Bible interpretation. Need some answers please

[Fox]

Can someone please explain to me how Biblical interpretation goes in the Catholic Church. Is it only a select few who can interpret the bible. Where does this one person or group of people get authority? who makes up this authority? Why is personal interpretation or revelation frowned on my the Church?

Thanks for speedy replies.

 

[ttk5972]

I don’t believe that personal interpretation is frowned upon. We are just required to not “personally interpret” anything that goes against Church teachings. Why? Because when everyone personally interprets on their own without any true authority to measure it against, everyone will have a different opinion on what the true meaning is. Whenever I interpret something that differs from Church teachings, I study, ask questions, read again and many times I begin to understand better. I think it is dangerous for anyone to suddenly come to the conclusion that they have received a personal revelation which is different from your beliefs. I’m sure that Satan finds it vastly amusing to inspire these revelations and make someone feel that they are so smart and holy that they have a discovered something completely new and different.

 

[sleeping_gecko]

A visible example of the results of everyone interpreting privately without some central authority is the ~30,000 denominations in American Protestantism.

This is certainly an extremely strong argument in favor of the Catholic Church.

Of course, “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ,” so remember that studying and applying Scripture to our lives is a necessity for all Christians. It’s just that non-Catholic interpretation comes to a standstill when you have 2 people of opposing viewpoints that both have a pretty solidly Scriptural case. With Catholicism, there is an appeal to the Magisterium. (In Protestantism, there is, of course, the appeal to this-or-that theologian/scholar/commentator, but it’s not quite the same without the charism of infallibility!)

 

[cymonk]

Perhaps these threads would help.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711clas.asp
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22898

In my personal experience, as I read an interpreted on my own before i fully decided to embrace my Catholic Faith, I found many instances where I interpreted something during bible study, then found out later the context in which it occured, or how the language was just a little different than what was written in my translation, or that I did not understand some of the “slang” of the day. This definitely contributed to me looking to the church for better interpretations.

As far as the actual who… The closest I can come to answering that is to say the bishops have the authority. The bishops are ‘decendants’ of the diciples. This authority was/is given to them by Christ himself. If you want passages for that, I can find some. For bigger decisions as to how to ‘interpret’ something, groups of bishops make the decisions. Perhaps someone else who is well versed can post how the magesterium, and eccumenical councils work if you want to know about them.

As far as frowning on interpretation, that’s nonsense. We are supposed to be reading our bibles. So don’t stop.

Does this answer your questions or want to know more about a something I said?

Pax Christi,
Cymonk

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Can someone please explain to me how Biblical interpretation goes in the Catholic Church. Is it only a select few who can interpret the bible. Where does this one person or group of people get authority? who makes up this authority? Why is personal interpretation or revelation frowned on my the Church?

Thanks for speedy replies.

The Church believes in the interpretations that have been handed down from the Apostles. The problem with Luther and Calvin were not that their interpretations were stupid. The problem is novelty.

Nobody is going to interpret the Bible on their own, in a vacuum, anyway. The pope doesn’t have any authority to decide that the Catholic Church teaches differently now than She ever has.

Q: Where does this one person or groups of people get their authority?
A: There is no such person or group of persons. If you want to be Catholic, you will accept what the Church has always taught whether you are a pope, a group of bishops, a computer geek, a miner, an attorney, or a housewife. It is funny that you would ask who has authority. Nobody has the authority to overthrow what has always been taught.

You can personally interpret those questions which have not been decided. You are welcome to an opinion about whether to be a Molinist or Thomist with regards to predestination. But to start over as though the Church has not after 2,000 years reached conclusions about baptismal regeneration, episcopal hierarchy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infused grace, or a sacerdotal priesthood is folly. These things were decided long ago, and believed in implicitly or explicitly by those whose blood was shed in the Colosseum at Rome. It is this blood, and their faith to which I am committed as a Catholic.

The most ingenious and clever interpretations of Scripture that cannot be reconciled with the faith of the first two centuries are of no value to one whose faith’s roots run deeper than today, deeper than 1500 AD, deeper than 1000 AD, and deeper than 500 AD. If our faith can be reinterpreted, it is not Apostolic, and we are a counterfeit as Catholics.

 

[cymonk]

Oh and… the pope does have the authority to do so if done so “Ex Cathedra”. This is a good link to read so you have a little better understanding of how the authority works:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

But Ex Cathedra hasn’t been used many times… (for as much as noncatholics grumble about its use).

