Does scripture interpret scripture?

[PRmerger]

My church stresses Scripture and the Gospel Message for our lives and not doctrines.

But what is “doctrine” except what your pastor believes the Scriptures/Gospel message is, no?

So unless your pastor’s sermons consist solely of reading the Scriptures aloud to the congregation, when he preaches, he is offering doctrine.

My understanding from Vatican II is that Magesterial statements are “changeable” and so is not equal to scripture and therefore not Sacred Tradition. Is that correct? I read Father Brown to hold that view. I am trying to determine exactly what it means.

Rob

It depends upon what you mean by “Magisterial statements”. Doctrinal statements can never change (although our understanding of them can be fine tuned). Disciplinary practices (such as abstinence from meat on Fridays, receiving communion in the hand) can change.

 

[PRmerger]

But how can you say the apostles taught a subject to anyone when it did not even exist in those days? I can understand how you might take the principles of the apostles and apply it to the modern age but I cannot understand how you claim to have the exact teachings handed down directly.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

We use the same principles that the early Christians used for the first 400 years, before there was a Bible.

They used Sacred Tradition.

Now we use Sacred Tradition plus are the beneficiaries of Sacred Tradition put to writ: i.e. the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

May be so, but I have read the Pope explaination of that issue in his book, Introduction to Christianity, page 356-358 in the newer edition (there were two editions with different pages) Have you read it? He seems to agree with my church that Chirsts body in the euchairist is a spritual presence. He specifically cites John 6:63 and 1 Cor 15:50 as “eucharistic verses” and central to the discussion.

Happy to hear your view of that. Perhaps I misinterpret, but he explains it so clearly and I think I understand plain english. I apprecitate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

Oh, please don’t misunderstand, Rob. Of course the Eucharist is the spiritual presence of Christ! It’s just not ONLY the spiritual presence. He is truly, physically, substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist as well.

(And no, I have not had the privilege of reading his book, Intro to Christianity, yet. And I wish to offer a point of catechesis here: what the pope writes as a theologian I will take very very seriously–he is, indeed, a theological giant! However, as a Catholic I read his writings quite differently* when he is writing as a theologian* vs when he is writing in the* office of his papacy.* There is a distinction between the two which ought not be dismissed.)

 

[Nicea325]

PR,

I will answer by saying that that is not surprising because of the variety of views in the NT.
Note they held a variety of views but excommunication is not shown as approved in the NT.

The view of my church is that baptism is a sign of entry into Gods Kingdom as circumcision is a sign of Jewish commitment to Gods Law.

We use the trinitarian formula and baptize infants.
Of course it is a sacrament having been instituted by Christ himself.
We sprinkle or immerse whatever the individual prefers.

Rob

Rob,

Blessings! Do you mind if I ask you what denomination you faithfully belong to? Simple question…thanks.

 

[guanophore]

I generally agree with what you say. Although of course my church considers itself also as the cathlic church along with the others. We recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday.

Truth be told, we have more in common with our separated brethren than we do not.

But how can you say the apostles taught a subject to anyone when it did not even exist in those days?

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. What I meant to say is that the Magesterium teaches on subjects that did not exist in Apostolic times, in vitro fertilization, for example. The duty of the Magesterium is to help the faithful to understand the unchangeable doctrines of Christ and apply them in the present day and age. The doctrines cannot change, but our understanding of them does. This principle is known as doctrinal development. Some of the doctrinal developments of which our separated brethren are most familiar are the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the Theotokos.

I cannot understand how you claim to have the exact teachings handed down directly.

Such a lack of confidence is really a lack of confidence in God to preserve His Word.

Isa 55:10-11

10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return not thither but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 **so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;**it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Jesus placed His Word in the Church, and His intention was for that Word to remain in the Church until He comes again. The Word of God in the Church is not preserved by the power of men, but of God.

