Interpreting Scripture

[Gregorian12]

My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church. He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

I’m not sure how to respond. He acts like it’s a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says “No one has it all right.” He says Paul instructed Timothy to study Scripture to determine doctrine, as though it was his job to decide what it meant, not the Church’s.

How do I answer?

God Bless!

-Gregorian12

 

[MarcoPolo]

My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church.

I’d ask him by what authority he makes that statement. No? His claim seems to diffuse itself. Plus, if he acknowledges the Church hierarchy as Christians, then he must at least insist they have as much a right as him, but it sounds like he says they have no right.

The subject you touch on is vast, and it involves apostolic succession, the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostolic office holders into all truth (Jn 16:13, etc…). You’ll see some other good answers here.

Meanwhile, you can tell him that the Church does not discourage private reading of Scripture and interpretation to an extent. The Spirit can guide any of us. It’s just that the average Christian does not have the guarantee of inerrant interpretation as a function of that Christian’s “lay office” so to speak.

The Spirit is, assuredly, also given to individual Christians, so that their hearts can “burn within them” (Lk. 24:32) as they pray and prayerfully study the Scripture within the context of their own personal lives. This is why the Second Vatican Council insisted that access to Scripture be facilitated in every possible way (<Dei Verbum,> 22; 25). This kind of reading, it should be noted, is never completely private, for the believer always reads and interprets Scripture within the faith of the church and then brings back to the community the fruit of that reading for the enrichment of the common faith. (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1994)

 

[Mumbles140]

In addition to Marco Polo’s comments, which I completely agree with, ask him to explain how God would have wanted his people to learn about Him without Church authority in the not-that-far-off times when 1) Few could read, and 2) Literature was not widespread, even after the advent of the Printing Press? Would God let his people wander without any teaching but that received through the Church (both tradition and Scriptural interpretation) for 1500 years?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church

.

Your father may not know where we got the Bible. At the end of the fourth century, the Catholic Church selected and canonized 27 of her own writings and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia – the Book – in English, the Bible.

Jesus didn’t leave us a book, he left us the Catholic Church as our teacher. The Church produced the Book under the guidance of the Spirit and is the only God-appointed interpreter. Christianity wasn’t based on the Bible (which didn’t exist until the beginning of the fifth Christian century), but on the teaching of the Apostles to and through the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. The NT has to be read in context – in the heart of the living, teaching Church who wrote it – in order to understand it.

Many Protestants misunderstand what the Bible is and why it was written. The NT isn’t a systemiatic instruction book in Christianity. It’s the written record of the spiritual life of the Catholic Church during the first fifty years of so after she was founded by Jesus Christ. Look at the introductions of the letters. Many were written in reponse to problems that had developed in already existing branches of the Church that were founded by one or more of the Apostles. Others are personal letters to friends of the author. Three of the Gospels are written to the Church in general, so they are not addressed. Luke/Acts was written to a friend of Luke’s. Revelation was written to the seven Churches in Asia. It is the Catholic Church who declared that these particular writings are the inspired (God-breathed) Word of God. The Bible does not tell us that. Nor does the Bible contain a list of the “inspired” writings. The contents were selected by the Catholic Church.

He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

Where did God tell us this? It isn’t in the Bible.

I’m not sure how to respond. He acts like it’s a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says “No one has it all right.” He says Paul instructed Timothy to study Scripture to determine doctrine, as though it was his job to decide what it meant, not the Church’s.

Your father probably means 1 Timothy 3:14-17, but he doesn’t realize that St. Paul was
referring to the Greek Septuagint (Old Testament) that Timothy “knew from childhood.” The NT had not yet been written or collected and canonized. Most Protestants reject the Septuagint, which includes the writings Luther objected to and separated into an appendix in his German translation of the Bible. Later they were dropped from Protestant Bibles altogether.

If no one has it all right, then Christianity is just a guessing game. There are thousands of Protestant ecclesial communities who teach different doctrines to choose from. Jesus said He is the Truth. He founded only one Church for the salvation of the world to teach us God’s Truth, not some individual’s interpretation of the truth. He said He would be with the leaders of His Church ALWAYS (Mt 28:20) and that He would send the Spirit to lead the Church into all truth ALWAYS (John 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15).

