Catholic interpretation of scripture

[algran]

My longtime friend(part Catholic/part fundamentalist) and I have a running argument about Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium.

Our latest argument in on the Catholic interpretation of Creation(evolution of body but not soul), whether Jonah was literal or moral teaching, Noah’s Ark, Walls of Jericho, etc., etc.

His point on Catholic interpretation is that it has no interpretation. That is, we can understand Creation as a literal six days, or much longer; that Jonah was literally in the Big Fish or the story is a moral metaphor, etc.

He claims that if the Church can “interpret” scripture stories ambiguously, such as these cited, then a Catholic should be able to understand, for example, that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter, or maybe to another Apostle or person. In other words, he can’t begin to understand how we can interpret literally in one passage and not literally in another. Where is the consistency in interpretation. Hence, NO interpretation.

I ask, when did the Magisterium begin? He thinks around A.D. 1600 or so. When did Sacred Tradition begin? He thinks around A.D. 800 or so. Now I know that Sacred Tradition preceded scripture, but when DID the Magisterium begin? I told him with the election of the first pope. Am I correct in this?

It is extremely difficult getting a point across to the man, because he has become so “fundamentalized”(his wife of 38 years is a Fundamentalist). His four daughters(all raised Catholic early on) have all become “fundamentalized” about 15-20 years ago.

So, any scripture scholars out there, or apologists, want to tackle this problem, and give me good advice to give to him. All good answers are appreciated. Thank you.

Art Granville
Hemet, CA

 

[NotWorthy]

Your friend is demonstrating just what the Magisterium can and can not do. When the church fully understands scripture, only then can it authoritatively teach that interpretation, such as the keys to the kingdom and what not. Where the Magisterium does not understand, it can not teach authoritatively.

An early example of the Magisterium? I’d say the council of Jerusalem where they decided whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised was an early example.

What I would do with your friend, is, first ask him “Are you sure about those dates?” Act really confused and doubtful of our churches truth. He’ll tell you without a doubt those were the beginnnings, and that his information is accurate.

Once he affirms his surety, come back with him a little later with the earliest examples, showing where the Church Fathers had written about it.

Good Luck,

NotWorthy

 

[adnauseum]

The Bible is a collection of books, and there can be multiple authors and editors within one in the same book.

Sort of like a newspaper.

Surely your friend would understand that the News section, the Opinion section, the Arts section, the Comic section, and the Sports section are to be interpreted differently? Some sections are to record history, some are to comment on it, some are to celebrate it, and some are just plain idiosyncratic.

The Bible is like life.

It’s not a magic oracle.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Well, a popular saying these days in the correct frame of reference is this, that “the air has been sucked out of the room.”

Flailings against fundamentalism do seem to do just that, to suck the air out of the room.

It is as if these modern scripture experts are condescending to give us their assurance, without foundation, that such and such scripture is not historical. Well, if it’s not historical, then what value is it?

If I accept that the account of creation in Genesis is figurative, symbolic, or otherwise non-historical, now where am I? What difference is it supposed to make to me that Genesis is not what it presents itself to be?

Who am I, for example, to use historical and or scientific criticism to undercut the meaning of Genesis, which is to say, who am I to criticize the inspired word of God?

Anti-fundamentalism, or Neo-Modernism as it has been called, is used to “beat people up” as much these days as fundamentalism was criticized as doing in the past.

The Church has been quite fundamentalist in the past, experts admit. Biblical exegesis is the foundation of our faith. Tradition represents the borders or boundaries of accepted exegesis.

So, Neo-Modernists, where are we, as the result of your overwhelming insights and opinions about the nature of scripture?

And, oh, by the way, Jesus was fairly familiar with scriptures and He quoted it. Was Jesus a fundamentalist?

 

[JimG]

When did the Magisterium begin?
When Jesus selected the twelve apostles. Then he told them, “He who hears you, hears Me.” He chose Simon as their leader, and changed his name to Cephas.

When did Sacred Tradition begin? When Jesus Christ entered the world to instruct his followers in all truth. It was full presented to the Apostles by that first Pentecost Sunday when the Church was born, and then handed down by them to their successors.

 

[ak29]

Hmm I find the whole premise of his argument flawed. I see is main point as you either have to take all of scriptur literally or you have to take it metaphorically. If this is true, then perhaps he shoud for instance, take the verse John 6 51-56, literally. Of course I doubt he would, or he would be Catholic.

 

[JimG]

BayCityRickL:

It is as if these modern scripture experts are condescending to give us their assurance, without foundation, that such and such scripture is not historical. Well, if it’s not historical, then what value is it?

Well, I think there is a lot of history in the Bible. But not everything is history. And any writing can only have value as history if it was intended as history.

Surely the wisdom books like Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs were not intended as history. Revelation is not history–not even future history. The Epistles are generally not written with a historical purpose in mind.

So I guess what I’m saying is that not everything in the Bible has to be historical to have value as God’s word.

 

[Mystophilus]

BayCityRickL:

If I accept that the account of creation in Genesis is figurative, symbolic, or otherwise non-historical, now where am I? What difference is it supposed to make to me that Genesis is not what it presents itself to be?