Cymonk

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Oh and… the pope does have the authority to do so if done so “Ex Cathedra”. This is a good link to read so you have a little better understanding of how the authority works:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

But Ex Cathedra hasn’t been used many times… (for as much as noncatholics grumble about its use).

Cymonk

Hi Cymonk. I am sure that our inquirer will note an apparent discrepancy between what each of us said about the pope’s authority in these matters.

I said:

The pope doesn’t have any authority to decide that the Catholic Church teaches differently now than She ever has.

When the pope speaks ex cathedra he is defining as certain that which has been permissible to disbelieve. I suggested to Fox that he has the permission to subscribe to different schools of thought (personal interpretation) in regard to predestination. That is no longer true with regard to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which was defined ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX.

What I had in mind was that the pope has no authority to overturn that which is already established. It was with this in mind that Pope John Paul II denied having the authority to ordain women as priests, because of the Apostolic practice of a male priesthood. I trust we agree, and hope that this clarifies and reconciles our apparent discrepancy of statement for Fox.

Rory

 

[cymonk]

The Church believes in the interpretations that have been handed down from the Apostles. The problem with Luther and Calvin were not that their interpretations were stupid. The problem is novelty.

Nobody is going to interpret the Bible on their own, in a vacuum, anyway. The pope doesn’t have any authority to decide that the Catholic Church teaches differently now than She ever has.

Q: Where does this one person or groups of people get their authority?
A: There is no such person or group of persons. If you want to be Catholic, you will accept what the Church has always taught whether you are a pope, a group of bishops, a computer geek, a miner, an attorney, or a housewife. It is funny that you would ask who has authority. Nobody has the authority to overthrow what has always been taught.

You can personally interpret those questions which have not been decided. You are welcome to an opinion about whether to be a Molinist or Thomist with regards to predestination. But to start over as though the Church has not after 2,000 years reached conclusions about baptismal regeneration, episcopal hierarchy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infused grace, or a sacerdotal priesthood is folly. These things were decided long ago, and believed in implicitly or explicitly by those whose blood was shed in the Colosseum at Rome. It is this blood, and their faith to which I am committed as a Catholic.

The most ingenious and clever interpretations of Scripture that cannot be reconciled with the faith of the first two centuries are of no value to one whose faith’s roots run deeper than today, deeper than 1500 AD, deeper than 1000 AD, and deeper than 500 AD. If our faith can be reinterpreted, it is not Apostolic, and we are a counterfeit as Catholics.

I think what he means to say is that the parts of our faith that have already been “interpreted” can not be reinterpreted. (These parts are called dogma and can not be changed). There are many other parts open for interpretations, including reading scripture.

 

[VetA]

Can someone please explain to me how Biblical interpretation goes in the Catholic Church. Is it only a select few who can interpret the bible. Where does this one person or group of people get authority? who makes up this authority? Why is personal interpretation or revelation frowned on my the Church?

Thanks for speedy replies.

the bishops in communion with the pope (magisterium), they get the authority from apostolic succession, Jesus made this authority when he chose the 12 apostles and Paul to spread the word. personal interpertation of the bible is frowned upon because you have 1000000s of diffrent people reading the bible coming up with thier own versions of the way things are supposed to be done (ie protestantism) and that is not apropiate for the Church founded by God himself, you cannot have 1000000s of diffrent voices saying what to do and if you do its alot easier for the father of lies to do what he does best. if you have a single voice, a shepard if you will (the pope and magisterium) it becomes easier to know the truth of the Holy Ghost. hope my humble explination helps.

 

[cymonk]

Yes, we are in agreement. Hopefully we didn’t confuse Fox.

 

[Fox]

Good posts guys, have two more questions. Tell me guys what is the magisterium and who makes it up? What is their job?

 

[VetA]

Oh and… the pope does have the authority to do so if done so “Ex Cathedra”. This is a good link to read so you have a little better understanding of how the authority works:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

But Ex Cathedra hasn’t been used many times… (for as much as noncatholics grumble about its use).

Cymonk

twice to be exact. it can only be used on issues pertaning to faith and morals and both times it was used, it was about issues of faith and both times having to do with the Blessed Virgin . i dint read the article, going to a catholic school helps

 

[cymonk]

Good posts guys, have two more questions. Tell me guys what is the magisterium and who makes it up? What is their job?