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[Trebor135]

My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church. He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

Ask for biblical evidence for these two points. Make sure to keep the conversation on track so other extraneous issues are brought in (e.g., “X, Y, or Z doctrine that you believe in is contradicted by A, B, or C passage of Scripture!”).

I’m not sure how to respond. He acts like it’s a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says “No one has it all right.”

Has he founded his own denomination then? Surely a Christian with all of the truth is duty-bound to save others from their erroneous doctrines.

He says Paul instructed Timothy to study Scripture to determine doctrine, as though it was his job to decide what it meant, not the Church’s.

Point to the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts chapter fifteen, and ask if Timothy could legitimately have interpreted the Old Testament on his own so as to require his flock to maintain the practice of circumcision. (Mention that if Timothy were able to consult the Book of Acts, where the decision against the Judaizers is recorded, there is no scriptural reason for him to have accepted the work as divinely inspired–St. Luke never makes the claim, explicitly or implicitly.)

 

[JRKH]

My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church.

Start out by agreeing with the first part of this - yes it is our job to interpret Scripture…
Then ask him what to do when two sincere Christians, each reading Scripture with a sincere heart, come up with differing interpretations on some important point?
See how he responds - "well we discuss it - and talk to the pastor or see what this or that concordance has to say…blah blah blah…
The just say to him - Let’s see what Scripture tells us to do. Open the bible then to Mt 18:15-18 and read through the passage
15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
He’ll say - That isn’t about church teaching that’s about personal sin…
Then say to him, "So dad - would you say that teaching a wrong doctrine is a sin? A sin against you and the whole church?
He will most likely say “Yes”
"Well then this passage fits doesn’t it. Now note what it says if the issue cannot be resolved quietly among friends…‘Go and Tell the Church’ and then ‘Listen to The Church’ on pain of being removed and treated as heathen and tax collector (shunned).
This is immediately followed by the granting of authority…the Binding and the Loosing of “Whatever”…
“BUT WAIT!!!”, you say in your best TV commercial voice - That’s not ALL…We can see this very set of instructions put into practice in Acts 15…
Look dad - Some individuals come up to Antioch and stir up this issue about circumcision. Not even Paul himself can resolve the matter. And what is more, the side in favor of circumcision has the weight of Scripture on their side. Still the matter cannot be settled and so Paul and some others go up to Jerusalem and a council is held. There the Church makes a decision - one that “sets aside” whole swathes of Scriptural rules and requirements. Amazing - The Church - with authority to bind and loose - just set aside (loosed) almost all of the Mosaic Law…

He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

If he believes that he should be able to find it that instruction in the bible.

I’m not sure how to respond. He acts like it’s a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says “No one has it all right.” He says Paul instructed Timothy to study Scripture to determine doctrine, as though it was his job to decide what it meant, not the Church’s.

Of course he told Timothy to study Scripture - He also said:
CHURCH
Eph 3:8-12
8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

So - Scripture points to unity in an “Authoritative Church” to protect the Gospel. It does NOT point to individual and private interpretation.

Then after you show him these passages that point to an authoritative Church speaking on doctrinal issues - ask him…
“Can you show me equally compelling evidence for Sola Scriptura and private interpretation?”
I have asked this question of many protestants and none have taken me up on the challenge…

Peace
James

 

[ivebeenshown]

The bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, 1 Timothy 3:15. If you can’t trust the foundation then how can you trust anything resting upon it? Bring that up to him…

 

[po18guy]

My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church. He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

For him to believe this, it must come from the bible itself. I fail to see such advice in it. What I do see is this:

2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

I’m not sure how to respond. He acts like it’s a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says “No one has it all right.”

Hmm… what did our Lord mean when He said:

John 16:13
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Our Lord said that right after He said this:

John 15:16
16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

He says Paul instructed Timothy to study Scripture to determine doctrine, as though it was his job to decide what it meant, not the Church’s. How do I answer?