For a start, it allows you to read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as two complementary stories, rather than trying to find a way to reconcile the differences between them. It allows you to consider the possibility that the text has more to say than the mere repetition of past events: Ge 1 could, for example, represent humanity as the end/pinnacle of creation, while Ge 2 represents humanity as the centrepiece of creation.

It also allows you to consider with an open mind the vast amount of research that has gone into the theory of evolution, and the offshoots of that research in biology, rather than dismissing it out of prejudice.

Who am I, for example, to use historical and or scientific criticism to undercut the meaning of Genesis, which is to say, who am I to criticize the inspired word of God?

You are a human, one with a mind, a mind which is set up to analyse information and create interpretations of that information. Reading Genesis (or any other part of the Bible) as a non-literal text does not imply a rejection of God’s message. Instead, it implies a desire to read the text more as the text asks to be read, and more as many among the original audience, i.e., the Jews, have understood it.

Anti-fundamentalism, or Neo-Modernism as it has been called, is used to “beat people up” as much these days as fundamentalism was criticized as doing in the past.

That is all too often true, and I apologise if my questioning of your assumptions makes you feel threatened.

Biblical exegesis is the foundation of our faith.

Good for you! The inescapable awareness of Almighty God is the foundation of mine.

And, oh, by the way, Jesus was fairly familiar with scriptures and He quoted it. Was Jesus a fundamentalist?

Was Jesus someone who believed that Scripture should be the basis of one’s every decision? If he was, he certainly never said it. In fact, he talked about a lot of things, and never came close to defining Scripture as the source of all truth, preferring to vest that in himself (John 14:6).

Was Jesus a Scriptural literalist? No:

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’ [from Psalm 82:6]? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?” (John 10:32-5)

 

[TOME]

I think your thread is should be a thread that’s part of a book cover because it is and should be the topic of a book(s)

On the question of the Magisterium, I guess one way of approaching the answer is to look at it from the view point of “De Facto” and “De Jure” authority and the blending of the two.

In the Church of the Apostolic Times, of coarse the De Facto and De Jure authority on scripture were the Apostles, they having been taught by Christ, receiving the mandate from Christ to spread the Gospels and they were the one who received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.following the Apostles were those (although almost never mentioned by name) who knew Our Lord during Christ’s life and experienced Him post Resurrectionally. Paul refer to these people in 1 Cor when he speaks of Jesus appearing to 500 at the same time after the Resurrection.

We know from Acts, and the Letters of the NT that as Christianity expanded communities (Churches) developed. These always had an Apostolic Tie or Foundation, bolstered by the other followers of Christ. But it is important to note, there was no NT at the time. The NT would develope from these Churches by way of the Faith Response to the Risen Lord which would eventually lead to the Four Gospels and Acts.Because of the various needs or life situations of these Churches we find the development of the Letters of the NT (and here I am including the Pastoral Letters of Paul and Paul’s letter to Philemon) and because of persecutions Revelation.

So here you can see the De Jure (authority based on the reality of what was accepted by the Churches) and De Facto (Authority of the Apostles and their direct instructions either to a community or individules - ex. Timothy).

It’s interesting to study in our Church’s history how many of the Doctrines and Dogmas of the Church of the first three hundred years or so we just accepted by the Church based on the Apostolic Teachings that was being handed down (Apostles to their successors (again I use Paul and Timothy) and their successor’ successors (and so on).

But an often over looked or understated source of Authority of the Church’s Tradition was our Liturgy. What the people believe, professed and proclaimed especially in its liturgical life. Bible scholars point out the importance of the liturgy in understanding “Apostolic Tradition” in such passages as I Cor 11Paul’s discourse on Christ’s instituting the Eucharist shows that he may have used the narrative that was in common use through out the Church and it’s liturgy. Another example of the Liturgy’s influence even on the development of the written NT, is the way we Baptized. There are difference in Baptism as found in the beginng of Act and the mandate of Jesus to Baptize in Matthew. This too, scholars hold shows a development of our practice and theology of the Sacrament of Baptism even while the Apostles were still alive.

And what anyone who is interested in the question of Catholic Interpretation and Authority is study early Church History and the Father’s of the Church. It seems, at least to me, who had the authority and why as mentioned above - Those who had received the teachings of the Apostles, through the passing on of this authority through the Sacramental life of the Church and who were responsible for the Liturgical life of the Church the Church.

Also, based on the writings of the Apostles, especially Paul, and the Liturgies of the Church, we find, especially in the writings of the Church Fathers, the Church claim and practice to interperet scripture, but usually this meant the OT. So, again, we have example from Peter, Paul, James, Jude, and John directly and the Gospels, indirectly through the constant references to and the interpertation of the OT, through the Church Father’s an unquestion authority and right of the Church to teach and interpet not only the NT, which developed from the Church itself, but the OT, because as Paul and the Church Father’s taught, the Church is truely the New Israel the prophets talked about, through Jesus’ Paschal Mystery.

