How To Read and Understand The Bible

[buffalo]

That’s right… Catholics are not allowed to interpret the bible.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC #85

The above paragraph from the catechism makes this prefectly clear. Your parish priest isn’t even allowed to interpret the Bible.

That is correct. And why is that? Because language and meanings change. Individuals can get it very wrong. The Church preserves the original meaning and intent.

To see an example of this look up the word truth in an 1850’s dictionary, 1900 dictionary a 1950’s and today.

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s right… Catholics are not allowed to interpret the bible.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC #85

The above paragraph from the catechism makes this prefectly clear. Your parish priest isn’t even allowed to interpret the Bible.

The key word in your quote is not “alone”, but “authentic”. If I give an interpretation of a scripture verse(s), then it is simply that, my interpretation. But for the interpretation to be authentic, meaning with the divinely gifted authority, then that interpretation has to come from the source of that divine gift - the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

I am trying to learn how to read and understand it. I used to read it like a normal book and started with Genesis. Now someone told me not to read it like that. Just open it up and read the first passages the page falls on. I would like to learn how to intepret the bible.

Here is a nice article from a man that reads and studies the Bible for 6-8 hours per day for the past 40 plus years. It is 3 pages in length; so easy to print and keep handy when studying.

It has helped me open my understanding and I hope you will receive the same blessing.

gty.org/Resources/Print/Articles/A178

 

[SteveGC]

That’s right… Catholics are not allowed to interpret the bible.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC #85

The above paragraph from the catechism makes this prefectly clear. Your parish priest isn’t even allowed to interpret the Bible.

We are free to read and interpret the bible, insofar as we are not attempting to derive authentic doctrines from that interpretation. As NotWorthy pointed out, the buzzword here is “authentic”. But more than that, you must distinguish what type of interpretation is reserved, and what types are not. The reserved interpretations are those which involve doctrinal truths. That is why the paragraph you cited, #85, is embedded within the Part entitled “Profession of Faith” - and the Section “We Believe” - and the Article “Transmission of Divine Revelation”. This whole portion of the Catechism is concentrated on the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the interpretation of the Revelation of Christ, entrusted to the Church. In other words, what we are to believe has already been defined and declared, long long ago - by Christ Himself to the Apostles…both orally and scripturally was it received and preserved. That’s why this type of interpretation also is identified as flowing from not only Sacred Scripture, but also Sacred Tradition. …whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition,… CCC 85 We are not to re-interpret Scripture in an attempt to define our own doctrine. That is heresy…the sin of Luther, et al.

This is distinct from the interpretation we are ALL entitled to…which is spelled out in the follow-on part of the Catechism, the link to which I provided you above. This type of interpretation flows out of a natural reading of the Scriptures, guided by the Spirit, and is one of the methods we cooperate with to allow God to speak to us through His written word. Through this natural interpretation from our prayerful reading, we are not attempting to discover, define and solidify doctrine - revealed truth - of Christ. We are allowing that revealed truth to speak to our hearts, to guide us in our personal, unique walk with Him, to help us understand how to apply these truths to our lives in our endeavor to become the saints we are called to be. We are encouraged and free to utilize the classic methodologies of interpretation, absorbing the senses used in, and full context of, the writings, to help us determine the meanings within the messages, then move into reflection on how we are being guided to apply these meanings to our faith. But distinct from that is the erroneous attempt to individually formulate what we are to fundamentally believe, what is a doctrinal truth of the faith. That’s the Church’s job, and they are protected by the Spirit in doing that job…we are not.

 

[TLM08]

The key word in your quote is not “alone”, but “authentic”. If I give an interpretation of a scripture verse(s), then it is simply that, my interpretation. But for the interpretation to be authentic, meaning with the divinely gifted authority, then that interpretation has to come from the source of that divine gift - the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium.

Call it what you want, but all this still means that when it comes to the Bible, God’s spoken word to all of mankind, the Catholic Church is going to tell us what God is saying. Isn’t it odd that the Bible itself commended the Christians in Berea who searched the scriptures for themselves to check the accuracy of the teachings of Paul himself!

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

If Paul is subject to be checked out, why not the Magisterium? The Bible says yes… But the Catholic Church says no!

 

[SteveGC]

Call it what you want, but all this still means that when it comes to the Bible, God’s spoken word to all of mankind, the Catholic Church is going to tell us what God is saying. Isn’t it odd that the Bible itself commended the Christians in Berea who searched the scriptures for themselves to check the accuracy of the teachings of Paul himself!