There was no New Testament scripture for Timothy to read! Paul’s letter was one of the first parts of it.

Answer dad with Paul’s words:

2 Thessalonians 2:14
14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

The early, pre-New Testament Church was an oral Church, not a written Church. The prologue to Luke reveals that Theophilus learned nothing, zip, zero, nada, from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote it only to confirm the oral teaching paradosis (Tradition) that Theophilus had already received.

Luke 1:1-4
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us;
2 According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word:
3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

Written Tradition to back up the oral Apostolic Tradition, delivered by those with the authority to teach. Perfect.

 

[DavidFilmer]

He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

The various books that we know as the Christian New Testament were among a large body of early Christian writing. But those particular 29 books were not gathered together until the early Fifth Century. Before that, there was no consensus on what constituted the Christian New Testament. The books had been written (along with many others) but it took centuries for the Canon of Scripture to emerge, and for the Church to determine which books belonged in it (and which ones did not).

What you and I know as the Christian Bible did not exist prior to the Fifth Century.

So what happened before the Church taught the Canon of the Christian Bible? The Church held four Ecumenical Councils without a Canon. * Fifty* Popes reigned without a Canon. The Church battled powerful heresies without a Canon. The Church spiritually conquered the greatest Empire on earth and produced some of Her greatest and most heroic Saints - all without a Canon.

And we’re now to understand that the Church promulgates the Canon of Scripture, and all of a sudden everything changes? Where is THAT in the Bible?

 

[EricFilmer]

My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church. He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

I’m not sure how to respond. He acts like it’s a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says “No one has it all right.”

In terms of the many people who wrote the various books of the Bible, would your father say that some of the Bible contains error because “no one has it all right”? I’m guessing he would not. If your father believes in biblical inerrancy (at least according to one of the different definitions of it) then he believes that the power of the Holy Spirit guided those who wrote the books of the Bible to do so without recording error. Naturally, God did this to ensure that his revelation would be correctly conveyed to humankind. After all, the stakes are incredibly high because God’s revelation helps us attain heaven and avoid hell, and therefore God, in his love and mercy, provides clear revelation rather than obscure revelation.

The concept of Catholic infallibility simply takes this to the next logical level. It is impossible for any text to guard itself against misinterpretation. The founding fathers of the U.S. knew this when they wrote the Constitution and then set up a Supreme Court entrusted to officially interpret it for every generation. In a similar (but much more effective) manner, God set up a Church and empowered her to officially interpret his revelation (which, of course, includes the Bible) for each generation. The same power of the Holy Spirit which guaranteed that the writers of the Bible would record divine revelation without error is at work with the Magisterium, guaranteeing that divine revelation is interpreted and defined without error.

To say otherwise is to say that God gave us the Bible as a clear representation of his revelation but leaves us a chaotic system of interpretation, which involves individuals making subjective assessments that often contradict those of other people’s. Who is right and who is wrong? Why would God give us clear revelation but a obscure, subjective system to interpret it? Going back to my U.S. government example, what would happen if there were no Supreme Court and every citizen was given the right to interpret the Constitution on his own? It would be complete social anarchy. And when one examines the hundreds, if not thousands, of different Protestant denominations out there (teaching conflicting interpretations of Scripture), what one sees is doctrinal anarchy.

Here is an example of the kind of doctrinal anarchy I am talking about. This linked video clip is a lengthy debate between Protestants who believe in the necessity of water baptism for salvation, and Protestants who don’t: John Ankerburg Show. Such people believe in Sola Scriptura and also reject the idea of an infallible Magisterium. But neither side is able to conclusively prove its position about an extremely important doctrinal matter.

Let me clarify that I do believe that the Holy Spirit does, indeed, guides us when we read the Bible in the context of our individual spiritual journeys. But our personal interpretation of Scripture is also influenced by many other forces (such as our preconceived notions, past experience, opinions of others, what we ate for lunch, etc.). Unlike the Magisterium, although individuals (who are not members of the Magisterium) are guided by the Holy Spirit, they have no guarantee that their interpretations of divine revelation will be free of error.

