Interpretations never change (need help fast!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmyMarie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmyMarie

Guest
I am currently in a conversation with a classmate regarding the interpretation of scripture. Our professor has planned to contact her “theology contact” to get his viewpoint of the conversation. I am a bit skeptical about his orthodox, and want to be prepared to refute his answer if need be.

I stated one thing I love about my faith is that the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture never changes. It may develop its understanding with time, but new discoveries will never conflict with prior interpretations. We have held to the the same interpretations for all of our existance. I believe this theologian will refute my claim. I need some evidence for my claim. And the faster the better, as this is an online course and the discussion boards close at a given time, which is approaching. Thank you!!! Amy

🙂 A donation will be on its way if you can help me with this! 🙂
 
Amy: Your post might be better sent to one of the actual apologists at Catholic Answers. There are many able apologists who post here, but it’s a kind of “catch as catch can” when you post in the Forums, as they might not sign on for days.
 
<< stated one thing I love about my faith is that the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture never changes. It may develop its understanding with time, but new discoveries will never conflict with prior interpretations.>>

I’m afraid that my understanding of this issue may not help your case. I always thought the Catholic Church rarely issues “formal interpretations” of Scripture.

It is true that the Church’s DOCTRINE never changes but only develops, but the same is not necessarily true of Bible interps.

Perhaps the way to say it is that Scripture and Doctrine will never contradict each other, no matter how much doctrine may develop.

May God bless you.
 
Ditto Captommo,
This is also my understanding.

In addition I’d also say while there is no official singel interpretation of most of scriptire, the Church still does put a “limit” on how scripture can be interpreted. For example a Catholic can interpret all sorts of things in different ways but because DOCTRINE doesn’t change a Catholic cannot say that a particular passage says Jesus is not God or that God is not 3persons-in-1being or that communion at the last supper is only symbolic and not the Sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc.

captommo said:
<< stated one thing I love about my faith is that the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture never changes. It may develop its understanding with time, but new discoveries will never conflict with prior interpretations.>>

I’m afraid that my understanding of this issue may not help your case. I always thought the Catholic Church rarely issues “formal interpretations” of Scripture.

It is true that the Church’s DOCTRINE never changes but only develops, but the same is not necessarily true of Bible interps.

Perhaps the way to say it is that Scripture and Doctrine will never contradict each other, no matter how much doctrine may develop.

May God bless you.
Click to expand...
 
Are you discussing personal interpretation of the Bible or how the Church interpretes the Bible?
 
I just finished reading Jaroslav Pelikan’s “Whose Bible Is It?” – a history of the scriptures. Pelican was a Lutheran but has apparently converted to Orthodox Christianity a couple years ago (he is past 80, now).

The surprise answer to the title question of the book is, It’s God’s word. Jews and Christians and Muslims have markedly different interpretations of the books of the Bible that they accept in common. His point is that they would do well to talk more to each other, as they are talking about the scripture that belongs to the one God that they claim to worship and follow.

He also says that the Bible is subject to continuing interpretation. The Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church also said that the scriptures are a source of inexhaustible truth and inspiration (see Dei Verbum).

God bless.
 
40.png
BayCityRickL:
I just finished reading Jaroslav Pelikan’s “Whose Bible Is It?” – a history of the scriptures. Pelican was a Lutheran but has apparently converted to Orthodox Christianity a couple years ago (he is past 80, now).

The surprise answer to the title question of the book is, It’s God’s word. Jews and Christians and Muslims have markedly different interpretations of the books of the Bible that they accept in common. His point is that they would do well to talk more to each other, as they are talking about the scripture that belongs to the one God that they claim to worship and follow.

He also says that the Bible is subject to continuing interpretation. The Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church also said that the scriptures are a source of inexhaustible truth and inspiration (see Dei Verbum).

God bless.
Click to expand...

That puts the emphasis where it should be 🙂 - away from us and our silly squabbles.​

V2 was very keen on the sort of co-operative understanding of the Bible mentioned , so,:amen: to it. ##
 
40.png
AmyMarie:
I am currently in a conversation with a classmate regarding the interpretation of scripture. Our professor has planned to contact her “theology contact” to get his viewpoint of the conversation. I am a bit skeptical about his orthodox, and want to be prepared to refute his answer if need be.

