Infallible Interpretation of Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thom18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thom18

Guest
I’m in a debate forum, and one argument that someone keeps bringing up is that, because the Church doesn’t infallibly interpret every verse of Scripture, they shouldn’t have to believe the interpretation I give them. For example, right now we’re talking about the Eucharist. He says that, because an infallible interpretation of the verses I’m using don’t exist, he essentially doesn’t have to argue against them. Has anyone else ever encountered this? How should we respond to arguments like this?
 
Interview that the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, the Venezuelan Arturo Sosa Abascal, very close to Jorge Mario Bergoglio [Pope Francis], has given to the Swiss vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi for the blog Rossoporpora and for the “Giornale del Popolo” of Lugano.
Q: Cardinal Gerhard L. Műller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, has said with regard to marriage that the words of Jesus are very clear and “no power in heaven and on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, neither a council nor a law of the bishops has the faculty to modify them.”

A: So then, there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular.

Q: But if all the worlds of Jesus must be examined and brought back to their historical context, they do not have an absolute value.

A: Over the last century in the Church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say… That is not relativism, but attests that the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons… So it is true that no one can change the word of Jesus, but one must know what it was!

Q: Is it also possible to question the statement in Matthew 19:3-6: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”?

A: I go along with what Pope Francis says. One does not bring into doubt, one brings into discernment. . .

Q: But discernment is evaluation, it is choosing among different options. There is no longer an obligation to follow just one interpretation. . .

A: No, the obligation is still there, but to follow the result of discernment.

Q: However, the final decision is based on a judgment relative to different hypotheses. So it also takes into consideration the hypothesis that the phrase “let man not put asunder…” is not exactly as it appears. In short, it brings the word of Jesus into doubt.

A: Not the word of Jesus, but the word of Jesus as we have interpreted it. Discernment does not select among different hypotheses but listens to the Holy Spirit, who - as Jesus has promised - helps us to understand the signs of God’s presence in human history.

Q: But discern how?

A: Pope Francis does discernment following St. Ignatius, like the whole Society of Jesus: one has to seek and find, St. Ignatius said, the will of God. It is not a frivolous search. Discernment leads to a decision: one must not only evaluate, but decide.

Q: And who must decide?

A: The Church has always reiterated the priority of personal conscience.

Q: So if conscience, after discernment, tells me that I can receive communion even if the norm does not provide for it…

A: The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.

Q: I seem to understand that for you there is a priority for the practice of the discernment of doctrine.

A: Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine.

Q: But it can reach conclusions different from doctrine.

A: That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30831
 
Interview that the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, the Venezuelan Arturo Sosa Abascal, very close to Jorge Mario Bergoglio [Pope Francis], has given to the Swiss vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi for the blog Rossoporpora and for the “Giornale del Popolo” of Lugano.
Q: Cardinal Gerhard L. Műller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, has said with regard to marriage that the words of Jesus are very clear and “no power in heaven and on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, neither a council nor a law of the bishops has the faculty to modify them.”

A: So then, there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular.

Q: But if all the worlds of Jesus must be examined and brought back to their historical context, they do not have an absolute value.

A: Over the last century in the Church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say… That is not relativism, but attests that the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons… So it is true that no one can change the word of Jesus, but one must know what it was!

Q: Is it also possible to question the statement in Matthew 19:3-6: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”?

A: I go along with what Pope Francis says. One does not bring into doubt, one brings into discernment. . .

Q: But discernment is evaluation, it is choosing among different options. There is no longer an obligation to follow just one interpretation. . .

A: No, the obligation is still there, but to follow the result of discernment.

Q: However, the final decision is based on a judgment relative to different hypotheses. So it also takes into consideration the hypothesis that the phrase “let man not put asunder…” is not exactly as it appears. In short, it brings the word of Jesus into doubt.

A: Not the word of Jesus, but the word of Jesus as we have interpreted it. Discernment does not select among different hypotheses but listens to the Holy Spirit, who - as Jesus has promised - helps us to understand the signs of God’s presence in human history.

Q: But discern how?

A: Pope Francis does discernment following St. Ignatius, like the whole Society of Jesus: one has to seek and find, St. Ignatius said, the will of God. It is not a frivolous search. Discernment leads to a decision: one must not only evaluate, but decide.

Q: And who must decide?

A: The Church has always reiterated the priority of personal conscience.

Q: So if conscience, after discernment, tells me that I can receive communion even if the norm does not provide for it…

A: The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.

Q: I seem to understand that for you there is a priority for the practice of the discernment of doctrine.

A: Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine.

Q: But it can reach conclusions different from doctrine.