Both your father and Catholics believe that God conveys his revelation to humanity, so the real question is, “How far does God go to do this?” Assuming that your father believes that the Bible does not contain error, what he is basically saying is, “God goes as far as to empower the people who wrote the Bible with inerrancy, but he does not go as far as to empower the Magisterium with infallibility.” But based on what I have presented in this post, his rationale (“no one has it all right”) does not reflect the kind of system that a loving and merciful God would set up.

 

[Trebor135]

Here is an example of the kind of doctrinal anarchy I am talking about. This linked video clip is a lengthy debate between Protestants who believe in the necessity of water baptism for salvation, and Protestants who don’t: John Ankerburg Show. Such people believe in Sola Scriptura and also reject the idea of an infallible Magisterium. But neither side is able to conclusively prove its position about an extremely important doctrinal matter.

Excellent post. Thanks for linking to the debate–it showcases perfectly the endless splitting of Protestantism.

Interestingly, the poster of the YouTube video included a link to this list of questions that a Church of Christ pastor purportedly cannot answer. In the first paragraph, the author describes baptismal regeneration as “an age-old heresy that has damned millions to hell, and is still doing so today”. The thing is, Martin Luther adhered firmly to baptismal regeneration; is David Martin ready to declare the founder of Protestantism to have been an unsaved heathen?!

 

[EricFilmer]

Excellent post. Thanks for linking to the debate–it showcases perfectly the endless splitting of Protestantism…

I appreciate your comments. I also like the point you made about Martin Luther.

I have used that video from the John Ankerberg Show a number of times on CAF when debating with those who believe in Sola Scriptura and deny the concept of an infallible Magisterium. I ask them to listen to that debate (lengthy as it is) and then tell me which side (with the use of Scripture alone) proved its case and refuted the other side’s, and why. So far no one has been able to do that.

 

[po18guy]

I appreciate your comments. I also like the point you made about Martin Luther.

I have used that video from the John Ankerberg Show a number of times on CAF when debating with those who believe in Sola Scriptura and deny the concept of an infallible Magisterium. I ask them to listen to that debate (lengthy as it is) and then tell me which side (with the use of Scripture alone) proved its case and refuted the other side’s, and why. So far no one has been able to do that.

Indeed, if there were only the Lutheran and the Catholic/Orthodox Churches existing today, SS would be potentially a valid argument. But, with the almost total disunity of the sola side, I have no idea how anyone - short of pure defensiveness - can argue bible alone.

As well, is it not clear that the old “no one has it right” argument simply attempts to justify one’s personal preference?

 

[Pinoycat]

My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church. He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

I’m not sure how to respond. He acts like it’s a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says “No one has it all right.” He says Paul instructed Timothy to study Scripture to determine doctrine, as though it was his job to decide what it meant, not the Church’s.

How do I answer?

God Bless!

-Gregorian12

Only the Church can interpret the Bible, the Bible tells us that the Church is the Pillar and ground for the Truth 1tim 3:15, thus we should submit our faith to the Church. The Church is infallible.

 

[JRKH]

Only the Church can interpret the Bible, the Bible tells us that the Church is the Pillar and ground for the Truth 1tim 3:15, thus we should submit our faith to the Church. The Church is infallible.

While I understand and agree with the underlying principle here, I have some trouble with this statement as it stands. The Church is a community and as such ALL the members have (name removed by moderator)ut as well as responsibility. Yes we should submit ourselves to the teachings of the Church…but we need to recognize that it is NOT because the Church is some “infallible” monolithic structure where a few impose upon the many like a legislature. We submit because the Church is a storehouse of the accumulated understandings and interpretations of Scripture and Tradition.

“The Church” is not the “only one” who can interpret the bible. The Church herself recognizes this and speaks in the Catechism:
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
If elements of truth (including Scripture) exist outside of the “visible confines of the Catholic Church” then so must right interpretation of Scripture…

The problem is not that individuals cannot rightly interpret Scripture - the problem is that they have no authoritative composite body of understanding against which to check their interpretation. This is where “Church” comes in.