I stated one thing I love about my faith is that the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture never changes. It may develop its understanding with time, but new discoveries will never conflict with prior interpretations. We have held to the the same interpretations for all of our existance. I believe this theologian will refute my claim. I need some evidence for my claim. And the faster the better, as this is an online course and the discussion boards close at a given time, which is approaching. Thank you!!! Amy

🙂 A donation will be on its way if you can help me with this! 🙂
Click to expand...
Use the professor’s method against him/her. YOur professor had to do research to come up with an answer to refute your claim. Isn’t that why your professor had to talk with her “theology contact?” After your professor comes to you with the information then explain that like her, you need to contact a theologian and then come back to these boards with the question. You gave her time to research her point of view, so she should show you the same respect. At the present time, you don’t know what she is going to come up with so it is impossible to research any information. I would wonder why a professor would have such a strong need to argue with your faith.
 
On the question do interpretations never change, I think an important part of the discussion is the use of the term “Interpretation”. It seems someone could misunderstand the term and subsistute the word interpretation in the place of Doctrine or Dogma.The dogma never changes however through the use of interpretation our understanding of the Dogma and the Doctrine which expresses a particular grows deeper as our knowledge of scriptures grows - think of that passage from Luke when after the finding in the Temple, Jesus returned home with Joseph and Mary and “Grew” in wisdom and understanding. The Church which is a living being also grows in the Wisdom and Understanding of the Truth revealed to Her by Christ in the Holy Spirit. One practical example. At the end of Matthew (28 - the Great Commission) we have the words for Baptism. From this and the Liturgical Life of the Church from the time of the Apostles
we Baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. However, the question soon arose about the meaning of "Father, “Son” “Holy Spirit” which lead to a deeper understanding of the revealed Truth found in the Bible that our God is a Triune God -Dogma of the Trinity. The revealed truth of the Trinity proclaimed by the Dogma of the Trinity was always always there but our understanding of this Mystery grew and developed through study and interpretation. One important point, this interpretation came not from individual interpretation but through the teaching Church (it was to the Church not individuals Christ promised to give the Holy Spirit). Sorry I went on a little longer than I intended.
 
40.png
AmyMarie:
I am currently in a conversation with a classmate regarding the interpretation of scripture.

I stated one thing I love about my faith is that the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture never changes. It may develop its understanding with time, but new discoveries will never conflict with prior interpretations. We have held to the the same interpretations for all of our existance. I believe this theologian will refute my claim. I need some evidence for my claim. 🙂
Click to expand...
Hey Amy,

It might help everyone if you would point out a certain concern of yours that makes you think that this theologian will refute your claim. Like, were you and the classmate just discussing the topic in general, or were there certain things that you discussed in relation to the topic?

I can think, for instance, that the Churches’ interpretation of Scripture, and more obviously, doctrinal statements, on some points has clearly been contrary to the teachings of certain Church Fathers. But that doesn’t mean that the Churches’ teaching has changed in regards to interpreting Scripture. It just means that certain Fathers were wrong on certain things, which is not a problem for a Catholic.

What particulars are you concerned about?

-Rob
 
There are about half a dozen pasages that the Church has set in stone (so to speak). I don’t have them handy, but I think Jimmy Akin discusses them. They are probably referenced in these forums more than once, too. IIRC, these were set at Trent. So I suppose that your professor could make the case that prior to the time the Church fixed these passages, the Church (aka, the members thereof) could hold non-identical views, so therefore the interpretation “changed”. A weak argument, I think, but nevertheless . . . .
 
40.png
Veritas:
There are about half a dozen pasages that the Church has set in stone (so to speak). I don’t have them handy, but I think Jimmy Akin discusses them. They are probably referenced in these forums more than once, too. IIRC, these were set at Trent. So I suppose that your professor could make the case that prior to the time the Church fixed these passages, the Church (aka, the members thereof) could hold non-identical views, so therefore the interpretation “changed”. A weak argument, I think, but nevertheless . . . .
Click to expand...

FWIW - Proverbs 8.22 ff. (for example) was used as a text for the Divinity of Christ by St. Athanasius. The only problem is, that the text is not referring to the pre-incarnate Christ at all , but to the (female) figure of Wisdom. As Wisdom is female, the passage is no longer used as a proof-text for the Deity of Christ.​

If one were to try to argue that the Fathers have never differed on the meaning of a text, one would be hammered. 🙂

There is plenty of agreement over time about some things, such as that Adam was the first human being ever, and really died at the age of 930 (see Genesis 5) - but the things where there has been most agreement, are sometimes also the ones which the Church has had to give up. ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top