Few infallibily interpreted passages of Scripture

[YehoiakhinEx232]

I’m engaging in a Sola Scriptura debate with Protestants, (which is currently winding down.) and in it, we are debating whether or not, the Bible can stand on it’s own as the only infallible authority?

One of the Protestants has just pointed out that the Catholic Church has only infallibly interpreted a few passages in Sacred Scripture, how should I respond to this? What should my explanation be?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Scripture and tradition makes up our Church

 

[DetectiveNiko]

The Bible is really complex and we can see this in many places where we have to agree on what is true and what is mean to be taken figuratively. So the Church needs to be careful there.

Correct me if I am wrong but, I don’t see how the quantity of infalible teachings proves the quality.
One question I would ask against sola scriptura I guess is ,
" How did people believe before the Bible was written ? "
If they tell you that they had Jesus/God by their side you could say
"Well whats the difference today ? We believe the Church is lead by the holy spirit because its the Church christ founded. And because of the church is that we have the Bible cannon in the first place "

Those are some things I would say, others might give better answers though

 

[Gorgias]

I’m engaging in a Sola Scriptura debate with Protestants, (which is currently winding down.) and in it, we are debating whether or not, the Bible can stand on it’s own as the only infallible authority?

Infallibility has to proceed from somewhere. It doesn’t just drop out of the sky.

If a Sola Scriptura adherent could show that the Bible makes that claim for itself, by itself, then they’d have a leg to stand on. Problem is… they can’t. Oh, sure, they can show that Scripture is inspired and “useful for teaching”… but the whole purpose for that usefulness is to be prepared to perform “every good work.”

The point is that the infallibility of the Bible – as compiled – has to proceed from some grounds. Catholics would claim that the Church compiled Scripture, and its authority to do so proceeds from Christ’s grant of proxy to Peter in Mt 16. Therefore, authority to teach without error proceeds from Christ, to the Church, and she compiles the Bible on this authority and promise of infallibility.

(By the way, we would say that, in certain circumstances, a person or persons may speak infallibly, but that the Bible is inerrant (i.e., ‘without error’).)

One of the Protestants has just pointed out that the Catholic Church has only infallibly interpreted a few passages in Sacred Scripture, how should I respond to this? What should my explanation be?

Your answer is “yes, that’s true.”

Your explanation could be “why does that surprise you? Do you have infallible explanations for every verse? Do you need infallible explanations for every verse? If so, then it’s not the Bible that you claim is infallible… it’s its Cliff Notes that are infallible? Do you, as an adherent to ‘Sola Scriptura’ really want to make that claim?”

(They’ll claim that the Bible doesn’t need infallible interpretation, of course. At which point, you can pull out one of any number of verses of Scripture that various groups disagree on, and ask what its infallible interpretation is. The discussion will devolve into an assertion that their interpretation is correct, and all others’ is wrong. )

 

[De_Maria]

One of the Protestants has just pointed out that the Catholic Church has only infallibly interpreted a few passages in Sacred Scripture, how should I respond to this? What should my explanation be?

1. That’s not exactly true when seen from the perspective that the Catholic Church wrote the entire New Testament. The New Testament itself infallibly documents the Doctrines which Jesus Christ taught the Apostles. In that sense, it is the first WRITTEN infallible interpretation of that which Jesus taught by word.
2. Scripture is not the center of Catholic life. It is the Word of God. And the Word of God is transferred generation to generation, by Sacred Tradition. Even Scripture is part of that Tradition.

Now, since Scripture is not the center of Catholic life, the Catholic Church doesn’t sit around all day micro managing the interpretation of Scripture amongst the laity. It is only when some movement of colossal error has begun to infect the Church that the Magisterium steps in to correct that false interpretation (example, the errors of Luther were condemned at the Council of Trent).

Otherwise, the Catholic Church merely TEACHES the Word of God and the Will of God. We have 2000 years of Church documents explaining what Jesus Christ commanded to be taught in His three year hiatus upon earth. She does this on a daily basis in a very mundane fashion, through schools and seminaries. And she does this through the Mass in a Divine intervention of heaven upon earth.

Does that help?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Read Dei Verbum (Vatican II document, online) and the Catechism on inspiration and revelation (also online).

First, if you haven’t noticed, the Catholic Church very rarely makes pronouncements on anything, let alone interpretations of the Bible. Take the recent Synod of the Family report. It’s ambiguous–each side can use it to support its position. That’s intentional–the Church doesn’t act without consensus (well, rarely, anyway).

So no, although there are Bible translations approved by the Church, there is no volume of “approved interpretations” available. And there won’t ever be. On the other hand, the Church is clear that the Bible must be interpreted on many levels (not just literally), that it has to be taken as a whole (no taking isolated verses and ignoring other verses, etc.), and that any interpretation has to agree with doctrines already accepted by the Church.

 

[Trader]

We have great freedom in interpreting scripture. Very rarely does a verse or parable have only one meaning. What the Church does is to step into controversies to say a particular interpretation is not consistent with the deposit of faith, and therefore wrong. Without the teaching authority you get thousands of denominations that rarely agree on much of anything. Every reader becomes his own authority. Jesus clearly did not want that when he gave the apostles the power to bind and loose. One of the first rules of interpreting Scripture is that if there is an apparent conflict between two verses, it is your interpretation that is mistaken. God cannot contradict Himself,

 

[po18guy]

And the magisterium (teaching authority), I might add. A stable, three-legged foundation, as two will topple over. And one? Great balancing act, but sooner or later…