“Church” (ekklesia = formal community) acts to bring together the many individual thoughts on some issue or scripture interpretation. By taking council with each other, the individuals learn and grow in understanding, retaining that which is good and discarding that which proves false.
The consensus of all of this deliberation then becomes “teaching”, “the fullness of Truth” precisely because it is arrived at, not by “majority vote” but by humble submission, one to the other, in prayerful pursuit of what seems right to the Holy Spirit.

So in short, when the OP says, “My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church”, the error in his thinking is that he is cutting himself off from “Church” as arbiter - the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

Sorry if this rambles a bit…

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

While I understand and agree with the underlying principle here, I have some trouble with this statement as it stands. The Church is a community and as such ALL the members have (name removed by moderator)ut as well as responsibility. Yes we should submit ourselves to the teachings of the Church…but we need to recognize that it is NOT because the Church is some “infallible” monolithic structure where a few impose upon the many like a legislature. We submit because the Church is a storehouse of the accumulated understandings and interpretations of Scripture and Tradition.

“The Church” is not the “only one” who can interpret the bible. The Church herself recognizes this and speaks in the Catechism:
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
If elements of truth (including Scripture) exist outside of the “visible confines of the Catholic Church” then so must right interpretation of Scripture…

The problem is not that individuals cannot rightly interpret Scripture - the problem is that they have no authoritative composite body of understanding against which to check their interpretation. This is where “Church” comes in.

“Church” (ekklesia = formal community) acts to bring together the many individual thoughts on some issue or scripture interpretation. By taking council with each other, the individuals learn and grow in understanding, retaining that which is good and discarding that which proves false.
The consensus of all of this deliberation then becomes “teaching”, “the fullness of Truth” precisely because it is arrived at, not by “majority vote” but by humble submission, one to the other, in prayerful pursuit of what seems right to the Holy Spirit.

So in short, when the OP says, “My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church”, the error in his thinking is that he is cutting himself off from “Church” as arbiter - the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

Sorry if this rambles a bit…

Peace
James

Excellent, James! Of course, since scripture must speak to each and every soul that has, and ever will exist on earth, there is a degree of latitude within it. It speaks to each of us slightly differently, and differently at different times in our lives. However, there are limits - a fence around the sheepfold, so to speak. Once we are outside of that fence, the wolf attacks. The Church is that fence of safety. The fence is not a restriction, but rather protection against the wolves and prowling lions.

 

[JRKH]

Excellent, James! Of course, since scripture must speak to each and every soul that has, and ever will exist on earth, there is a degree of latitude within it. It speaks to each of us slightly differently, and differently at different times in our lives. However, there are limits - a fence around the sheepfold, so to speak. Once we are outside of that fence, the wolf attacks. The Church is that fence of safety. The fence is not a restriction, but rather protection against the wolves and prowling lions.

Amen Brother …Amen

Peace
James

 

[Phyllo]

Hi
Let me preface this by saying that I am a pre Vatican II traditional Catholic so I am sure that I have a different understanding of the CC .

“The Church” is not the “only one” who can interpret the bible

.

I was taught that the Catholic Church IS the only one who can interpret scripture and I find no reason to change this teaching now. I was taught that the Bible is a Catholic document and can be interpreted only through the Catholic Church. The Protestants started out by using the Catholic interpretations and modifying them to meet their beliefs.

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.

Operative word here is “elements” but not the complete truth to gain salvation.

If elements of truth (including Scripture) exist outside of the “visible confines of the Catholic Church” then so must right interpretation of Scripture…

No, because I think that if anything exists outside the Catholic Church they are of a Protestant bent.and therefore need to be united to the Catholic Church for the full and only truth… Again, correct interpretation of the scripture can be found only in the CC.

The problem is not that individuals cannot rightly interpret Scripture - the problem is that they have no authoritative composite body of understanding against which to check their interpretation. This is where “Church” comes in.

True… And for me that Church is the Catholic Church.