Wiki actually does a fairly good job on these things most of the time:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

In the Roman Catholic Church the word “Magisterium” refers to the teaching authority of the Church. This authority is understood to be embodied in the episcopacy, which is the aggregation of the current bishops of the Church, led by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope),

Cymonk

 

[VetA]

Good posts guys, have two more questions. Tell me guys what is the magisterium and who makes it up? What is their job?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium
for the explanation of it (including who the members are). and they are the teaching authority of the one true Church.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Good posts guys, have two more questions. Tell me guys what is the magisterium and who makes it up? What is their job?

It seems that the word master comes from magesterium and means more than a teacher, perhaps implying guide and disciplinarian too. Someone else can speak to this better than I. But for what it is worth The Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus refers to “Jesu, Magister Apostolorum” and “Jesu, Doctor Evangeliastarum”.

Magister is translated as Master. Doctor is translated as Teacher. There seems to be a nuance of difference.

In any case, Fox, it is clear as your question implies, that a Master or Magister can be a living person or group of persons so assigned. But not necessarily so. When Catholics refer to the teaching magisterium of the Church, they are referencing how Church can guide us in all matters of faith and practice. The Church’s magesterium is composed of those teachings which are legitimate because they are rooted and faithful to the practices and teachings She has received as passed down from generation to generation.

There has not been a single person since Christ, or a committee since the Apostles, who would qualify as “the Magesterium”. Our magesterium was established and finalized with the death of the Apostles.

 

[choy]

Can someone please explain to me how Biblical interpretation goes in the Catholic Church. Is it only a select few who can interpret the bible. Where does this one person or group of people get authority? who makes up this authority? Why is personal interpretation or revelation frowned on my the Church?

Thanks for speedy replies.

where does the Church get its authority? from Christ himself. Christ taugh apostles and disciples during his brief time on earth. in turn, these apostles taugh successors, and these successors taugh successors, as the knowledge and authority is passed down from one generation of Apostolic successors to the next. today we recognize these Apostolic successors as Bishops. and the head of these Bishops is the one who occupies the seat of Peter in Rome, the Bishop of Rome. more commonly known as the Pope.

 

[cymonk]

There has not been a single person since Christ, or a committee since the Apostles, who would qualify as “the Magesterium”. Our magesterium was established and finalized with the death of the Apostles.

On this one, I have to disagree in that there is a magesterium today. Much of what we believe today was given to us by the original Apostles. But there are still matters which are brought up time to time which need to be understood/interpreted. The way you write your posts are hard to understand so I am not sure if I am misinterpreting you. Perhaps giving some links to backup your main points would be helpful.

Cymonk

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

On this one, I have to disagree in that there is a magesterium today. Much of what we believe today was given to us by the original Apostles. But there are still matters which are brought up time to time which need to be understood/interpreted. The way you write your posts are hard to understand so I am not sure if I am misinterpreting you. Perhaps giving some links to backup your main points would be helpful.

Cymonk

Hey cymonk,

You are not the first to complain about difficulty in reading my posts. I appreciate hearing that. One wants to be understood.

The original poster had asked who the magesterium was and what they did. It seemed necessary to try to dispel the notion that there is a committee that can be identified as “the magesterium”.

I accept the authority of the pope and bishops to decide what the Church teaches in the event of controversy. But my point is that they must consult what the Church has always taught if they would legitimately do so. They are not independent of their predecessors. They are completely dependent.

To my satisfaction, Vatican I clearly permits that theology can progress. But we must always return to what the Church has said previously:

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

—Session Three, ch. 4, para. 14

As used by that Council, “the magisterium” seems to be distinct from the further declarations of the Church which come forth by her solemn judgment. It appears to me that the Council Fathers understood two ways by which the Church proposes “matters to be believed as divinely revealed”. Either by solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. This is why I tend not to include ex cathedra definitions or conciliar definitions as an exercise of the magisterium which is said to be ordinary. As I am understanding it, ordinarily, we are guided without solemn declarations. Solemn declarations are made after the death of the Apostles. But the legitimate ordinary magisterium would need to come from the Apostles alone in order to be binding:

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed

• which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
• and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
• whether by her solemn judgment
• or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

• —Session Three, Ch. 3, para 8

It seems to me that in going back to the question of the original poster, this ordinary teaching magisterium of the Church must be understood as standing against the concept of personal interpretation. It is not by solemn declaration alone then that we know what the Church teaches:

Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which** rejected the divine magisterium of the church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual**, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed.