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

If Paul is subject to be checked out, why not the Magisterium? The Bible says yes… But the Catholic Church says no!

The Catholic Church says “yes”. How do you think we’ve all been protected from the abundance of heresies that have emerged and attempted to steer Christianity down a faulty path? That same Magisterium you denigrate used Sacred Scripture as part of their arsenal to identify and condemn those false beliefs…The Bereans weren’t searching Scripture in a vacuum…they were from the same heritage of apostolic teaching, and when they searched scripture to validate Paul, they were searching it in the light of apostolic tradition…how else do you think they knew what it’s authentic meaning was, so that they could correctly discern the authentic messages within it? It came from the Apostles…the Church. This is how we’re all supposed to read it.

 

[SteveGC]

I must make a correction to my previous post, as I was in error…

The Bereans were from the heritage of the seat of Moses, as opposed to Peter. Still, when they searched scripture to validate Paul, they were searching it in the light of that tradition…and they weren’t noble-minded because they searched Scripture, they were noble-minded because they received the word from Paul with eagerness. We have to remember that they did not know Paul, or his connection to the truth. All they had was the OT, and in that case, it was quite appropriate for them to correlate oral teaching with written word. The Thessalonians, on the other hand, also searched scripture, but rejected Paul…why? because they had historically invented their own meaning and truths from it, as opposed to remaining within the guidance of tradition.

 

[grannymh]

Call it what you want, but all this still means that when it comes to the Bible, God’s spoken word to all of mankind, the Catholic Church is going to tell us what God is saying. Isn’t it odd that the Bible itself commended the Christians in Berea who searched the scriptures for themselves to check the accuracy of the teachings of Paul himself!

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

If Paul is subject to be checked out, why not the Magisterium? The Bible says yes… But the Catholic Church says no!

Here is the full story. Acts 17:10-12 – “The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men.”

One needs to remember that Christ Himself “examined” Scriptures with the intent of demonstrating that He fulfilled the Scripture references to Himself. A bit of trivia-- if you have to guess which Scriptures Christ quoted, try Isaiah. Christ’s example is not odd. Neither is the Catholic Church odd for including the Hebrew Scriptures in the Bible. Salvation history begins with Genesis…

 

[SteveGC]

Here is the full story. Acts 17:10-12 – “The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men.”

One needs to remember that Christ Himself “examined” Scriptures with the intent of demonstrating that He fulfilled the Scripture references to Himself. A bit of trivia-- if you have to guess which Scriptures Christ quoted, try Isaiah. Christ’s example is not odd. Neither is the Catholic Church odd for including the Hebrew Scriptures in the Bible. Salvation history begins with Genesis…

And this is how Steve Ray, in an article on CAF, expresses the reality of the Bereans use of Scripture and their zeal for the word of God:

*The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that others believed. They treated Paul with contempt and violence, throwing him ignominiously out of town. Why? “For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures” in the synagogue, as was his custom. They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong. We must remember that many were proclaiming a wide variety of new teachings, all supposedly based on the Scriptures and revelations from God. Heresies, cults, and sects were as numerous in the Roman Empire as they are today. The Jews in Thessalonica had a right to be skeptical.

Now let’s look at Luke’s comment about the noble-minded Bereans: “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were **more noble **than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men” (Acts 17:10–12).

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as “the people of the book,” **in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the “seat of Moses” in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). **

The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as “divinely inspired,” since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. **They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures **with Paul in the synagogue, **yet they rejected *his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

If you are catholic, you are not allowed to interpret the Bible.

This is a poor restatement of the principle that one must bow to the Church’s teaching on meaning if one can not point to an articulable rational reason for disagreeing with it.

Just saying, “If you are catholic, you are not allowed to interpret the Bible,” solves no problem, except that it forces us to FUNCTIONALLY disobey Church directives that we read the Bible.

Additionally, to the extent that we can look to the Church to interpret (the Church in 2,000 years has authoritatively commented on only a very tiny portion of the Bible), we are left with the problem of interpreting the Church’s interpretation – which is really the same thing as interpreting Scripture, BECAUSE SCRIPTURE ITSELF IS THE CHURCH’S TEACHING.

If we apply the principle backwards, to ANY articulation by the Church, the principle requests that we stop listening to the Church!