“Church” (ekklesia = formal community) acts to bring together the many individual thoughts on some issue or scripture interpretation. By taking council with each other, the individuals learn and grow in understanding, retaining that which is good and discarding that which proves false.
The consensus of all of this deliberation then becomes “teaching”, “the fullness of Truth” precisely because it is arrived at, not by “majority vote” but by humble submission, one to the other, in prayerful pursuit of what seems right to the Holy Spirit.

SEEMS right to the Holy Spirit? It is either right or wrong. Seems is some where in the middle.

So in short, when the OP says, *“My dad says that it’s our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church” *

So because of all the individual interpreting of Scripture we have thousands of Protestant denominations. Jesus founded One church of which the visible head is Peter and that church is the One and Only Catholic Church.

Just my thoughts

 

[johnnyjones]

Ask for biblical evidence for these two points. Make sure to keep the conversation on track so other extraneous issues are brought in (e.g., “X, Y, or Z doctrine that you believe in is contradicted by A, B, or C passage of Scripture!”).

Has he founded his own denomination then? Surely a Christian with all of the truth is duty-bound to save others from their erroneous doctrines.

Point to the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts chapter fifteen, and ask if Timothy could legitimately have interpreted the Old Testament on his own so as to require his flock to maintain the practice of circumcision. (Mention that if Timothy were able to consult the Book of Acts, where the decision against the Judaizers is recorded, there is no scriptural reason for him to have accepted the work as divinely inspired–St. Luke never makes the claim, explicitly or implicitly.)

Solid answer. The “Industrial Strength Catholic” title fits you. Your post was helpful to me as well being a former Protestant . I look forward to seeing you around the forum.

 

[JRKH]

Hi
Let me preface this by saying that I am a pre Vatican II traditional Catholic so I am sure that I have a different understanding of the CC .

Thanks for clarifying…I’ll keep that in mind.

I was taught that the Catholic Church IS the only one who can interpret scripture and I find no reason to change this teaching now. I was taught that the Bible is a Catholic document and can be interpreted only through the Catholic Church. The Protestants started out by using the Catholic interpretations and modifying them to meet their beliefs.

Yes indeed the bible, as we know it, is a Catholic document, part of the “three legged stool” of "Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.
Also - I fully agree that the Bible needs to be interpreted through the Catholic Church.
But remember that “Church” = “Ekklesia” = Community called out and as such is made up of individuals. the difference between the protestant view and the Catholic view is not that individuals cannot get things right, but rather that the group is protected from errors that individuals can easily fall into. This is why Church teaching is never a matter of one person but is the result of the efforts of many persons - the ekklesia - the Church…

Operative word here is “elements” but not the complete truth to gain salvation.

I will simply suggest that you read the appropriate sections of the Catechism for clarifications on these matters.
In this case, look under “The Church is One”.

No, because I think that if anything exists outside the Catholic Church they are of a Protestant bent.and therefore need to be united to the Catholic Church for the full and only truth… Again, correct interpretation of the scripture can be found only in the CC.

“The Church” disagrees with you here as recorded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Do you accept the Church’s teaching on the matter - or are you protesting it?

True… And for me that Church is the Catholic Church.

Me too

SEEMS right to the Holy Spirit? It is either right or wrong. Seems is some where in the middle.

If you have problems with my phrasing here, I suggest that you will have to take it up with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and Scripture itself because that is where I got it from.
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…(Acts 15:28)
It is a part of the official declaration coming from the very first Church council. If the Apostles felt that such wording was acceptable, and if the Holy Spirit felt that it should be recorded that way and preserved in the Holy Scriptures…Who am I to argue with it?

So because of all the individual interpreting of Scripture we have thousands of Protestant denominations. Jesus founded One church of which the visible head is Peter and that church is the One and Only Catholic Church.

Which is precisely the point that I was making in my post…
The problem is not so much that an individual can’t rightly discern Scripture, but that - apart from the “ekklesia” the Authoritative Church - they have no protection against fatal error. The problem you mention above stems from the fact that in the protestant model, private interpretation is permitted to trump “ekklesial” (Church) interpretation.

Just my thoughts

Thanks for sharing them.

Peace
James