P
PJM
Guest
The underlying question brother IS: WOULD it be binding?
YES, IF, it was TAUGHT as a part of Faith or Moral beliefs.
READ John. 17: 16-20 for verification.
Shalom
Papal Interpretation of Scripture
- Thread starter meltzerboy
- Start date
- Status
YES, IF, it was TAUGHT as a part of Faith or Moral beliefs.
READ John. 17: 16-20 for verification.
Shalom
po18guy
Well-known member
As recorded in John 14:18, our Lord said (to the twelve, but to all of us in principle) “I will not leave you orphans.” There is always guidance, via the living, breathing magisterium of the Church. Among all Christians, blessed are the Catholics, who are not lead by the blind, but by those to whom God has granted vision in each generation.
R
richport29
Guest
Po18guy,
I understand that as a Catholic you believe the Magisterium is always guiding, but how would that guidance play out practically when you are looking at specific verse? For example, say you were looking at 1 John 1:1, and the Magisterium or the Pope have not given an authoritative or infallible interpretation, how would they guide you? And how would you avoid private interpretation since their is no authoritative or infallible interpretation?
po18guy
Well-known member
The Church realizes that it is impossible to box God in by trying to infallibly define His written word. Anyone who does this is immediately suspect. God’s word speaks to all generations in all cultures until the end of time. His rules are inflexible, but how He reveals those rules to each generation can and does change, just as languages change. Most of scripture may be taken in its plain sense, inasmuch as we are not in a gnostic faith where knowledge is hidden and secret. However, not a single jot may be taken out of context, and the context is the teaching on faith or morals that God intended when He inspired the human author to write.
When neither Bishop nor Priest is available to guide and counsel us, there are scripture commentaries that lead us through some of the more obscure passages. Here is but one: haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html
R
richport29
Guest
Are these commentaries by the Magisterium or the Pope? Have they been given official Papal authority in order to interpret the texts? How are they avoiding private interpretation?
So the Roman Catholic Church is unable to infallibly define every verse of the Bible?
You stated,“God’s word speaks to all generations in all cultures until the end of time.” Agreed.
You stated, “His rules are inflexible, but how He reveals those rules to each generation can and does change, just as languages change.”
What “rules” are you talking about? Can you show me an example of change?
You stated, " Most of scripture may be taken in its plain sense, inasmuch as we are not in a gnostic faith where knowledge is hidden and secret. However, not a single jot may be taken out of context, and the context is the teaching on faith or morals that God intended when He inspired the human author to write."
How, as a Catholic laymen, can you know the plain meaning of a text, when the Magisterium or the Pope have not authoritatively or infallibly interpreted of a text? How can you know the teaching of faith and moral God intended, without the Roman Catholic Church revealing it to you?
These questions kind of go back to my third post about the catechisms and the Council of Trent. Have you had time to look at that post? Would you be able to interact with that post, also?
po18guy
Well-known member
The “magisterium” is not a secret cabal or a machine into which we feed everything - it is simply the God-given teaching authority of the Church. It comprises the Bishops who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and is governed by the content of both written and oral Tradition.
No one has this authority or ability - since God cannot be confined to a box. His word is living and breathing and cannot be limited by man.
From the King James Version “We fetched a compass” What on earth does that mean? We both know that language changes over time and that God did not inspire any scripture to be written originally in the English language. OK so far?
We read it. Simple. Catholic bibles have footnotes just like Protestant bibles do. For complex or difficult to understand passages (like everything that Paul wrote), we have biblical commentaries, pastoral letters and the catechism to guide us, as well as Priests and Bishops to teach and guide.
You can’t! That is the point of Christ founding a Church and giving it all authority. Read Acts 15. Paul was stumped on the circumcision question. The scriptures were of no help at all. What did he do? He went to the Church in Jerusalem, which held a council and exercising the power of binding and loosing (Matthew 18:18), it decided the circumcision question for all time. That Church did not go away, and still decides matters that are in dispute - always will until our Lord comes on the clouds of heaven.
Trent, as were all councils, was called in response to heresy - the rebellion of 1517. The Church identified what the heresy was and condemned it.
The Trent and private interpretation thing means that no Catholic may interpret the scriptures apart from consistent Church teaching on any given subject. For this purpose, we have the catechism and pastoral letters to guide us, and Priests and Bishops as living voices.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
MB-
I think if the pope were to make a non-infallible statement that suggested a certain interpretation of a passage, I would have to pay attention to it not because he is the pope but simply because by the time someone gets to be a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope, he has proven his chops as a theologian.
Consequently, I would listen to the opinion of an educated man simply because he is an educated man.
