How do we know Catholic apologists are right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GladTidings
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GladTidings

Guest
It is my understanding that the Church has not officially interpreted the vast majority of the bible. So, who do we listen to when trying to understand scripture?

Scott Hahn could be wrong. Peter Kreeft could be wrong. The person leading the Wednesday night bible study could be wrong.

Believe me, I know about the last one. As a former non-Catholic Christian, I got tired of hearing so many different interpretations and arguments over the same scripture, no one had the answer. Of course, as a Catholic, there are many parts of the bible that make sense to me now, but what about scripture that the Magisterium is silent about? I guess I do not have any specific examples, and I know about different genres, and hyperbole which was employed, etc., so those verses do not require interpretation.

Second Peter, 1:20, 21 say: 20 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”

I know those verses are talking about false teachers, and I’m not saying Hahn or Kreeft, or any apologist is a false teacher, but, how do we know they are right? And why hasn’t the Church offered definitive teachings?

Does the holy Spirit influence Catholic apologists to some extent?
 
It can’t. The Bible is made by God, even when a verse is interpreted by the Church as having a meaning to be drawn from it, there are many, many other meanings the verse also has. Many verses, like for instance the beginning of Genesis, has several meanings, so you can’t just say one is “just it.” And God speaks through the Word often to individuals, providing infinite meanings on a personal level. Also the Peter verse has nothing to do with forbidding interpreting the Bible, but only to do with false prophets, as the faith requires that people constantly make private interpretation.

People can offer wrong interpretation, but really your only guidelines are Church Teaching and Tradition. As long as an interpretation doesn’t contradict either of those, then it is up for grabs I’ve been told. And even “Tradition” in this area is up for grabs, you can disagree with the Fathers, and even they contradict each other quite often with views on interpreting specific verses. The Holy Spirit guides and gives to all who ask for it. He guides those apologist as much as He will guide you in reading and studying the Bible.

Catholics HAVE NO ADVANTAGE in interpreting the Bible. “As a former non-Catholic Christian, I got tired of hearing so many different interpretations and arguments over the same scripture, no one had the answer.” Catholic commentaries are just like this. A protestant and Catholic commentary may provide a list of views on a verse, then argue why he personally thinks it’s this specific verse. And on it will go forever until we are made perfect in truth.
 
Actually in the 1987 years since Jesus founded the Church many a heresy has arisen and being dealt with. The Church has a vast collection of books written by starting with the Apostles themselves then their pupils down through the ages. Any apologist worth his/her salt has to reconcile his interpretation with the deposit of faith that the Church has.
And when you read an apologist now days many obtain a “nihil obstat and imprimatur” from the Church through the Magisterium, this gives the reader some certainty that the contents are not heresy,
Peace!
 
tagtotaloffice said:
Catholics HAVE NO ADVANTAGE in interpreting the Bible.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with this, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Don’t you think we have an advantage because at least we have tradition and a successive line of ordination of bishops?
 
GladTidings said:
Second Peter, 1:20, 21 say: 20 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”
Click to expand...
Prophecy & interpreting the bible are totally different things.

The Church has interpreted the bible from beginning to end. They call it public revelation. The Church has not proof text every verse, which I feel is what you’re asking.

Scott Hahn (far as I know) doesn’t interpret scripture so much as demonstrate the connection between the old & the new & how it all relates to the Triune God.
 
In a way it is an advantage, for instance we know to never interpret a verse as going against Church teaching, on Mariology, Christology, Ecclesiology, Ology-ology, etc. And we do have other lines to not cross over, but when you get into the “meat” of things, like what allegories are in Scripture, what did Paul mean about x,y,z, how to interpret Revelation and various eschatological opinions (on this alone Catholics have nearly as much freedom as Protestants, and can even accept slightly modified forms of Dispensationalism, millenialism, preterism which was started by a Catholic priest anyway, etc), how to view the gods of the Old Testament, how to interpret what the applications of the Law of Moses were, what particular episodes in the OT meant in their Ancient Near East context, and on and on, those “guidelines” really limit almost nothing. The same interpretive problems and lack of clear answers Catholics have. Even with the Gospel, one particular episode for demonstration:
27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.” 28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” 29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.” 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly charged them, “See that no one knows it.” 31 But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.
Click to expand...
Did they sin here? There is no sin in a Catholic saying “no” or saying “yes” like Protestants do. Cornelius (Cath) says:
. He did this to show His strong dislike of ostentation in His miracles, and of vain glory, and to teach us to dislike it. But they spread abroad his fame in all that country. These blind men did not offend against the strict charge of Christ by publishing His miracle, as Calvin would have it, for they persuaded themselves that Christ had done so, not by an absolute precept, but only out of modesty, for the reason I have given. And no wonder that the blind men thought so, for the Fathers are persuaded that Christ spoke in this sense. Hear S. Chrysostom: “To another He says, Declare the glory of God; surely He teaches that they are to be rebuked, who wish to praise us for our own sakes, but not if they do so for the glory of God.” And S. Jerome says, “The Lord, because of humility, avoiding the glory of boasting, gave this command; but they, in remembrance of His grace, were not able to keep silent about His kindness.”
Click to expand...
I personally rather agree with this though:
Roman Catholic commentators in the affirmative, some even maintaining that the command was not meant seriously; and by most Protestant commentators in the negative. There can be no doubt that the latter take that which is ethically the truer view. “To obey is better than sacrifice,” better even than unrestrained emotion, better certainly than garrulous excitement.
Click to expand...
And you see in the whole matter there is no authoritative binding Church interpretation that any one must definitely hold to. So in this way, we have no advantage. Many times you’ll come across stuff like this.
 
