How does the CC interpret the bible?

[E.E.N.S]

The Scriptures are the Scriptures because God tells me so.

That is a very subjective answer. Maybe I should have stressed that I was looking for more of an objective answer.

Now, this may sound “blasphemous” to you, but in actuallity, it isn’t. There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. Perhaps the better word to use at this time would be codified. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Here is a brief overview:

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

So, however you want to look at it, one can’t deny that God, through the Church, gave us the Canon. No Christian for about 1500 years would deny that, (however some protestants do now because they must separate the authority of the Church otherwise they haven’t any leg at all to stand on…and IMO, it’s a leg of straw standing on sand.)

You are right on one thing though, it is by God that the canon was determined, but you can’t seperate Christ and His Church. His work is done through the Church, which is His very Mystical Body.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Inspiration is God’s superintending of human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error his revelation to man in the original writings.

Principles of Interpretation.

1.  Interpret grammatically and historically.

2.  Interpret according to the immediate and wider contexts.

3.  Interpret in harmony with the whole Bible by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Catechism of the Catholic Church parapgraphs 109-114:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Actually paragraphs 101-141, of the CCC, talks about Sarced Scripture. Click here to read all of those paragraphs. Once you get to the link you will have to scroll down to Article 3 Sacred Scripture.

 

[Xenogeek]

I was a Southern Baptist for many years but I got over it. One of the reasons I left them was that they insisted on interpreting the Bible literally–except for passages such as John 6:53 and James 2:17, which contradict Calvinist doctrines. (The first supports the Eucharist and the second, the necessity for good works).

Just recently I realized why SBs are literalists. Without realizing it, they regard the Bible as doctrine. Of course, the Bible is not doctrine; it is the foundation of doctrine. Doctrine has to be enunciated by the Magisterium.