Bible Interpretation and the Catholic Church

[po18guy]

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.

True enough, but look at the state of American Catholicism based upon the use of a politically corrected/inclusive translation with some questionable commentary content.

 

[po18guy]

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

Pouring or immersion is both the correct form and terminology. Sprinkling is a rite of blessing, which can apply to both objects and the congregation, but it is not a baptism of any sort. I know not where our counterpoint was "sprinkled’, but I would almost guess that he no longer believes in baptismal regeneration. We will find out.

 

[diggerdomer]

True enough, but look at the state of American Catholicism based upon the use of a politically corrected/inclusive translation with some questionable commentary content.

I don’t consider the state of American or any Catholicism to be primarily dependent on a given Bible translation (especially if such translation is approved by the Magisterium).

 

[diggerdomer]

Pouring or immersion is both the correct form and terminology. Sprinkling is a rite of blessing, which can apply to both objects and the congregation, but it is not a baptism of any sort. I know not where our counterpoint was "sprinkled’, but I would almost guess that he no longer believes in baptismal regeneration. We will find out.

Yeah…probably just how different people may describe things. Terminology. Thanks.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t consider the state of American or any Catholicism to be primarily dependent on a given Bible translation (especially if such translation is approved by the Magisterium).

Correct, but bible commentaries that can be wishy washy on certain doctrines do not help. The Ignatius RSV-2CE is quite affordable and is an excellent bible. So is the Douay-Rheims, especially the commentaries that I have read.

 

[diggerdomer]

Correct, but bible commentaries that can be wishy washy on certain doctrines do not help. The Ignatius RSV-2CE is quite affordable and is an excellent bible. So is the Douay-Rheims, especially the commentaries that I have read.

I don’t consider the NAB (as it was approved and authorized by the Bishops) wishy-washy. Do you consider a Bible translation controlled by Bishops “wishy-washy”?

 

[po18guy]

I don’t consider the NAB (as it was approved and authorized by the Bishops) wishy-washy. Do you consider a Bible translation controlled by Bishops “wishy-washy”?

No, no, no! It’s the commentaries, the footnotes that I take exception to. IMO, the NAB is the McDonald’s of bible translations. One size fits all - sort of. I like precise speech, though I am not the best practitioner of it. The scripture is what it is. The commentaries are opinion, and opinions vary.

 

[twinc]

They did not “maintain the number eleven.” There were twelve Apostles, then Judas betrayed Christ, then the eleven remaining Apostles made Matthais an Apostle; all together, there would be twelve.

Yes, there was a natural leader among the Apostles, this leader was none other than Peter. Whether or not Protestants wish to admit it, the clear testimony of Scripture is that Peter was the “first among equals.”

Paul was also an Apostle and a real leader as well - got his info and mission direct from Christ - twinc

 

[seth349]

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.

.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on the Douay-Rheims translation. Your comments thus far have given me confidence in your knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church.

I found your answer about my friend intriguing. My friend did not leave one church for the other exactly. My impression is that he strayed from the church over time and eventually hit spiritual rock bottom. Then one day, in a motel, he had a profound religious experience involving the Bible and became religiously active again. In that regard he has read through the Bible more than twice and continues to do so on a daily basis. He is a fan of the “Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren, and tries to live up to its precepts. Now you say that if my friend ever came to a belief in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, he would never have left. Could you expand on that a little? Is Communion and the Holy Eucharist the same thing? My friend would surely understand your answer, and once I have a better understanding I’ll ask him.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on the Douay-Rheims translation. Your comments thus far have given me confidence in your knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church.

I found your answer about my friend intriguing. My friend did not leave one church for the other exactly. My impression is that he strayed from the church over time and eventually hit spiritual rock bottom. Then one day, in a motel, he had a profound religious experience involving the Bible and became religiously active again. In that regard he has read through the Bible more than twice and continues to do so on a daily basis. He is a fan of the “Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren, and tries to live up to its precepts. Now you say that if my friend ever came to a belief in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, he would never have left. Could you expand on that a little? Is Communion and the Holy Eucharist the same thing? My friend would surely understand your answer, and once I have a better understanding I’ll ask him.

