because they are the same, which is implicitly stated by Paul. I can’t find any contradictions in my Protestant Bible and it is the one the Lord put on my heart to get. We know your bible, assuming you use the Catholic variety, contains error and can be easily proven. So you tell me what inspired and divine mean to you and how many contradictions are necessary to not be divinely inspired; one, two, three or twenty?

Anyway - to all a Merry Christmas I have been benched by another forum member; so i will hope to catch up with everyone later, Lord willing.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is a huge “if” which begins your question. I doubt that Christ taught them every detail about every aspect of life. The Apostles were given authority, and included in that authority was the power to bind and loose. The council was evidence of the exercise of that authority. Here’s another “if”: If you doubt the Apostles abilities, what else do you doubt?

I agree it’s a huge “if” – an “if” I disagree with. The “council” to me was evidence that Jesus did not give a “blueprint” and it is only through dialogue, reflection, and prayer that the Church decides.

 

[diggerdomer]

“Sprinkling” is not a recognized Christian Baptism, and the Catholic Church does not and has never “sprinkled”. I suggest that you research that and consider having a genuine Christian Baptism performed. Until then, do you really have the Holy Spirit, or some other? Your teaching of division suggests that it may not be the Holy Spirit. Just a cautionary note to a brother in Christ.

I don’t know…“sprinkling” would not necessarily be an erroneous description for baptism performed in a way other than immersion.

 

[diggerdomer]

Zach,

Yes. Twelve. Don’t know what I was thinking. I got the feeling after reading the scripture that it was important to maintain twelve. Is that observation correct?

It seemed important for a short period of time, however e.g. after James (son of Zebedee) was martyred ca. 42 A.D. there’s no record of an Apostle being designated to maintain the 12.

 

[diggerdomer]

It is a shame that your friend never came to a belief in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. He would never have left. But, belief in the Eucharist is a grace form God.

Absolutely. The Douay-Rheims is a very good translation, and the commentaries are sound. Not so with the Catholic New American Bible, many have found. The footnotes there are questionable, to say the least. Catholics are allowed freedom in interpretation, as long as it does not conflict with the truth as revealed to the Church. This obedience to Church authority is why there are not thousands of “Catholic” denominations. There are enough spirits to lead every man, woman and child who have ever lived. But, only one of them is the Holy Spirit, and He always leads Christians to the denial of self, to obedience, and to unity in Christ.

You may not like the NAB but it’s completely Catholic as it has the imprimatur, was officially translated as approved by the Catholic Church, and is used in many Lectionaries.

 

[diggerdomer]

Having an even number of Apostles was important, as Jesus sent them out two-by-two (Luke 10:1). Casting lots was pretty much like throwing dice, and was a common cultural practice of the time. They trusted that God would direct the lot to His choice of successor.

having an even number of Apostles doesn’t seem at all important. Paul, Barnabas, and others are named as Apostles in addition to the Twelve. Twelve was and is signifcant, not just any even number.

 

[diggerdomer]

No because the term Apostleship was reserved for the 12 in the sense it is used in Acts. Based on your human reasoning, then their should be 12 Apostolic successions; meaning there should be 12 Popes at all times.
Explicit means it is spelled out in no uncertain terms; this is large stretch of human imagination or invention.

Have you looked at the warning from Scripture about this type of activity? Maybe you should. You are like old Israel who keep up with their tribes until God came and messed it all out and Ironically through Babylonian captivity.

Believe what you must/chose and I will do likewise. God bless you!

But Acts notes that Paul, Barnabas, etc. are Apostles, yet they were not part of the Twelve.

 

[po18guy]

I agree it’s a huge “if” – an “if” I disagree with. The “council” to me was evidence that Jesus did not give a “blueprint” and it is only through dialogue, reflection, and prayer that the Church decides.

Just as they decided the canon of scripture, and just as it was intended to be. After all, what does the bible say about cloning, or in vitro fertilization, among many other moral issues that did not exist at that time. The Church, using God-given authority, settles the matter for us mere mortals.

 

[po18guy]

having an even number of Apostles doesn’t seem at all important. Paul, Barnabas, and others are named as Apostles in addition to the Twelve. Twelve was and is signifcant, not just any even number.

Since twelve is an even number, it is important in that regard. The seventy two were sent out two by two. My point was that they were then left with eleven, and could no longer go out two by two. Sorry for the omission.

 

[diggerdomer]

Since twelve is an even number, it is important in that regard. The seventy two were sent out two by two. My point was that they were then left with eleven, and could no longer go out two by two. Sorry for the omission.

Again, the even number is not considered significant, it’s the symbolism of 12 that is.