Protestants, too, accept the principle that God does not require writing to preserve His Word. God prepared a people for Himself and their faith was preserved for millenia before any of it was written. And the Sacred Tradition did not evaporate when some of it was written down. If not, how do you think everything from Adam and Eve to Moses was remembered? The revealed Word of God to mankind was passed down through the generations by word of mouth. The HS preserved the Truth so that, in the fullness of time, it was written for our instruction.

 

[submariner2]

Let’s try to stay on topic, The Catholic doctrine you believe is not a correct reflection of Scripture would be straying. The mod has already given us warning!

guano,

That was not my point. I did not intend to compare any doctrine with scripture at all. I was merely inquiring how the term"changeable" was officially defined. Probably best to drop the subject anyway since we seem not to be getting anywhere.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut however.

I am happy to discuss the main subject however because I find it valuable to interpret scripture with scripture.

Rob

 

[Lochias]

Such a lack of confidence is really a lack of confidence in God to preserve His Word.

Isa 55:10-11

10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return not thither but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 **so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;**it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Jesus placed His Word in the Church, and His intention was for that Word to remain in the Church until He comes again. The Word of God in the Church is not preserved by the power of men, but of God.

Protestants, too, accept the principle that God does not require writing to preserve His Word. God prepared a people for Himself and their faith was preserved for millenia before any of it was written. And the Sacred Tradition did not evaporate when some of it was written down. If not, how do you think everything from Adam and Eve to Moses was remembered? The revealed Word of God to mankind was passed down through the generations by word of mouth. The HS preserved the Truth so that, in the fullness of time, it was written for our instruction.

This. Either one trusts God to do what God says He will do, or one doesn’t.

 

[submariner2]

PRmerger;9366754]Oh, please don’t misunderstand, Rob. Of course the Eucharist is the spiritual presence of Christ! It’s just not ONLY the spiritual presence. He is truly, physically, substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist as well

(And no, I have not had the privilege of reading his book, Intro to Christianity, yet. And I wish to offer a point of catechesis here: what the pope writes as a theologian I will take very very seriously–he is, indeed, a theological giant! However, as a Catholic I read his writings quite differently* when he is writing as a theologian* vs when he is writing in the* office of his papacy.* There is a distinction between the two which ought not be dismissed.)

PR,

I, of course, read him as a theologian and It seems to me he argues against your interpretation of a physical presence. Why dont you read him and see? In fact your CCC never mentions a physical presence. I have no objection to the CCC definition of the eucharist but my church does not teach a physical presence but rather a spiritual presence as the pope explains. As I understand the popes book your church
does not teach a physical presence.

I gave you book and page number. Perhaps you should read what a great theologian is saying about the subject. I think after you read it you will agree with me.
Here is his summation taken out his explanation.

“To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.”

But the full explanation is over a page long and one should read it all for his logic.
He refers to the verses he uses as “eucharistic.” I think that means it relates to the presence of Christ in the eucharist.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Rob,

Blessings! Do you mind if I ask you what denomination you faithfully belong to? Simple question…thanks.

nicea,

I am Methodist. Open hearts, Open minds, Open doors.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

PR,
It depends upon what you mean by “Magisterial statements”. Doctrinal statements can never change (although our understanding of them can be fine tuned). Disciplinary practices (such as abstinence from meat on Fridays, receiving communion in the hand) can change.

PR,

Here is what I read in a book by Father Raymond Brown.

“The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that its past Magesterial statements have
been enunciated in ‘the changeable conceptions of a given epoch.’
Note 9 - Mysterium ecclesiae, a declaration of the Roman Doctrinal Congregation
(1973).
Note 10 - Theologically the Bible outranks the magesterial statments (since no one
claims they are the word of God)”
Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.

He quotes the phrase I am asking about and refers to “Magesterial statements.”

He seems to imply they can change which seems different from your assertion.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

We use the same principles that the early Christians used for the first 400 years, before there was a Bible.

They used Sacred Tradition.

Now we use Sacred Tradition plus are the beneficiaries of Sacred Tradition put to writ: i.e. the Scriptures.