First, if your friend was Catholic, he still is - just non-practicing. For information, he is one Sacramental confession away from being a Catholic in good standing. As to “communion”, it is the same as the Eucharist, (one of the seven Sacraments of the Church). The term “eucharist” with it’s root in the Greek language, simply means “thanks”.

The Church has practiced the Eucharist since Christ established it at the last supper (Matthew 26:17-29). Based on this same scripture, the Catholic Church teaches that, once the bread and wine are consecrated at the altar, they become the “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” of our Lord Jesus. This belief has its roots in Christ’s words to the Apostles: “This is my body” and “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”. Jesus commanded His Apostles “Do this” (bless the bread and wine, then consume it) in memory of Him.

Saint Paul also declared, in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, that the Lord’s supper is “a participation” in the Lord’s body and blood. He also berated the Corinthians for unworthily partaking of the Eucharist, teaching them that they were “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” if they did not examine themselves before consuming. Those who partook unworthily “eat and drink damnation unto themselves”, he said. A mere symbol cannot and will not subject one to eternal hell. The Lord alone can do that (Matthew 10:28).

These teachings were reflected by the early Church fathers, whose writings give us a very clear picture of the very early Church. An excellent read would be Dr. Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper. In it, he describes his realization that the Eucharist was actually the presence of the Lord. Once you come to a belief in Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist, there is nowhere else for you to go. You are home.

 

[peary1]

I was listening to a radio Catholic talk show a year or so ago and the subject of Bible interpretation came up. The moderator told the caller that he should not be attempting to interpret the Bible. He said, and I can’t remember exactly how he put it, but he said that there are special representatives of Christ that are authorized to interpret the Bible. Then he quoted scriptures that supported that contention. That surprised me, but after thinking about it, it made sense. I was wondering if anyone might know what these scriptures might be.

I am wondering too as to what he meant by that. Vatican II explicitly encouraged the reading of Scripture by the faithful. In fact, since Vatican I, this has been encouraged by all popes in one way or another. Perhaps what he meant was that one can interpret something in Scripture that is at variance with what the Church teaches. That is always a possibility, since this is what happened during the protestant revolt against the Church. One cannot divorce the Church from its own Scriptures, and an understanding of Scripture cannot be separated from the Church. Maybe he was referring to priests or theologians. Hopefully, the moderator recognizes the importance that the Church attaches to the reading of Scripture by the faithful.

 

[po18guy]

I am wondering too as to what he meant by that. Vatican II explicitly encouraged the reading of Scripture by the faithful. In fact, since Vatican I, this has been encouraged by all popes in one way or another. Perhaps what he meant was that one can interpret something in Scripture that is at variance with what the Church teaches. That is always a possibility, since this is what happened during the protestant revolt against the Church. One cannot divorce the Church from its own Scriptures, and an understanding of Scripture cannot be separated from the Church. Maybe he was referring to priests or theologians. Hopefully, the moderator recognizes the importance that the Church attaches to the reading of Scripture by the faithful.

Not to open a can of worms by using that provocative word, but… From the Catholic.com library: “A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God’s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met].”

Thus, the Church strongly encourages the faithful to read scripture. It is considered sinful to fail to read God’s Word. What we are not encouraged to do is to interpret. Private interpretation, often being based upon the whims of the ego (or worse), leads to division, disputes and scandal among the faithful.

 

[seth349]

Thus, the Church strongly encourages the faithful to read scripture. It is considered sinful to fail to read God’s Word. What we are not encouraged to do is to interpret. Private interpretation, often being based upon the whims of the ego (or worse), leads to division, disputes and scandal among the faithful.

Interpretation, yes. Interpretation was the issue. For me it is an issue that seems to pop up every verse or two.

 

[po18guy]

Interpretation, yes. Interpretation was the issue. For me it is an issue that seems to pop up every verse or two.