However, I would not feel obligated to accept his position (other than the natural inclination to acknowledge that some people have expertise that I lack) simply because he is the pope.
R
richport29
Guest
Po18guy,
Be fair, I never said or insinuated that the Magisterium was a secret cabal or anything of the sort. But I did ask you very fair questions regarding those commentaries. Are these commentaries by the Magisterium or the Pope? Have they been given official Papal authority in order to interpret the texts? How are they avoiding private interpretation? Are you unwilling to answer the questions?
You specifically stated that the Roman Catholic Church does not have the authority to interpret every verse of Scripture. Would you be able to cite some primary sources that outline your view? Also, that still does not answer the practical problem you would have when you decided to look at a specific verse. If the Magisterium does not give you an interpretation that shows you how it conforms to the overall teaching, how will you arrive at a correct interpretation?
You made an argument about the KJV using the phrase “We fetched a compass” and making the connection that “God did not inspire any scripture to be written originally in the English language.” What you have shown is that word usage has changed, but you are not intimating that grammar rules have changed because of word usage, are you? Also, I am still unclear as to what “rules” you were talking about. I would like to be on the same page with you, but in order for that to happen, you would have to define what you mean. Also, since you stated that these “rules” God has revealed change, I would need to see an example to know what you mean.
When you quoted me here, “How, as a Catholic laymen, can you know the plain meaning of a text, when the Magisterium or the Pope have not authoritatively or infallibly interpreted of a text?” you did it out of context. Here is the whole thought: “How, as a Catholic laymen, can you know the plain meaning of a text, when the Magisterium or the Pope have not authoritatively or infallibly interpreted of a text? How can you know the teaching of faith and moral God intended, without the Roman Catholic Church revealing it to you?”
I think you can see the difference. If you take the whole thought, in context, what I was asking is, how do you make sense of Acts 15? Neither the Pope, Bishops, not the entirety of the teaching Magisterium have infallibly or authoritatively interpreted that chapter. So, how would you know if your interpretation was conforming to the overall teaching of the Roman Catholic Church? And, if you are getting that interpretation from an apologist, have they been given Papal authority to interpret those texts? If not, how are they avoiding private interpretation?
Thank you for commenting on Trent. However, I do not think that you have taken the full historical context into consideration. The Council of Trent was part of the Counter-Reformation; the Roman Catholic Church wanted to condemn the Reformers for taking the Scriptures and interpreting them (obviously using sound hermeneutical principals, such as the grammatico-historical method). Thus, the Council of Trent condemned any form of private interpretation.
Please take Trent’s words:
“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.” -The Council of Trent
Now realize, who were the only individuals involved in Scripture interpretation or theological debates at this time? Official clergy, such as Bellarmine. You see no laymen involved. Why is that?
Notice what Trent states here, " that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold."
Presumably, as Trent states, no one can take it upon himself/herself to think that they, by their own intellect can interpret the Scriptures; and before anyone can make any judgment as to what Scripture says in its totality or specifically, the Roman Catholic Church must pronounce what it does say or does not say, for the purpose of no one deviating from the standard. Now, if you are looking at Acts 15 ((although you are a laymen, and are excluded from interpreting the Scriptures, at least to those Catholics who hold a Trentian position), you would need the Catholic Church’s standard teaching before attempting any interpretation. But if you don’t have the Catholic Church’s authoritative standard, how can you know that you are not privately interpreting the Scriptures? You can say that the Catholic Church and the Magisterium are guiding you (mystically?), but you have no specific guidance as to the sense of Acts 15. You may also pull out the catechism, but as I pointed out earlier, I just need a little help parsing specifics, which is why I asked you some important clarifying questions.
Be fair, I never said or insinuated that the Magisterium was a secret cabal or anything of the sort. But I did ask you very fair questions regarding those commentaries. Are these commentaries by the Magisterium or the Pope? Have they been given official Papal authority in order to interpret the texts? How are they avoiding private interpretation? Are you unwilling to answer the questions?
You specifically stated that the Roman Catholic Church does not have the authority to interpret every verse of Scripture. Would you be able to cite some primary sources that outline your view? Also, that still does not answer the practical problem you would have when you decided to look at a specific verse. If the Magisterium does not give you an interpretation that shows you how it conforms to the overall teaching, how will you arrive at a correct interpretation?
You made an argument about the KJV using the phrase “We fetched a compass” and making the connection that “God did not inspire any scripture to be written originally in the English language.” What you have shown is that word usage has changed, but you are not intimating that grammar rules have changed because of word usage, are you? Also, I am still unclear as to what “rules” you were talking about. I would like to be on the same page with you, but in order for that to happen, you would have to define what you mean. Also, since you stated that these “rules” God has revealed change, I would need to see an example to know what you mean.