We have the much ignored catechism. We are not stumbling blind from one verse to the next. We have the entire, seamles garment of the scriptures, guided by the Apostolic teachings and the teaching authority of the Church.

If all Christians were lead by the Holy Spirit, all would be one, as the Spirit unites and cannot divide. The Spirit cannot divide, but man certainly can.
 
GladTidings said:
It is my understanding that the Church has not officially interpreted the vast majority of the bible. So, who do we listen to when trying to understand scripture?
Click to expand...
May i employ the proverbial three legged stool for a moment and elaborate on this anology-

It seems to me each of us humans have a tendency to lean towards one of the legs of the stool more than the others which is not necessarily wrong. Some rely more on Tradition than Scripture, others rely more on Scripture than the Magisterm… The problem is trying to sit too far out on the edge of the stool that your weight is no longer supported by the other two legs.

The three legged stool concept works well in that the three legs are seperated enough to allow for spiritual enrichment and enlightenment to all in a multitude of ways without compromising God’s truth in the Gospel, (this truth being the perimeter of the leg support), while having at the same time a seat slightly bigger than the leg support allowing for slight misplacement and adjustment without being perfectly centered.

To further this analogy-
The seat that can be slightly bigger than the pirimeter of the leg support can support some weight outside the perimeter of the legs, but at some point those that sit too far out from the leg support will find themselves in a precarious position. One could say these are the cafateria Catholics.
GladTidings said:
Scott Hahn could be wrong. Peter Kreeft could be wrong. The person leading the Wednesday night bible study could be wrong.
Click to expand...
They very well could be wrong in some areas and im sure they would admit that but they cannot be wrong where they are sitting firmly on the stool.

Peace!!!
 
As a previous poster said, check to see if the books they write have an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
Does the apologist speak at conferences that appear to be Catholic but have no approval from the local bishop? Not a good sign.

Is the apologist part of a ministry that sounds Catholic but is not in union with their local bishop? This is somewhat tricky… sometimes you might see an article by another bishop in a popular website. That doesn’t mean the website itself is approved (in union with the Church) nor the particular apologist who also happens to write for that website.
 
tagtotaloffice said:
People can offer wrong interpretation, but really your only guidelines are Church Teaching and Tradition. As long as an interpretation doesn’t contradict either of those, then it is up for grabs I’ve been told. And even “Tradition” in this area is up for grabs, you can disagree with the Fathers, and even they contradict each other quite often with views on interpreting specific verses.
Click to expand...
I think you’re using a different definition for “tradition” than the one that’s relevant in this thread. When you talk about “Sacred Tradition”, you’re talking about something with a distinct and precise definition. From the Catechism:
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
  • orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
  • in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.
. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.
Click to expand...
So… “no”! You can’t say that “tradition is up for grabs”, unless you’re talking about something different than Sacred Tradition (or, what is sometimes called “big-T Tradition”).
 
Catholic apologists on CAF for instance are not coming to this anew. They are connecting the Catechism, the opinion of Doctors of the Church, early Church fathers, etc. they are standing on the shoulders of giants. Regardless, anyone can focus on the declared dogmas and have opinions about everything else, as long as they do not deny the Magisterium.
 
GladTidings said:
But she has not infallibly defined every verse. Is that what you mean by proof texting?
Click to expand...
Applying each particular verse to this situation, that situation, or any particular “definition.” No, the Church has not done that & most likely never will. The Church has interpreted public revelation for all of us, leaving room for the Holy Spirit to speak to each us individually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top