 

[EdOsiecki]

This is Ed, Hi to you all. Is there anyone on this thread who can precisely tell me how to interpret the following: Paul states 2 Cor.“For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand”. Also 1 John 2:26," I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. v27 As for you, the anointing you received from Him {Holy Spirit} remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as His anointing is real, not conterfeit----just as it has taught you, remain in Him." What is the precise interpretation of these two verses by the Catholic Magesterium? What do these verses REALLY mean? ED O.

 

[wmscott]

If you are catholic, you are not allowed to interpret the Bible.

So if I get your point, if I renounce being a Catholic and ascribe to a Protestant view, then I can properly interpret Sacred Scripture free from error. I do not have to be accountable to a central teaching authority for guidance and unity to ensure that my interpretation is correct and without error. Is this your point?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

This is Ed, Hi to you all. Is there anyone on this thread who can precisely tell me how to interpret the following: Paul states 2 Cor.“For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand”. Also 1 John 2:26," I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. v27 As for you, the anointing you received from Him {Holy Spirit} remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as His anointing is real, not conterfeit----just as it has taught you, remain in Him." What is the precise interpretation of these two verses by the Catholic Magesterium? What do these verses REALLY mean? ED O.

HI All I could get from 2 Cor. was they were upset at Paul for changing his plans and they were also people who had alot of difficulity with belief and their Pastor of the church. he came with tears for them to talk them into being better christians. They chose not to understand. In 1John he is talking about people that will try to decieve you in church, gov, work, health care? You know! In that same chapeter John talks about the Holy spirit comming on them the day of Penntecost a few day’s after he accended. He also tells them to teach with that same annointing as they have at that time, he told them to teach all things and I guess that’s where the church comes into play and the magistrate. You are to abide in the truth until Christ comes and if anyone tells you a lie or causes you to go astray they will answer to God not you. To much that is given much is required. i myself would not want that position. The shepard’s are responsable for the sheep. God Bless you! and I’m still thinking on what i said earlier to you. You know what i mean .You are Loved Nancy

 

[adowcday]

That’s right… Catholics are not allowed to interpret the bible.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC #85

The above paragraph from the catechism makes this prefectly clear. Your parish priest isn’t even allowed to interpret the Bible.

You are misinterpreting rolleyes what the Catechism is saying. Only the magisterium can interpret authoritatively, that is, in a manner that is binding on others. However, we all interpret (non-authoritatively) the scriptures, doctrine, etc., all the time.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

You are misinterpreting rolleyes what the Catechism is saying. Only the magisterium can interpret authoritatively, that is, in a manner that is binding on others. However, we all interpret (non-authoritatively) the scriptures, doctrine, etc., all the time.

And a happy AMEN to you ! You are Loved!

 

[EdOsiecki]

]You are misinterpreting rolleyes what the Catechism is saying.

Only the magisterium can interpret authoritatively that is, in a manner that is binding on others

Hi adowcday, thanks for your reply. Can you give me for an example one of those Scriptures? Are there a List of all of them somewhere? How can a lay person know which Scriptures that he is allowed to interpret and which ones only the Magesterium can? ED O.

 

[Crumpy]

If you are catholic, you are not allowed to interpret the Bible.

This is a prejudicial, ill-informed, un-Christian, and anti-Catholic remark, obviously.

The account of the temptation in the desert by the devil shows that there are correct and incorrect ways to interpret scripture. Just any interpretation won’t do.

Yes, the Catholic Church has defined and defended its teaching for two thousand years, and from the beginning it revolved around how to “interpret” scripture. The Church has a teaching role, and that includes its authority and duty, given by Christ, to teach the truth.

OF COURSE the Catholic Church leads its members in the correct way of interpreting scripture. (Tell me any church that doesn’t do that and why; I don’t know of any church that simply hands out Bibles and then says “you’re saved.”)

In the gospel, the Ethiopian asked Philip to interpret the scriptures to him, and then he was baptized.

Not all the advice in this thread is useful. There are many ways to make studying the Bible your life’s work (which it should be) and to make it profitable. Unless I missed it, I want to mention Dr Scott Hahn and Mike Aquilina’s website and organization, www.salvationhistory.com. It has lots of advice that is consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

If you have access to EWTN on cable, then tune in and watch the schedule for programs dealing with the Bible.

 

[SteveGC]

"EdOsiecki:

What is the precise interpretation of these two verses by the Catholic Magesterium?

Can you give me for an example one of those Scriptures? Are there a List of all of them somewhere? How can a lay person know which Scriptures that he is allowed to interpret and which ones only the Magesterium can? ED O.