When you quoted me here, “How, as a Catholic laymen, can you know the plain meaning of a text, when the Magisterium or the Pope have not authoritatively or infallibly interpreted of a text?” you did it out of context. Here is the whole thought: “How, as a Catholic laymen, can you know the plain meaning of a text, when the Magisterium or the Pope have not authoritatively or infallibly interpreted of a text? How can you know the teaching of faith and moral God intended, without the Roman Catholic Church revealing it to you?”
I think you can see the difference. If you take the whole thought, in context, what I was asking is, how do you make sense of Acts 15? Neither the Pope, Bishops, not the entirety of the teaching Magisterium have infallibly or authoritatively interpreted that chapter. So, how would you know if your interpretation was conforming to the overall teaching of the Roman Catholic Church? And, if you are getting that interpretation from an apologist, have they been given Papal authority to interpret those texts? If not, how are they avoiding private interpretation?
Thank you for commenting on Trent. However, I do not think that you have taken the full historical context into consideration. The Council of Trent was part of the Counter-Reformation; the Roman Catholic Church wanted to condemn the Reformers for taking the Scriptures and interpreting them (obviously using sound hermeneutical principals, such as the grammatico-historical method). Thus, the Council of Trent condemned any form of private interpretation.
Please take Trent’s words:
“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.” -The Council of Trent
Now realize, who were the only individuals involved in Scripture interpretation or theological debates at this time? Official clergy, such as Bellarmine. You see no laymen involved. Why is that?
Notice what Trent states here, " that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold."
Presumably, as Trent states, no one can take it upon himself/herself to think that they, by their own intellect can interpret the Scriptures; and before anyone can make any judgment as to what Scripture says in its totality or specifically, the Roman Catholic Church must pronounce what it does say or does not say, for the purpose of no one deviating from the standard. Now, if you are looking at Acts 15 ((although you are a laymen, and are excluded from interpreting the Scriptures, at least to those Catholics who hold a Trentian position), you would need the Catholic Church’s standard teaching before attempting any interpretation. But if you don’t have the Catholic Church’s authoritative standard, how can you know that you are not privately interpreting the Scriptures? You can say that the Catholic Church and the Magisterium are guiding you (mystically?), but you have no specific guidance as to the sense of Acts 15. You may also pull out the catechism, but as I pointed out earlier, I just need a little help parsing specifics, which is why I asked you some important clarifying questions.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Hi Meltzerboy…
Another take.
We are members of the Church, including the papacy. Our understanding of Scripture is based on the Oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles – through the Holy Spirit.
It is the Holy Spirit affirming that what is taught by the Apostles. If there is any deviation, there is dissension and discord and a fragmenting of our unity in the Lord. We know that experience and stay away from that which leads us out of communion in the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Father cannot speak individually but in the spirit of the Church – in communion with the bishops united to him and the faithful.
The Holy Father is not some demi-god standing out there alone. He speaks in communion in the Lord with us.
Another take.
We are members of the Church, including the papacy. Our understanding of Scripture is based on the Oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles – through the Holy Spirit.
It is the Holy Spirit affirming that what is taught by the Apostles. If there is any deviation, there is dissension and discord and a fragmenting of our unity in the Lord. We know that experience and stay away from that which leads us out of communion in the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Father cannot speak individually but in the spirit of the Church – in communion with the bishops united to him and the faithful.
The Holy Father is not some demi-god standing out there alone. He speaks in communion in the Lord with us.
po18guy
Well-known member
Personally, I consider Benedict XVI to be the greatest living theologian. The test is whether an opinion offered comports with scripture and tradition, I would guess. There are acceptable variances, as God’s word is multi-facted and multi-levelled simply in reflection of His infinite nature.
po18guy
Well-known member
Whoa! I believe that you have a distorted view both of the Catholic Church, and of the purpose, intent and practical result of the Council of Trent. You do understand that Trent was called in defensive reaction to rampant rebellion and heresy in the Church?
po18guy
Well-known member
Actually, I did not. What I meant was that no one has the authority to artificially limit or constrict the meaning of God’s word. There is a meaning of scripture which has been handed on to us by the Apostles, and while that is our guide, it cannot contain every possible meaning of scripture. My apologies for being unclear. You must bear with me, as Catholics are a tad bit battle weary from the innumerable and unrelenting attacks on the faith. Sadly, this has been the case since the rebellion of 1517.
