Current Catholic Position on Interpretation of Scripture

[Crumpy]

Someone has stated publicly recently that the current approach to interpreting scripture in the Catholic Church could be described as being midway between liberal protestantism and the Jesus seminar – as wacky as this may sound.

1. Does anybody understand what this person may be saying?
2. Do you think that statement is valid?

 

[tjmiller]

Current Catholic biblical scholarship is indeed mired in the swamps of 19th-century liberal protestant/atheist rationalism.

This saying holds true, however, only for those who style themselves as “bible scholars”. It does not apply to the many who adhere to Apostolic Tradition and the authentic Teachings of the Magisterium.

 

[copland]

Liberalism has taken a wack at high-jacking Catholic scholarship. But it will never succeed totally, there are enough Orthodox Catholics out here to make sure of that.

I have undertaken a project myself that I might have published soon. And it is a commentary on Scripture, plus a translation from the Greek Septuagint. I have finished the book of Jonah and I am starting on Psalms. The commentary is totally Orthodox, all quotes are from the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Regardless of whether I get it published I am getting it printed and having copies made. I have not made up my mind yet about publication.

But anyway, the answer to the question is, yes and no! The attempt has been made, but this very unorthodox system that has been used by various pseudo-scholars such as the "Jerome Biblical Commentary, NAB Footnotes, etc. does not speak for the whole Church. St. Jerome is probably quite ticked off in Heaven right now, if it is possible to be mad in Heaven, for using his name for such a liberal commentary as the Jerome Biblical Commentary, I would be!

 

[robert_ambrose]

There are only 7 verses of scripture that the church says that we are bound to believe. they are all to do with the sacraments

 

[MariaG]

Crumpy:

Someone has stated publicly recently that the current approach to interpreting scripture in the Catholic Church could be described as being midway between liberal protestantism and the Jesus seminar – as wacky as this may sound.

1. Does anybody understand what this person may be saying?
2. Do you think that statement is valid?

Yes, this person is taking a whack at the Catholic Church as being wrong.

But this person is probably mixing up scholars who call themselves Catholic and the Magisterium.

So no, I do not think they have a valid statement if they are applying it to the Magisterium. I do think they have a valid argument for some “catholic” scholars.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[anawim]

robert ambrose:

There are only 7 verses of scripture that the church says that we are bound to believe. they are all to do with the sacraments

The sacraments, original sin (Rom 5:12), and the sucession of Peter (Mt. 16:18)

 

[copland]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically defines what you are looking for. It is totally based upon what St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about interpreting Scripture. This is the ultimate guideline for interpreting Scripture. Here it is.

**The senses of Scripture **

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”[83]

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.[84]
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.[85]
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.[86]

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.[87]

119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”[88] But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.[89]

 

[Will_Pick]

anawim:

The sacraments, original sin (Rom 5:12), and the sucession of Peter (Mt. 16:18)

7+2= 9

 

[bigdawg]

robert ambrose:

There are only 7 verses of scripture that the church says that we are bound to believe. they are all to do with the sacraments

Can you provide a reference for this?

 

[anawim]

bigdawg:

Can you provide a reference for this?

They are listed in Steven Kellmeyer’s book, “Bible Basics”. There used to be an on-line version, but he took it down. I’ve got it at home, but I don’t remember them all off the top of my head.

 

[bigdawg]

anawim:

They are listed in Steven Kellmeyer’s book, “Bible Basics”. There used to be an on-line version, but he took it down. I’ve got it at home, but I don’t remember them all off the top of my head.

What I was looking for was a document from a pope or a council that stated “Catholics only need to believe 7 verses.”

This seems ridiculous and I was wondering where this came from.

 

[Fidelis]

robert ambrose:

There are only 7 verses of scripture that the church says that we are bound to believe. they are all to do with the sacraments

Actually, if I’m remembering the reference in question, it was alluding to the fact that there are (arguably) seven passages in the Scriptures that the Church has an official interpretation on which Catholics are bound to hold. For exampIe Matthew 16:17-19 has officially been interpreted as recognizing the establishment of Peter as the first Pope and his successors after him. I think I have this list somewhere at home and will try to post it later.

Of course it doesn’t mean that Catholics need only believe these seven verses and disregard the rest of the Scriptures. That *would * be thilly. :whacky:

 

[buffalo]

http://www.catholicintl.com/images/liberal2.jpg

The “Toledoths” of Genesis

 

[anawim]

bigdawg:

What I was looking for was a document from a pope or a council that stated “Catholics only need to believe 7 verses.”

This seems ridiculous and I was wondering where this came from.

Steve lists the canons of 2 councils: Trent & Vat. I

 

[bigdawg]

anawim:

Steve lists the canons of 2 councils: Trent & Vat. I

So, Trent and VI states that a Catholic is only obliged to believe less than a dozen scriptues?

I would still like someone to produce the document that states this.

 

[Fidelis]

bigdawg:

So, Trent and VI states that a Catholic is only obliged to believe less than a dozen scriptues?

I thought I corrected this mistatement in Post #12 above.

I would still like someone to produce the document that states this

. Nobody ever said there was a “document” --there isn’t one-- but here is the article I mentioned above.

cathinsight.com/apologetics/verses.htm

Please note carefully what the article writer concludes with:

Let it be noted here that these infallible interpretations do not mean that no other, additional interpretation is possible. We know that some Bible passages can have more than one interpretation (e.g. the “woman” in Apocalypse 12:1). But these infallible interpretations mentioned above must be admitted to be true interpretations.

 

[bigdawg]

Fidelis:

I thought I corrected this mistatement in Post #12 above.
. Nobody ever said there was a “document” --there isn’t one-- but here is the article I mentioned above.

cathinsight.com/apologetics/verses.htm

Please note carefully what the article writer concludes with:

Oh…I was supposed to actually read post 12.

Thanks.

 

[Crumpy]

bigdawg:

What I was looking for was a document from a pope or a council that stated “Catholics only need to believe 7 verses.”

This seems ridiculous and I was wondering where this came from.

My guess is that this is a reference to the “official church pronouncements” section in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.

I think the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown and others like him or following him try to drive a wedge between those official pronouncements and everything else. I seem to recall that Brown said the idea of “original sin” should be discarded on the basis that no official statement has ever been made about it.

Obviously the Catholic Church has not thrown out “original sin” and many other things. Refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for details.

I think Brown and others used that “official pronouncement” stuff to say things that otherwise he would have been excommunicated for. I don’t think official pronouncements were meant to be exclusionary, as Brown implied.

 

[TEME525]

When I read the various post of this thread I come away with the impression that there is a real misunderstanding of the whole topic.

The list of 7 or 12 or ever how many verses are not proclaimed by the Church to declare that these verses are infallible, that is not why they are sighted or used.

These verses are accepted as Divine Revelation but the reason for their use is to provide a scriptural basis for a particular doctrine. I think we are putting the emphasis in the wrong place which is the reasoning for citing these passages in their revelancy to a particular doctrine. And I believe our understanding of these should be kept that way.

One further point, I think if we are going to express a criticism of a individual it is only just to articulate the person’s teaching accurately an not based on an unclear memory of what the person’s teaching may be but in reality could be something totally different. I doubt any of us would like to be misquoated or have our thoughts expressed by another inaccurately.

 

[rwoehmke]

I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever said that there is only one correct way of interpreting a biblical reference. As individuals we are encouraged to read scripture and take away what we need as individuals for our personal spiritual growth. It becomes problimatical when we try to say to others this is absolutely what it means, my way is the correct way. That is why we have so many splintered protestant groups; individuals using their private interpretation to start a new church.