Official interpretations of Scriptures

[DarkMark]

Does the Roman Catholic Church has a official interpretation for every Scripture? If not, can a Catholic interpret any given text, that the Church has no official interpretation on? Of course, the interpretation can not contradict any Church teaching. Can Catholics do “private interpretation” to some degree?

 

[porthos11]

Does the Roman Catholic Church has a official interpretation for every Scripture? If not, can a Catholic interpret any given text, that the Church has no official interpretation on? Of course, the interpretation can not contradict any Church teaching. Can Catholics do “private interpretation” to some degree?

Absolutely. The Church has not made an official declaration on every bit of Scripture, only a very few. A Catholic is basically free to draw moral or theological lessons from Scripture on his own, provided, as you said, it does not contradict Church teaching.

For example, there is really no official interpretation of Psalm 23 that I know of. One is basically free, then, to interpret psalm 23 in varied ways. For example “my cup runneth over” may be taken to mean that I am always filled with the living water of the Word of God, or I may take it to mean an invitation to always approach the cup of Jesus’ blood either by myself or at Mass.

So yes. The “Catholics are not allowed private interpretation” is actually a false idea. Catholics ARE allowed private interpretation, but, within the living Tradition of the Church.

 

[DarkMark]

Absolutely. The Church has not made an official declaration on every bit of Scripture, only a very few. A Catholic is basically free to draw moral or theological lessons from Scripture on his own, provided, as you said, it does not contradict Church teaching.

For example, there is really no official interpretation of Psalm 23 that I know of. One is basically free, then, to interpret psalm 23 in varied ways. For example “my cup runneth over” may be taken to mean that I am always filled with the living water of the Word of God, or I may take it to mean an invitation to always approach the cup of Jesus’ blood either by myself or at Mass.

So yes. The “Catholics are not allowed private interpretation” is actually a false idea. Catholics ARE allowed private interpretation, but, within the living Tradition of the Church.

Thank-you so much!

Another thing, do you know the “few” Scriptures that the Catholic Church has a official interpretation on? I know that the Church interpret Matthew 16:18 as referring to Saint Peter, but I do not know any other text that the Church infallibly declared an interpretation on.

 

[Joero]

Absolutely. The Church has not made an official declaration on every bit of Scripture, only a very few. A Catholic is basically free to draw moral or theological lessons from Scripture on his own, provided, as you said, it does not contradict Church teaching.

For example, there is really no official interpretation of Psalm 23 that I know of. One is basically free, then, to interpret psalm 23 in varied ways. For example “my cup runneth over” may be taken to mean that I am always filled with the living water of the Word of God, or I may take it to mean an invitation to always approach the cup of Jesus’ blood either by myself or at Mass.

So yes. The “Catholics are not allowed private interpretation” is actually a false idea. Catholics ARE allowed private interpretation, but, within the living Tradition of the Church.

That’s right! In cases like this wherein our thread posts are read by many people, you have also to be very careful in choosing verses for your replies. There are verses that are figurative, literal & etc. You can interpret it by your own as long as it is within the boundary of the church teaching or within the dogmatic adherence. That’s why I like verbal debates because after you spoken a word it is gone with the wind! Not like this.

 

[porthos11]

Thank-you so much!

Another thing, do you know the “few” Scriptures that the Catholic Church has a official interpretation on? I know that the Church interpret Matthew 16:18 as referring to Saint Peter, but I do not know any other text that the Church infallibly declared an interpretation on.

I don’t know which the Church has “infallibly” spoken on, but authoritative, a few include:

John 6 refers specifically to the Eucharist.
Jesus’ words at the Last Supper really mean the institution of the Eucharist.
The 1000 years of Revelation are not a literal 1000 years.
The “brothers and sisters” of Jesus do not refer to biological children of the Blessed Virgin (biological children, however, of St. Joseph are not excluded, although highly unlikely).
John 3:5 specifically refers to baptism.

Off the top of my head. There may be more, but they kinda slip me now.

 

[DarkMark]

I don’t know which the Church has “infallibly” spoken on, but authoritative, a few include:

John 6 refers specifically to the Eucharist.
Jesus’ words at the Last Supper really mean the institution of the Eucharist.
The 1000 years of Revelation are not a literal 1000 years.
The “brothers and sisters” of Jesus do not refer to biological children of the Blessed Virgin (biological children, however, of St. Joseph are not excluded, although highly unlikely).
John 3:5 specifically refers to baptism.

Off the top of my head. There may be more, but they kinda slip me now.

Thank-you so much!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The 1000 years of Revelation are not a literal 1000 years.

It has been taught authoritatively that premillennialism “cannot be safely taught,” so there is an authoritative teaching on that idea. Premillennialism is not the only form of belief in a literal thousand years, of course. Postmillennialism doesn’t seem to have been ruled on. There is no authoritative teaching, at present, that says that the thousand years are non-literal.
Catholic Answers:

As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been “amillennial” (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called “millenarianism” (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught,” though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.

With respect to the rapture, Catholics certainly believe that the event of our gathering together to be with Christ will take place, though they do not generally use the word “rapture” to refer to this event (somewhat ironically, since the term “rapture” is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17—“we will be caught up,” [Latin: rapiemur]).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thank-you so much!

Another thing, do you know the “few” Scriptures that the Catholic Church has a official interpretation on? I know that the Church interpret Matthew 16:18 as referring to Saint Peter, but I do not know any other text that the Church infallibly declared an interpretation on.

The Second Vatican Council Dei Verbum is document for Sacred Scripture. I highly recommend you read it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hi Mark, I happened to have addressed this the other day. Hope this helps.

Post 42 talks about our role in interpreting.
Post 46 shows how the Church has shown meanings in Scripture beyond the specifically addressed verses.
Post 63. Ditto here.

 

[DarkMark]

Hi Mark, I happened to have addressed this the other day. Hope this helps.

Post 42 talks about our role in interpreting.
Post 46 shows how the Church has shown meanings in Scripture beyond the specifically addressed verses.
Post 63. Ditto here.

Thank-you Marco Polo!