Do I need the magesterium to teach me the meaning of this verse?

[davidv]

David

I disagree with you.

I gave an example previously.

The CCC is not a Bible commentary.

Agreed. The CCC is not a commentary. However, for those topics weighty enough to be documented in it, the references provide significant connectivity between Sacred Scripture and Church Teaching.

 

[Henning]

Do you find many people or denominations disputing over the meaning of that verse?

No I don’t.
A point being how can anyone differ on the literal meaning. So much so that noone it seems (?) would **need **the magesterium at this level and private interpretation would be OK. I can see that at some point, as verses become more difficult, I would stop looking to my own interpretings and lean on the magesterium, if they’ve commented on a particular verse. For me though in so many scriptural cases the line between privately interpreting (basic brain function?) and looking to the magesterium seems fuzzy. And wouldnt that line be different depending on the individual (eg, me versus St. Jerome) ?

 

[peary]

No I don’t.
A point being how can anyone differ on the literal meaning. So much so that noone it seems (?) would **need **the magesterium at this level and private interpretation would be OK. I can see that at some point, as verses become more difficult, I would stop looking to my own interpretings and lean on the magesterium, if they’ve commented on a particular verse. For me though in so many scriptural cases the line between privately interpreting (basic brain function?) and looking to the magesterium seems fuzzy. And wouldnt that line be different depending on the individual (eg, me versus St. Jerome) ?

Actually, the Magisterium is there to clarify both doctrine and dogma and teachings of the Church, all of which, in one way or another, are rooted in Scripture as well as apostolic tradition.

 

[allhers]

With respect to private interpretation of scripture: do I need the magesterium of the CC to teach me the interpretation of this simple (yet profound) verse ?

John 11:35 Jesus wept

Even without the magesterium I can tell what this verse means: it means that Jesus wept. Questions do arise like ‘why’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and are important. But their compoundings don’t take away from the basic meaning which is that “Jesus wept” means that Jesus wept. How do my interpretings of this particular straight-forward verse (or partial verses like “…Jesus stood…”) relate to the authority of the CC’s magesterium?

Thank you

Of course it is easy to figure out that it means that He wept, but do you know WHY He wept? Like you said, questions do arise here, and it is important to know why. Do you know?
I’ll be back sometime tomorrow to see the different reasons that people say. What do you say Henning?
What about everyone else? Lets see how many different reasons we get and how everyone came to that conclusion.

 

[Henning]

Of course it is easy to figure out that it means that He wept, but do you know WHY He wept? Like you said, questions do arise here, and it is important to know why. Do you know?
I’ll be back sometime tomorrow to see the different reasons that people say. What do you say Henning?
What about everyone else? Lets see how many different reasons we get and how everyone came to that conclusion.

Perhaps he wept 1) as a grieving with his friends, 2) because of their unbelief, 3) ?..

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

With respect to private interpretation of scripture: do I need the magesterium of the CC to teach me the interpretation of this simple (yet profound) verse ?

John 11:35 Jesus wept

Even without the magesterium I can tell what this verse means: it means that Jesus wept. Questions do arise like ‘why’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and are important. But their compoundings don’t take away from the basic meaning which is that “Jesus wept” means that Jesus wept. How do my interpretings of this particular straight-forward verse (or partial verses like “…Jesus stood…”) relate to the authority of the CC’s magesterium?

Thank you

If the M. is to be consistent, yes - every single verse needs the M.​

That included. It is not self-evident that Jesus did weep, so the M. is needed to emphasise that he did so in reality, & not in seeming only. Divine Persons, after all, have no emotions - Jesus is a Divine Person, therefore, it is not clear that He really wept, was really ignorant, & so on. As the Fathers show by their uncertainties in interpreting such verses.

 

[peary]

If the M. is to be consistent, yes - every single verse needs the M.​

That included. It is not self-evident that Jesus did weep, so the M. is needed to emphasise that he did so in reality, & not in seeming only. Divine Persons, after all, have no emotions - Jesus is a Divine Person, therefore, it is not clear that He really wept, was really ignorant, & so on. As the Fathers show by their uncertainties in interpreting such verses.

How do you know that - that God has no emotion? What bible do you read?! OF COURSE God has emotions; it’s all over Scripture. God displays happiness, joy, sadness, remorse, anger, forgiveness, etc. God made us in His image and likeness; if God has an emotional nature (which has been revealed that He has), we too have the same.