—Preface to Sess. Three, para. 5

I fear that I haven’t improved my way of explaining this question adequately. I’ll try to summarize my position as understood from Vatican I:

There are two modes by which Catholics may be confident that a proposition is divinely revealed:

1. By solemn declaration
2. By ordinary teaching magisterium

If this is correct, we mustn’t confuse the teaching magisterium with definitive papal or conciliar acts (solemn declarations). This teaching magisterium would not be an appointed group of authoritative teachers, as the original poster seemed to be thinking, but a collection of authoritative beliefs and approved practices handed down to us from generation to generation beginning with the Apostles. If it did not extend back to the Apostles, there would be no authority for appealing to it.

Thanks for your consideration,

Rory

 

[PJM]

=Fox;6699774]Can someone please explain to me how Biblical interpretation goes in the Catholic Church. Is it only a select few who can interpret the bible. Where does this one person or group of people get authority? who makes up this authority? Why is personal interpretation or revelation frowned on my the Church?

Thanks for speedy replies.

***The Catholic Church is THEE Bible Church. The OT was collected by men we would know to be Catholics today; and the entire NT was written by Catholics. Because the Catholic Church was the ONLY CHURCH in existence when the bible was compiled and the Canon set under the Inspiritation of God [Jn.14:16-17; Jn.17;14-19] it is God’s plan that ONLY the leaders [or those specifically trained] should explain what God is saying and what God means.

As evidence of this truth we point out that after 2,000 years of this practice; there remains One Catholic Church; One Bible and One set of beliefs, all though thre ar 23 brances; all still hold these truths and cling to the Seven sacraments. Quite Impressive.

When we look at our Protestant brethern, who permit, even encourage self interpetiation, we note that in about 400 years thy have MANY THOUSANDS of sets of beleif; primarly because they can’t agree what the bible actually says. That friend in the inherent danger when we don’t do it God’s way.[Matt. 16:15-19 and Matt. 18:18].

Therefore every Priest, Bishop and those specifically trained can correctly [when they listen to the HS] translate the Bible. It’s pathectic that so many only give feel-good talks; and don’t take advantage of there call and training. It is a “select group” HOWEVER it numbers in MANY, MANY of thousands; hardly just a “few.” ***

2 Cor. 4: 2-3 “We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.

2nd. Peter Chapter One verse 20 -21“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. “

**Rom. 10: 17 **“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.”

**Eph.1: 13-14 ** “In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory”

**1Tim.4: 13 **“Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching”

**Eph. 4: 18 ** “they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;”

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Crumpy]

It seems that the word master comes from magesterium and means more than a teacher, perhaps implying guide and disciplinarian too. Someone else can speak to this better than I. But for what it is worth The Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus refers to “Jesu, Magister Apostolorum” and “Jesu, Doctor Evangeliastarum”.

Magister is translated as Master. Doctor is translated as Teacher. There seems to be a nuance of difference.

In any case, Fox, it is clear as your question implies, that a Master or Magister can be a living person or group of persons so assigned. But not necessarily so. When Catholics refer to the teaching magisterium of the Church, they are referencing how Church can guide us in all matters of faith and practice. The Church’s magesterium is composed of those teachings which are legitimate because they are rooted and faithful to the practices and teachings She has received as passed down from generation to generation.

There has not been a single person since Christ, or a committee since the Apostles, who would qualify as “the Magesterium”. Our magesterium was established and finalized with the death of the Apostles.

No, sorry that’s not the Catholic position. It is general revelation that ceased with the death of the apostles. But, the magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the pope and all the bishops of the world, together. We always have a living magisterium to explain the relevance of revelation to our day and needs.

These terms may be looked up in the Catholic encyclopedia, which is a tab at the top of this web page or in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

These posts give you only the fast-food type of explanation. You should read an encyclopedia entry once in a while to build your understanding of the Catholic faith. Those entries are scholarly and will help you a lot.

the document library at the EWTN website, www.ewtn.com, has a lot of original documents (I have found errors in these – spelling errors) and can be downloaded for casual reading.