As Catholics, we believe that all scripture must be interpreted in the light of Church authority. That keeps it consistent and guarantees the believer that the Holly Spirit, as promised by Jesus (John 14:26), is guiding the interpretation via guiding the Church. It is through such Holy Spirit-guided action that the bible as we know it emerged through Church councils from the numerous writings produced by the early Church. Many writings were considered and rejected as non-inspired. It takes the guidance of the Holy Spirit to do this.

Since the Spirit reminded the Apostles, as well as their chosen successors, of everything Jesus taught them, it is clear to me that the Church did, indeed, have all authority on earth and in heaven to “bind and to loose”. You and I know what such power would be used for in the hands of pagans. However, the Holy Spirit also restrained the Church from abuses of teaching, although her members had many personal failings in other areas. The successors of the Apostles display the same sinful nature as their forbears. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church would long ago have disintegrated into history. Christ’s promise rings true.

 

[seth349]

I cannot fault the logic in your post.

As Catholics, we believe that all scripture must be interpreted in the light of Church authority. That keeps it consistent and guarantees the believer that the Holly Spirit, as promised by Jesus (John 14:26), is guiding the interpretation via guiding the Church. It is through such Holy Spirit-guided action that the bible as we know it emerged through Church councils from the numerous writings produced by the early Church. Many writings were considered and rejected as non-inspired. It takes the guidance of the Holy Spirit to do this.

In John 14:26, He mentions that he will send the Holy Ghost. Is this the same as the Holy Spirit?’

“Bind and Loose” below. I am not familiar with that phrase.

Since the Spirit reminded the Apostles, as well as their chosen successors, of everything Jesus taught them, it is clear to me that the Church did, indeed, have all authority on earth and in heaven to “bind and to loose”. You and I know what such power would be used for in the hands of pagans. However, the Holy Spirit also restrained the Church from abuses of teaching, although her members had many personal failings in other areas. The successors of the Apostles display the same sinful nature as their forbears. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church would long ago have disintegrated into history. Christ’s promise rings true.

Jesus is clearly talking to the Apostles in the following verses, but in John 14:23 below, he says “If any one love me”. In this instance is he talking about everyone, not just the Apostles? Even though he says “any one” it seems he is talking about any one of the Apostles. Is that correct?

22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? 23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father’s who sent me. 25 These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you.

 

[LionHeart777]

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.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

 

[po18guy]

In John 14:26, He mentions that he will send the Holy Ghost. Is this the same as the Holy Spirit?’

One and the same. Ghost is simply another term for spirit.

“Bind and Loose” below. I am not familiar with that phrase.

Matthew 18:15-18 (New International Version) "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Here Jesus taught the Apostles the perfect method of solving disputes. Notice that the final authority in the matter was “the Church”. Jesus gave all authority to His Church. Treating an unrepentant sinner as a pagan or tax collector was their form of excommunication. Such a man was no longer counted to be among their number, due to his hardness of heart. The Apostles were given the authority to bind the man’s sin to him, or to loose it from him. What they decided on earth was also done in heaven.

Also, in: John 20:21-23 (New International Version) Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

He said this to the Apostles as He appeared to them behind locked doors. He gave them power over sin, which is the establishment of the Sacrament of reconciliation, or confession, as it is commonly known. The Apostles used this power and passed it on to their successors, since they (Apostles) knew that they would not reach the ends of the earth making disciples in their lifetimes (Matthew 28:19).

Jesus is clearly talking to the Apostles in the following verses, but in John 14:23 below, he says “If any one love me”. In this instance is he talking about everyone, not just the Apostles? Even though he says “any one” it seems he is talking about any one of the Apostles. Is that correct?

For the context of Jesus’ words, look back to John 13. Remember that the bible was written without chapter and verse. It was a seamless story until an English monk much later divided scripture into the chapters we know today. John 13 and 14 are both set in the upper room the night Jesus was betrayed. Thus, He spoke only to the twelve. He never addressed the power to bind and loose, or the promise of guidance by the Holy Spirit to anyone but the twelve. This is important, and reveals that Jesus founded an Apostolic Church, not a church where all had equal authority. See Matthew 10:19-20, Mark 13:11, Luke 12:12, John 15:26 as well as **John 16:13-15 **, where Jesus is speaking only to the twelve. He left the few in charge so as to avoid the Church devolving into disagreeing chaos, as we mortals are wont to do.