 

[NoelFitz]

…so the M. is needed to emphasise that he did so in reality, & not in seeming only. Divine Persons, after all, have no emotions - Jesus is a Divine Person, therefore, it is not clear that He really wept…

You raise a very fundamental issue about God. It is of fundamental importance that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. The heresy of Docetism (Jesus seemed to be man) was clearly and resolutely refuted. Thus it is totally incorrect to say that Divine Persons have no emotions.

 

[Foreigner]

With respect to private interpretation of scripture: do I need the magesterium of the CC to teach me the interpretation of this simple (yet profound) verse ?

John 11:35 Jesus wept

Even without the magesterium I can tell what this verse means: it means that Jesus wept. Questions do arise like ‘why’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and are important. But their compoundings don’t take away from the basic meaning which is that “Jesus wept” means that Jesus wept. How do my interpretings of this particular straight-forward verse (or partial verses like “…Jesus stood…”) relate to the authority of the CC’s magesterium?

Thank you

You don’t need the Magesterium to interpret any verse.

Indeed, the claim is not that only the Magesterium CAN interpret (has the ability). The claim is that only the Magesterium’s interpretation is authoritative (if yours is different then theirs is right). Ability and authority are not the same thing.

 

[MDK]

With respect to private interpretation of scripture: do I need the magesterium of the CC to teach me the interpretation of this simple (yet profound) verse ?

John 11:35 Jesus wept

Even without the magesterium I can tell what this verse means: it means that Jesus wept. Questions do arise like ‘why’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and are important. But their compoundings don’t take away from the basic meaning which is that “Jesus wept” means that Jesus wept. How do my interpretings of this particular straight-forward verse (or partial verses like “…Jesus stood…”) relate to the authority of the CC’s magesterium?

Thank you

Can you do as well with the verses where Jesus tells us we must eat His Body and drink His Blood? These are very straight forward as well.

Do you have a problem figuring out the plain spoken phrases in Matthew 26:26 “Take ye, and eat. This is my body.”

Do you have a problem interpreting John 6:55-56 “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” Or, do you walk away from Him like some of his followers did? Note that Jesus did not ask them to come back. He did not expain that it was a metaphor, and everyone should relax a little on the literal interpretation.

Do you have a problem interpreting 1 Tim 3:15 “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.” It’s pretty straight forward, and very easy to interpret.

In every case, the Pope and Magisterium are the infallible teacher. Some are just easy enough for a non-Catholic to interpret in line with the Magisterium. In other cases, we wonder why fundamentalists can’t quite interpret plain writing as well.

 

[Etruschi]

Agreed. The CCC is not a commentary. However, for those topics weighty enough to be documented in it, the references provide significant connectivity between Sacred Scripture and Church Teaching.

Like DavidV says whatever Biblical commentary you adhere to it is best also that is interact with and refer to Church Teaching.

 

[NoelFitz]

In every case, the Pope and Magisterium are the infallible teacherl.

One must be careful. The Pope and the Church are only infallible when they refer to faith and morals to be held by all the faithful.

The Pope in his book Jesus of Nazareth wrote:

It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium…Everyone is free, then, to contradict me.

 

[VociMike]

No I don’t.
A point being how can anyone differ on the literal meaning. So much so that noone it seems (?) would **need **the magesterium at this level and private interpretation would be OK. I can see that at some point, as verses become more difficult, I would stop looking to my own interpretings and lean on the magesterium, if they’ve commented on a particular verse. For me though in so many scriptural cases the line between privately interpreting (basic brain function?) and looking to the magesterium seems fuzzy. And wouldnt that line be different depending on the individual (eg, me versus St. Jerome) ?

I’d just comment that your view of what the Magisterium does is a little off. The Church doesn’t sit around interpreting verses to discover doctrine. The teachings were there first, at the beginning, even before a line of the NT was written. So the job of the Magisterium is to preserve and pass down those teachings, regardless of how explicitly or implicitly they might be found in Scripture.

In short, the Magisterium concerns itself more with “what does the Church teach on this subject?” than with “what does this verse mean?”

 

[MDK]

One must be careful. The Pope and the Church are only infallible when they refer to faith and morals to be held by all the faithful.

Please be careful not to take the Protestant tact, and take the words out of context of this thread. One would also be careful to understand that official Cathoilic teachings on faith and morals are the context of this thread, discussing whether one needed the Magisterium in every passage of the Bible. “In every case” was referring to every case that one could be brought up about Scriptural interpretation, even if it seems easy. My words were in proper context, like we Catholics like to keep things.