I must tell you that the request/demand for an infallible interpretation of each verse of scripture is a common snare laid by malicious anti-Catholics who pop in here from time to time. Even though they reject the concept of infallibility (while failing to understand how limited it is), they still make that unreasonable demand, waiting to pounce upon any and all answers they receive. I, in no way, accuse you of such activity.
You really should open a thread in the Sacred Scripture forum regarding interpretation and authority. You will get a much clearer picture and many more responses from members far superior to me.
P
PJM
Guest
As long as one’s own uderstanding fully conforms with the pope and magisterium’s one cannot [impossible too] be in error, on a verse, passage or teaching.
Mt. 16:15-19
John 17:14-20
John 20:21-22
Mark 16: 15-16
Mt. 28:16-20
ALL and individually prove this fact
po18guy
Well-known member
Coming back from far afield in this thread, if Benedict XVI provided a personal opinion on the meaning of a given verse or verses, I would very carefully listen to him. I consider him to be the greatest living theologian. Since I have willingly given up so many other personal beliefs to embrace Catholicism, I would listen carefully to whatever he said.
As to infallibility, all teachings contained in the normal magisterium of the Church may be considered to be infallible. Personal statements made by the Holy Father are not infallible, but that does in no way indicate that they are in error. Infallibility is normally used to combat heresy and to end dissension, as it was at the first council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15.
Out of 266 Popes, not a single one has changed a teaching of the Church. Just by the numbers, one or more of them should have - unless this whole thing about guidance by the Holy Spirit is true.
R
richport29
Guest
How do I have a distorted view of the Catholic Church? Can you point to a legitimate example? I agree that there was a lot of corruption in the Roman Catholic Church at that time, which was a major point for Martin Luther, but the impetus for the Council of Trent was the Reformation. Just look at the subjects the Council interacted with, the majority of them had to do with the claims of the Reformation, including the Council’s assertions on Scripture and its interpretation. Here are some sources that might lend you some help.
*******The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450-1700: A Reassessment of the Counter Reformation (1999)*****The Counter Reformation (1979)
The Counter Reformation: Religion and Society in Early Modern Europe (1995),
"The Catholic Reformation (1999)
The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola: Reform in the Church, 1495-1540 (Fordham University Press, 1992)
Counter-Reformation (2006)
The Counter-reformation: Catholic Europe and the Non-Christian World ( 2005)
The Counter-Reformation: The Essential Readings (1999)
Will you be dealing with my other points? I’m beginning to think that you are avoiding the main issues. If you are not interested in dialoguing, just say so. I neither want to waste your time, and I do not want to waste my time. If you do want to dialogue, please take the time to deal with all of my points as I have taken the time to deal with all of your points.
P
PJM
Guest
Well done!
Thanks,
R
richport29
Guest
Without clear teaching as to the specifics, how do you know that you have deviated? Your statement assumes that the pope and magisterium have an interpretation of a specific verse. You need to understand the standard before you know whether everything after the standard conforms. How do you know that your interpretation of Acts 15 conforms to the overall teaching of the Catholic Church? Would you not need the Catholic Church to interpret the texts so that you, as a pious Catholic, don’t misinterpret the text?As long as one’s own uderstanding fully conforms with the pope and magisterium’s one cannot [impossible too] be in error, on a verse, passage or teaching.
Mt. 16:15-19
John 17:14-20
John 20:21-22
Mark 16: 15-16
Mt. 28:16-20
ALL and individually prove this fact
R
richport29
Guest
You state that there is a meaning which has been handed down by the Apostles, but what is that meaning? The Scriptures are not this abstract thing “up there,” they are individual books, with different genres, written within particular historical contexts, by particular authors. Although the Scriptures may have core messages, one does not arrive at those core messages without understanding the particulars. Thank you for your apology. Rest assured, I may be here to dialogue with you and understand your position, and see the consistency in your position, I am not here to ensnare you. But, you must realize that I, as a critical thinker, will point out inconsistencies, just as you would if you were to see inconsistencies in a conversation. Would you like to terminate the conversation at this time?
R
richport29
Guest
What do these verses prove? And have they been interpreted infallibly for you to know what they mean according to the Catholic Church’s teaching?"As long as one’s own uderstanding fully conforms with the pope and magisterium’s one cannot [impossible too] be in error, on a verse, passage or teaching.
Mt. 16:15-19
John 17:14-20
John 20:21-22
Mark 16: 15-16
Mt. 28:16-20
ALL and individually prove this fact
P
PJM
Guest
A reasonable question?
Not really
If and when One is a Informed and fully Practicing Catholic one eithr KNOWs or KNOWS how to find it out.
Thruth is and shall always be singular, yes?
- Status