 

[zach_dunn]

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.

Jesus is God, and He taught orally. Not all of this was written down [see Mt 13:34; Mk 4:11, 13; Jn 21:25; Acts 20:35], it was handed on by the Apostles [see 2 Thess 2:15, one among many]. The New Testament speaks of two traditions, Pharisaical tradition which is bad [see Mt 15:2-6; Mk 7:3-13; 1 Pet 1:18], and then there is Christian Tradition [1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Tim 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13; 3:14]. Scripture and Tradition have overlapping content but are not completely the same, where exactly does Paul “implicitly state” this? Here is some more info for you:

Colossians 2:8
“8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.”

Here we see a direct contrast between the traditions of men, and the Tradition of Christ. Christian Tradition is real, the biblical data about it is shown above, why you choose to reject part of God’s revelation (and the Church that protects it) is beyond me.

Acts of the Apostles 6:14
“14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us.”

Notice how Jesus wasn’t going to destroy them, He changes them so that they are in full accord with God’s will and revelation, this is Christian Tradition.

I can’t find any contradictions in my Protestant Bible and it is the one the Lord put on my heart to get.

When did I say the Protestant Bible had contradictions? I said that it’s missing 7 entire books of the Bible, and I also asked you what the canon is and why you believe it is that way (a question you haven’t answered). One thing I don’t like about Protestant Bibles is the way they are awkwardly translated to avoid advocating Catholic doctrines, examples:

2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15]
“14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” [D-R]

“15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” [NIV]

“15 So, brothers and sisters, stand strong and continue to believe the teachings we gave you in our speaking and in our letter.” [NCV]

The Greek word in this verse is paradoseis, which means tradition. These (and some others) change it to teachings as to move away from Catholic Tradition.

Another example:

1 Timothy 3:15
“15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” [D-R]

“15 If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.” [ESV]

“15 [A]nd if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth [thee] to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God – a pillar and foundation of the truth.” [YLT]

The use of “a” instead of “the” (the more traditional and I’d say more accurate translation) seems to be used to take away the importance of Christ’s Church, something Protestants ignore.

We know your bible, assuming you use the Catholic variety, contains error and can be easily proven.

Do it then, prove it.*

*Hint: It can’t be done.

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?

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit and is completely inerrant whatever. If something is inspired by God, it has zero, count 'em zero, contradictions. This is what the Catholic Bible is, a translation of the inspired Scriptures.

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.

Merry Christmas to you too!

 

[seth349]

When did I say the Protestant Bible had contradictions? I said that it’s missing 7 entire books of the Bible, and I also asked you what the canon is and why you believe it is that way (a question you haven’t answered). One thing I don’t like about Protestant Bibles is the way they are awkwardly translated to avoid advocating Catholic doctrines, examples:

Seven books? Really? I didn’t know that. Any of them come to mind? Also found the differences you pointed out between the Bibles interesting. Except for the seven books, is most of the difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles wording? Same scriptures, just slightly different wording?

 

[seth349]

Also, in: John 20:21-23 (New International Version) Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

He said this to the Apostles as He appeared to them behind locked doors. He gave them power over sin, which is the establishment of the Sacrament of reconciliation, or confession, as it is commonly known. The Apostles used this power and passed it on to their successors, since they (Apostles) knew that they would not reach the ends of the earth making disciples in their lifetimes (Matthew 28:19).

I am amazed at the level of knowledge on this site. It seems limitless. Can I expect this everywhere, or did I just get lucky on this thread?

Now, about this power. Apparently it can be passed on from one Apsotle to another as it was passed from Jesus to Judas, but Judas seems to illustrate that even Apostles can go astray. How does this work? Does he lose his power if the sin is great enough?

Also, in regard to the Holy Spirit. Does It ever fill ordinary folk like you and me? Well, I can’t speak for you.