A: That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30831
 
I’m in a debate forum, and one argument that someone keeps bringing up is that, because the Church doesn’t infallibly interpret every verse of Scripture, they shouldn’t have to believe the interpretation I give them. For example, right now we’re talking about the Eucharist. He says that, because an infallible interpretation of the verses I’m using don’t exist, he essentially doesn’t have to argue against them. Has anyone else ever encountered this? How should we respond to arguments like this?
Here’s the REAL issue:

“TRUTH”

It cannot be anything but singular be defined issue.

Our Birthday Pope: Benedict taught this" [emphasis mine]

“THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH AND MY TRUTH OF THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH”
  1. The Bible is a Catholic Book
  2. The Catholic Church translated it at least 1,500 YEARS before the reformation, guided by the Holy Spirit
  3. Hence if one;s biblical understanding does not align with the RCC, it is therefore logically wrong:shrug:
God Bless you,
Patrick
 
I’m in a debate forum, and one argument that someone keeps bringing up is that, because the Church doesn’t infallibly interpret every verse of Scripture, they shouldn’t have to believe the interpretation I give them. For example, right now we’re talking about the Eucharist. He says that, because an infallible interpretation of the verses I’m using don’t exist, he essentially doesn’t have to argue against them. Has anyone else ever encountered this? How should we respond to arguments like this?
I can only reply from a logical standpoint. The Church in its Tradition beginning in apostolic times, has accepted the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. The Church makes infallible statements only when there is a need to clarify its position, such as when it stated that Jesus is God, in the form of the Nicene Creed.

The position of the Catholic Church has been unswerving from the beginning. As the Sacred Constitution on the Word of God (Dei Verbum, from Vatican II) stated, the teaching of the Church rests on scripture, sacred Tradition, and its magisterium. The argument you pose is a “sola scriptura” argument in a thin disguise. There are many threads on that subject on this websire.
 
I can only reply from a logical standpoint. The Church in its Tradition beginning in apostolic times, has accepted the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. The Church makes infallible statements only when there is a need to clarify its position, such as when it stated that Jesus is God, in the form of the Nicene Creed.

The position of the Catholic Church has been unswerving from the beginning. As the Sacred Constitution on the Word of God (Dei Verbum, from Vatican II) stated, the teaching of the Church rests on scripture, sacred Tradition, and its magisterium. The argument you pose is a “sola scriptura” argument in a thin disguise. There are many threads on that subject on this websire.
He hasn’t been convinced of any of this. Myself and the other members of the forum have tried explaining this (some a little more charitably than others).

I have a suspicion that he might not have any argument against what I’ve been saying, only because he’s usually not hesitant to try and “set things straight”.
 
It seems the person involved doesn’t believe the Bible is the word of God, or the clear meaning of a passage would be an acceptable argument. Of course Catholics believe the teaching of the Church, some of which is infallibly taught, would be a valid guide as well. But perhaps he wouldn’t accept this either.
Perhaps, if this person is a Catholic, it would be good to pray for him.
When it comes to the first reply, I think what Scripture says should be the judge of our own reasoning, and that our own reasoning should not be the judge of the truth of what Scripture says.
 
I’m in a debate forum, and one argument that someone keeps bringing up is that, because the Church doesn’t infallibly interpret every verse of Scripture, they shouldn’t have to believe the interpretation I give them. For example, right now we’re talking about the Eucharist. He says that, because an infallible interpretation of the verses I’m using don’t exist, he essentially doesn’t have to argue against them. Has anyone else ever encountered this? How should we respond to arguments like this?
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

John 21:25
 
Here’s the REAL issue:

“TRUTH”

It cannot be anything but singular be defined issue.

Our Birthday Pope: Benedict taught this" [emphasis mine]

“THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH AND MY TRUTH OF THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH”
  1. The Bible is a Catholic Book
  2. The Catholic Church translated it at least 1,500 YEARS before the reformation, guided by the Holy Spirit
  3. Hence if one;s biblical understanding does not align with the RCC, it is therefore logically wrong:shrug:
God Bless you,
Patrick
This is somewhat a different approach you take comparing to the non-Catholic forum.

Also, in a debate, just saying to a person they are wrong, well what was the purpose then in the first place?
 
I’m in a debate forum, and one argument that someone keeps bringing up is that, because the Church doesn’t infallibly interpret every verse of Scripture, they shouldn’t have to believe the interpretation I give them.
Does he believe that he must believe any verse that the Church interprets infallibly?

If so, then he’s arguing that he submits to the authority of the Church.

The Church authoritatively teaches theology, including Scriptural interpretation. If he submits to the authority of her infallible teachings, then he should submit to the other authoritative teaching of the Church. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top