Church's official interpretations on the Bible

[aball1035]

In what instances, or what needs to “happen” for the Church to make an official interpretation of the Bible? For example, a pope could officially declare that a part of the Bible is to have this interpretation, so we must believe it. How does this work?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Church’s doctrines form a “template” which overlays the Scriptures and teaches us what they mean.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

You know (I hope) that the New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings? The NT is based on the teaching of the Church, not vice versa. The Church is about four centuries older than the Bible.

There are four senses of Scripture – Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical. Interpretation depends on which sense is applied. Scripture is living “and sharper than any two-edged sword.” It can’t be frozen in time, as your question suggests. Read Mark P. Shea’s Making Senses Out of Scripture. A few passages relating to the Sacraments are the only ones the Church has formally defined for these reasons and more. Suggest also reading Dei Verbum from Vatican II.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If you look in your Catechism’s index of Scripture citations, those can even be called “official” interpretations because the Catechism is assembled at least in part by bishops. It is “official” in that it is a production of the Church’s “office.” If you are asking how an interpretation could be declared “dogma,” I supposed it would have to be with some official decree specific to that verse, “we declare, for all the faithful to hold, this truth of faith, etc…etc…” The apologists at Catholic Answers have said on radio that there are something like 6 that have been raised up to dogma if not very certain doctrine. John 3:5 as reference to baptism is one. But I don’t have references off-hand. Maybe someone else knows.

 

[Khalid]

Could a Pope? Yes, I believe so. It is a matter of faith or morals. However, to my knowledge, the only binding declarations the Church have ever issued on interpreting Scripture is that the Gospels are indeed historical, and Jesus’ brethren are not the Blessed Perpetual Virgin Mary’s children.

 

[fred_conty]

In what instances, or what needs to “happen” for the Church to make an official interpretation of the Bible? For example, a pope could officially declare that a part of the Bible is to have this interpretation, so we must believe it. How does this work?

This might give you some idea of what has been determined.
This is just a list. But to obain the reasons, the book should be read.
jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

 

[Crumpy]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church should guide you well into the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It’s too difficult to search throught documents and find the needle in the haystack statement that such-and-such is the position of the Church.

The Catechism should suffice for nearly everything relating to salvation. but, it is not an exhaustive commentary on scripture, to be sure.

 

[Crumpy]

I have been reading The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press) which has a number of essays about Jewish interpretations of the “Bible” (the Hebrew Scriptures, in their frame of reference).

Of course, the Jews have been looking at their scriptures longer than Christians have. And, since the time of Christ, of course, they have continued to focus on their Hebrew writings. Given all that, it is curious that this study Bible says that:

[Referring to the rabbinic bible writings since the time of Christ to about the year 1000] “The rabbinic program or programs do not even attempt to provide a complete commentary, in whatever mode, to any biblical book, chapter, or passage …” page 1849

Now, trust me, a lot was written, but no general commentary was achieved, as this quotation indicates. This was in the context of the study bible talking about the approaches to explaining the scriptures. A hefty target that the rabbis made for themselves involves what is at least now called the “omnisignificance” of every scripture. In other words, they set for themselves the goal of finding the meaning in every part and detail of the text, and that no part of it, no matter how seemingly insignificant, did not carry meaning. They didn’t make it. Nothing like this was ever achieved.

this study bible indicates that they never discovered an analytical tool that helped them achieve that goal.

This is very coincidental but probably not coincidental, that the Catholic Church has already said the same thing, in a manner of speaking. In a document called The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (available in the document library of www.ewtn.com) the Pontifical Biblical commission also said that there is no single avenue of Bible study that has proven to be the only strategy for understanding the Bible, There, they talk about the merits and shortcomings of the historical-critical method, the source method, the patristic method, the feminist method, text criticism, redaction criticism, and so forth.

In both the Jewish faith and in Catholicism, there is a strong influence of tradition in understanding and practicing these respective faiths.

So, in the RCC, the official interpretations probably come few and far between. That document itself is a testimony to the fact that a single exhaustive commentary on scripture does not exist. Instead they give advice about how to prayerfully approach the study of scripture.

The ANSWER to the OP is this: The Pont.Bibl.Comm. says that they will answer questions submitted to it. ***How do you like that? *** THAT is the answer to your question, for the most part.

Their answers are subject to later approval / disapproval by the magisterium, the Pope and the Bishops. That’s all anybody can tell you. And right now, that is the OFFICIAL answer.