PR,

That makes sense to me. We do the same.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Protestants, too, accept the principle that God does not require writing to preserve His Word. God prepared a people for Himself and their faith was preserved for millenia before any of it was written. And the Sacred Tradition did not evaporate when some of it was written down. If not, how do you think everything from Adam and Eve to Moses was remembered? The revealed Word of God to mankind was passed down through the generations by word of mouth. The HS preserved the Truth so that, in the fullness of time, it was written for our instruction

Guano,

Yes, that is how we see it too. We regard Sacred Tradtition as scripture and the presence of Christ in us and among us - The Word of God.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

I am happy to discuss the main subject however because I find it valuable to interpret scripture with scripture.

Rob

I think we are all in agreement that Scripture does not contradict itself, and therefore, a proper understanding of it needs to incorporate the whole of Scripture.

Scripture however, cannot “interpret” itself. Interpretation, or hermeneutics, consists of discrimminating between meanings. Text, however Holy, cannot do this on it’s own. The act of interpretation requires a person - will, intellect, and discernment.

These are not characteristics that belong to writings, but only to persons. This is why the effort to replace corrupt Church officials with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has ultimately resulted in continual fracturing of the Christian community. Each person believes that scripture is interpreting itself, while all the time, each individual reader is interpreting. When there is a disagreement, they part ways. This was not how Jesus taught us to resolve differences.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I, of course, read him as a theologian and It seems to me he argues against your interpretation of a physical presence. Why dont you read him and see?

Rob, I will tell you that I am 100% assured, that even without reading this particular book by Pope B16, speaking as a theologian, that he absolutely does not argue against a physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

That, Rob, is the source and summit of our faith.

And for our pope, even as a theologian and not in the office of his papacy, speaking against a physical presence of Christ in the Euchrist, would be heresy.

 

[submariner2]

I think we are all in agreement that Scripture does not contradict itself, and therefore, a proper understanding of it needs to incorporate the whole of Scripture.

Scripture however, cannot “interpret” itself. Interpretation, or hermeneutics, consists of discrimminating between meanings. Text, however Holy, cannot do this on it’s own. The act of interpretation requires a person - will, intellect, and discernment.

These are not characteristics that belong to writings, but only to persons. This is why the effort to replace corrupt Church officials with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has ultimately resulted in continual fracturing of the Christian community. Each person believes that scripture is interpreting itself, while all the time, each individual reader is interpreting. When there is a disagreement, they part ways. This was not how Jesus taught us to resolve differences.

guano,

I agree. I am simply saying that using scripture to interpret scripture gives one a better overall view of what the verses mean. Of course it requires discernment and common sense. I do not think it is above the average person for the parts that matter most.

But I do think there are contradictions in scripture for various reasons but scripture leads us unerringly to the Gospel Message. That is the important part.

Rob

 

[PRmerger]

In fact your CCC never mentions a physical presence.

Well, the word “physical” may not be in the Catechism, but how do you interpret these words except to mean a physical presence??

"Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity "

I have no objection to the CCC definition of the eucharist but my church does not teach a physical presence but rather a spiritual presence as the pope explains.

As I stated earlier, Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist. Just not ONLY spiritually present.

As I understand the popes book your church does not teach a physical presence

You are gravely misinformed, dear Rob. :sad_yes:

I mean, really, is there any informed non-Catholic out there who will not acknowledge that the Catholic Church proclaims that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist???

Or, to put it without all the double negatives: what informed Protestant will say, “The Catholic Church does not believe that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist!”

Not a single one.

Not if he’s informed, anyway.

That is a dogma that is inherently linked to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy).

 

[PRmerger]

I gave you book and page number. Perhaps you should read what a great theologian is saying about the subject. I think after you read it you will agree with me.
Here is his summation taken out his explanation.

“To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.”

Amen!!

But the full explanation is over a page long and one should read it all for his logic.
He refers to the verses he uses as “eucharistic.” I think that means it relates to the presence of Christ in the eucharist.