All of this was proclaimed and practice openly, by the Church, as part of the Ministry based on the Authority of the Apostles given them by Christ, and passed on through the Apostolic Tradition of belief, creeds and liturgical practices and was never practiced or even thought of as a private or individual ministry or charism as those who follow Solo Scripture do.

 

[adnauseum]

BayCityRickL:

If I accept that the account of creation in Genesis is figurative, symbolic, or otherwise non-historical, now where am I? What difference is it supposed to make to me that Genesis is not what it presents itself to be?

I look at it the other way around. When fundamentalists get in the national spotlight and argue for young-earth Creationism, what have they done to the Gospel? I’ll tell you what they’ve done: they’ve not only failed to spread the good news, they have repelled hundreds of thousands away from it and for what reason? So they can prop up a view of the bible that justifies the reformation [you see, if you throw out the Church, which they did, you must replace that authority by something else, and fundamentalists replaced the authority of the Church with a book, and gave it magical powers of being an oracle rather than a living history].

The symbolic interpretation of Genesis is not vacuous, it is profound. In ancient days, a common view of the universe was that matter always existed and this or that designer god molded it into the world. Genesis was a shocking rebuke to the received view; it said in the beginning there was nothing. And out of nothing Yahweh called matter into being and created all that we see.

The acceptance of that basic insight, that God created everything from nothing, and holds all being in existence from moment to moment - is also held dearly by Catholicism. I think that insight has considerably greater consequences for personally changing one’s life than viewing the bible as an oracle whose passages can be shaken up and plucked randomly like a magic 8 ball. Such a view of the bible is, in my opinion, the single greatest reason why the world won’t even listen to the proposals of Christianity anymore.

I don’t think modernism is superior in any way. I personally loathe modernism. I base my view of the bible on my personal experience of how it changed me when I finally learned to read it as the first Christians read it. They saw it as a living history, a dramatic structure, not an oracle.

 

[BibleReader]

algran:

My longtime friend(part Catholic/part fundamentalist) and I have a running argument about Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium.

Our latest argument in on the Catholic interpretation of Creation(evolution of body but not soul), whether Jonah was literal or moral teaching, Noah’s Ark, Walls of Jericho, etc., etc.

His point on Catholic interpretation is that it has no interpretation. That is, we can understand Creation as a literal six days, or much longer; that Jonah was literally in the Big Fish or the story is a moral metaphor, etc.

He claims that if the Church can “interpret” scripture stories ambiguously, such as these cited, then a Catholic should be able to understand, for example, that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter, or maybe to another Apostle or person. In other words, he can’t begin to understand how we can interpret literally in one passage and not literally in another. Where is the consistency in interpretation. Hence, NO interpretation.

I ask, when did the Magisterium begin? He thinks around A.D. 1600 or so. When did Sacred Tradition begin? He thinks around A.D. 800 or so. Now I know that Sacred Tradition preceded scripture, but when DID the Magisterium begin? I told him with the election of the first pope. Am I correct in this?

It is extremely difficult getting a point across to the man, because he has become so “fundamentalized”(his wife of 38 years is a Fundamentalist). His four daughters(all raised Catholic early on) have all become “fundamentalized” about 15-20 years ago.

So, any scripture scholars out there, or apologists, want to tackle this problem, and give me good advice to give to him. All good answers are appreciated. Thank you.

Art Granville
Hemet, CA

Your question is like shooting a gun in a hen house.

I say that we are expected to ascertain from context whether the plaintext level story is fiction of non-fiction.

However, note that even in this website, though the Adam and Eve story is jammed with evidence that it is a Dr.-Seuss-like piece of fiction which teaches true theology, many of the folks here don’t care about the theology, but will DIE before they admit that the story is fiction.

 

[anawim]

algran:

My longtime friend(part Catholic/part fundamentalist) and I have a running argument about Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium.

Our latest argument in on the Catholic interpretation of Creation(evolution of body but not soul), whether Jonah was literal or moral teaching, Noah’s Ark, Walls of Jericho, etc., etc.

His point on Catholic interpretation is that it has no interpretation. That is, we can understand Creation as a literal six days, or much longer; that Jonah was literally in the Big Fish or the story is a moral metaphor, etc.

He claims that if the Church can “interpret” scripture stories ambiguously, such as these cited, then a Catholic should be able to understand, for example, that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter, or maybe to another Apostle or person. In other words, he can’t begin to understand how we can interpret literally in one passage and not literally in another. Where is the consistency in interpretation. Hence, NO interpretation.

There are a handful of passages in the NT that have been dogmatically interpreted. Mt 16:18-19 is one of them.

He seems to have a false dichotomy about how Catholics interpret Scripture. It’s not an either/or. It isn’t literal or figurative, but rather both/and. We take into account the literal and the spiritual (which includes allegorical, tropological, and anagogical).

I ask, when did the Magisterium begin? He thinks around A.D. 1600 or so. When did Sacred Tradition begin? He thinks around A.D. 800 or so. Now I know that Sacred Tradition preceded scripture, but when DID the Magisterium begin? I told him with the election of the first pope. Am I correct in this?

Yes.