 

[allhers]

Perhaps he wept 1) as a grieving with his friends, 2) because of their unbelief, 3) ?..

Yes, # 2, because of their unbelief, that He indeed was the Ressurection and the Life, he wept because of that, not because Lazuras had seemed to “die”, Jesus knew that Lazarus wasn’t really “dead” but that Lazarus would live on in eternal life. He reason for bringing Lazarus back to “life” to live among the living was to show this forth. A Priest who was a Bible Scholar told me this, and recently I heard another Priest give a homily/sermon,… (sorry, I don’t know the difference anymore, I use to at one time though.) …anyway, this other Priest said it was because Jesus was sad that Lazarus had died, and I thought, “now, why would Jesus be sad about that”?? The Priest who did the Funeral Mass for my Mother-in-law was right on when he said, “this isn’t for her, it’s for us, she is perfectly happy where she is right now.” I agree with that. That woman was a living Saint and she suffered for years before her death without one word of complaint, and she was Annoited right before her death. I don’t think she was needing anything from us, we needed that Mass though and to hear what that Priest had to say…
I also agree with what VociMike had to say, especially in his post # 33.

 

[Etruschi]

To be sure, the Bishop Of Rome is Infallible when he makes a declaration “Ex-Cathedera,” and the Magisterium is Infallible when the Extra-Ordinary Magisterium as opposed to the Ordinary Magisterium makes an expounding. This shouldn’t be taken to mean though that only those things proclaimed “Ex-Cathedera” and “Extra-Ordinarily” are Inflallible, thus the only articles of faith we know without doubt, but something that is a product of Sacred Tradition, Magisterial anthology, and Canon Law in constant-unchanging Teaching are too to be reckoned as Infallible. For example, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has never been implemented in the case of artificial contraception, neither has Magisterial Infallibility been applied to this. However, it is an infallible prohibition, precisely because it has been instructed unchangably by the Ordinary Magisterium via Sacred Tradition.

 

[Henning]

I’d just comment that your view of what the Magisterium does is a little off.

No doubt. More study in order. My mistake was/is thinking that there is an official magesterial commentary on the whole Bible somewhere like Haydocks.

 

[Henning]

Can you do as well with the verses where Jesus tells us we must eat His Body and drink His Blood? These are very straight forward as well.

Do you have a problem figuring out the plain spoken phrases in Matthew 26:26 “Take ye, and eat. This is my body.”

Do you have a problem interpreting John 6:55-56 “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” Or, do you walk away from Him like some of his followers did? Note that Jesus did not ask them to come back. He did not expain that it was a metaphor, and everyone should relax a little on the literal interpretation.

In John 6 if I think very literally, I’m surprised that there were none there overly zealous enough to cannibalize him on the spot in τρώγων fashion. I definitely would have said, and do say now as a relatively new Christian, that ‘this is an hard saying’, but wouldn’t have ‘turned back’, waiting instead for Him to open my understanding…as I do even now by whatever means (eg teachings of CC, CCC, ECF, doctors of CC).

 

[NoelFitz]

. However, it (ban on contraception) is an infallible prohibition, precisely because it has been instructed unchangably by the Ordinary Magisterium via Sacred Tradition.

I wonder.

Prior to *Humanae Vitae *a commission was set up to consider contraception. The conclusions were not unanimous. In fact the majority favoured contraception.

Most married Catholics families pracise contraception.

Can one say they, in general, are in the state of Mortal sin and will go to hell for all eternity, unless they get forgiveness?

 

[LilyM]

I wonder.

Prior to *Humanae Vitae *a commission was set up to consider contraception. The conclusions were not unanimous. In fact the majority favoured contraception.

Most married Catholics families pracise contraception.

Can one say they, in general, are in the state of Mortal sin and will go to hell for all eternity, unless they get forgiveness?

A commission comprised of who though?

It has been constant Apostolic teaching, as it was in EVERY Christian church up until 1930, that all forms of contraception were utterly wrong. There are numerous texts from the earliest centuries (contraception wasnt unknown even in Roman times) down to the last century affirming this fact.

The Pope couldn’t do other than uphold that consistent teaching. And that consistent teaching in and of itself certainly infallible by the mere fact of being consistent Apostolic teaching, regardless of whether the document Humanae Vitae itself was or was not expressed in infallible terms.