Rob

Of that I have no doubt.

As I stated, the Eucharist is the spiritual presence of Christ.

But there is no rejection by our current pope of the physical (that is, a true, real, and substantial presence) presence of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

nicea,

I am Methodist. Open hearts, Open minds, Open doors.

Rob

Amen!

That is the Catholic paradigm, as well.

 

[submariner2]

Rob, I will tell you that I am 100% assured, that even without reading this particular book by Pope B16, speaking as a theologian, that he absolutely does not argue against a physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

That, Rob, is the source and summit of our faith.

And for our pope, even as a theologian and not in the office of his papacy, speaking against a physical presence of Christ in the Euchrist, would be heresy.

PR,

I have typed out more of it for your information. The book can be purchased cheap and used on the web but be sure to get the new edition. That is the one I have.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 356-358 c. The question of the resurrected body

Let us start from verse 50 (1Cor15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:“I tell you this, bretheren: flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable.” It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel: for these two seemingly widely separated
texts are much more closely related than is apparent at first sight.
There in St. John, it says, just after the real presence of the flesh
and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist has been sharply emphasized;
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” in both
the Johannnine and the Pauline texts, it is a question of developing
the Christian realism of “the flesh”. In John the realism of the
sacraments, that is, the realism of Jesus’ Resurrection and of his
“flesh” that comes to us from it, is emphasized; in “flesh”, of the
resurrection of Christians and of the salvation achieved for us in it.
But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realism.

Here English cannot fully convey the enigmatic character of the
biblical Greek. In Greek the word soma means something like
“body”, but at the same time is also means “the itself”.
and this soma can be sarx, that is, “body” in the earthly historical,
and thus chemical-physical terms, can, again, appear definitively
in the guise of a transphysical reality.
In Pauls language “body” and “spirit” are not the opposites; the
opposites are called “physical body” and “spiritual body”. We do
not need to try here to pursue the complicated historical and
philosphical problems posed by this.
One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection
of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body”, is not a “resurrection
of physical bodies.” Thus from the point of view of modern thought
the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological
erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be
eternal physical bodies.
To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

You can decide for yourself what he is teaching. I doubt if he is a heretic.

Here also is a quote from Father Raymond E. Brown regarding the physical presence.
I dont think he is a heretic either.

"so far as I can see, the properties of the risen body are an open question; and I would think that holds true even in the teaching of the Catholic church. While I judge that the church has taught infallibly the bodily resurrection, I find no evidence that it has taught specific details about the properties of the risen body of Jesus and its physicality. Therefore I suggest avoiding the term physical and using the term bodily. That latter term is closer, in any case,to the real issue…
Raymond Brown, Q 53, Questions and Answers on the Bible, p 75, Imprimatur.

Note that the pope refers to his bible verses quoted as “eucharistic”

And I have heard many Catholics even on this forum say that the eucharist is not a physical presence of Christ. I suspect you have a minority opinion.

Rob

 

[PRmerger]

PR,
It depends upon what you mean by “Magisterial statements”. Doctrinal statements can never change (although our understanding of them can be fine tuned). Disciplinary practices (such as abstinence from meat on Fridays, receiving communion in the hand) can change.

PR,

Here is what I read in a book by Father Raymond Brown.

“The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that its past Magesterial statements have
been enunciated in ‘the changeable conceptions of a given epoch.’
Note 9 - Mysterium ecclesiae, a declaration of the Roman Doctrinal Congregation
(1973).
Note 10 - Theologically the Bible outranks the magesterial statments (since no one
claims they are the word of God)”
Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.

He quotes the phrase I am asking about and refers to “Magesterial statements.”

He seems to imply they can change which seems different from your assertion.

Rob

I’m not quite clear on what he means by “magisterial statments”. Could you define what you mean by them?

And, it would appear that the word “changeable” is an adjective for conceptions of an epoch. Not for the doctrinal beliefs themselves. But I can’t tell with absolute certainty based on this particular passage.