Hi Ed.

there’s no list. The Magisterium doesn’t interpret verse by verse. It defines doctrine as revealed through both Sacred Tradition and Scripture contextually. Of course, most of these doctrinal definitions occurred during the first few hundred years of Christianity, so you certainly won’t find much of that going on today. The Catechism is a good place to start for understanding what those doctrine are, spelled out nicely and chock full of Scriptural references and official Church documents throughout history.

From time to time, as new issues of morality emerge in our modernistic world, you will find the Magisterium actively providing both Traditional and Scriptural interpretation to help us understand why a given activity is moral or immoral.

So, you’re free to interpret the entire Bible, beginning to end…you have to, if you are attempting to read it at all. Reading and interpreting are an inseparable activity after all. What you’re not allowed to do is define for yourself doctrine binding on the faith, nor formulate anything for your belief or behavior which is contrary to the sacred deposit, given exclusively to The Church. If you think about it, it’s sort of silly to try to do that anyway. It’s not hidden in Scripture for the seeker to try and find for themselves. If that were true, I’m sure it wouldn’t have taken well over 1000 years before anyone could even get access to a Bible. What we seek in Scripture is guidance, not doctrine. Why we believe…not what to believe. Why something is immoral, not if it is.

Peace.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Hi Ed.

there’s no list. The Magisterium doesn’t interpret verse by verse. It defines doctrine as revealed through both Sacred Tradition and Scripture contextually. Of course, most of these doctrinal definitions occurred during the first few hundred years of Christianity, so you certainly won’t find much of that going on today

. Hi SteveGC, thanks for your reply. My post #70 reads as follows:—1 John 2:26," I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. v27 As for you, the anointing you received from Him {Holy Spirit} remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His { Holy Spirit} anointing teaches you about all things and as His {Holy Spirit} anointing is real, not conterfeit----just as it has taught you, remain in Him. It’s very clear to me what that means. If I’m to believe the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture, which I can not find even one Scripture that supports it, I then have to ignore what 1 John 2;26-27 states. E D O.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Ed.

. Hi SteveGC, thanks for your reply. My post #70 reads as follows:—1 John 2:26," I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. v27 As for you, the anointing you received from Him {Holy Spirit} remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His { Holy Spirit} anointing teaches you about all things and as His {Holy Spirit} anointing is real, not conterfeit----just as it has taught you, remain in Him. It’s very clear to me what that means. If I’m to believe the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture, which I can not find even one Scripture that supports it, I then have to ignore what 1 John 2;26-27 states. E D O.

Actually Ed, if you’ll back up a few verses in that chapter, what you’ll find is basically that I, a Catholic within the Apostolic heritage of the faith, having been born again through baptism and faith, and subsequently received the anointing of the Spirit, need not have YOU teach ME.

Verse 19 confirms that authentic teachers were SENT by the Apostles. Others come to us, but were not SENT. “Sent” directly infers that there must be appointment from the Apostles if one is to validly come preaching and teaching. Do you come from that lineage, Ed? My Catholic leaders do. (yes, I know you disagree )

Verse 24 confirms that John’s audience, anointed by the Spirit, have HEARD the Gospel from the Apostles, not READ the Gospel, but HEARD it from them. This would not have been heard by them as you read it today…for it was not yet Scripture. So it would be a direct interpretation not of scripture, but of the actual accounts of Christ’s teaching. Have you directly HEARD the Gospel in this way from the apostolic tradition, Ed? I have. Nearly every homily at Mass is this very thing. (Yep, you’re still disagreeing - I get it )

Verse 26 confirms that those born again from within the apostolic heritage are to be on the look-out for those who come from outside that heritage. Perhaps we’re to look out for you? (I know you’re saying ‘no’ )

Verse 27 then concludes the picture for us…Catholics don’t need to be taught by those outside the Church. (Boy I’m off-base, aren’t I?)

Well, that’s my take on all that, Ed. I suppose I could be wrong, but it seems to be good exegesis to me, and I am certainly confident that the Church is authentically Apostolic, descended from the likes of John who wrote those fine passages you cited. And seems pretty clear to me that John would want me to be wary of those who come teaching without the consent of his direct descendants.

Now, you indeed are free to disagree, and certainly free to disregard the Magisterium, Ed. I’m sure you’ll continue to do so. But these passages are not telling you that you, being outside of the Church, don’t need to be taught by anyone, nor that you’re free to make up doctrine from your individualized reading of scripture. I think you do so at your own peril, my friend. But that’s your business, and I’ll stay out of it.

Always a pleasure to chat. Blessings to you.