Passages not defined from ex-cathedra

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

Trevor_Stamm

Guest
Hello all to read and God’s blessing,

I’m well aware that when reading passages that are defined from ex-cathedra we are too fully assent to the Magisterium’s word and passages that are not defined from ex-cathedra it’s more or less up to each individual. But in relationship with 2 Peter 1:20-21 being retro and proactive, am I more inclined to take what has been said in Sacred Scripture as literal when dealing with passages not defined from ex-cathedra until a decree has been made from ex-cathedra saying otherwise of whatever passage in Sacred Scripture?

Thanks
 
The reason I think the Church doesn’t take a side, is that the scriptures are rich. The literal meaning is just the candy coating. It’s hard for God’s word to get through that hard shell, so the spirit talks to us in inaudible groaning, which can penetrate the candy shell, and may or not leave a hole.

The literal is just the bait. It’s mysterious enough to keep people guessing, and fighting over it, for millenia. They protect it as sacred, and dedicate their lives to trying to understand it literally. But if you let the Word soak in past the defensive shield of conscious thought,it touches each of us in a way unique to us, but with enough commonality that we can talk about it with each other. But if we fight over the literal meaning, then the shields go up, the candy coating hardens more, and no messages can get into or out of the heart because the mind won’t let it because it’s afraid and needy.

Anyway, the real payload changes with each individual, as we experience Christ through the written Word and the Eucharist in ways we could never know just based on verbal descriptions and parables. That is because each of us is a unique member of the body of Christ. We may have similar spiritual DNA, I don’t know. But each of our hearts hears its own marching order in such a way that we differentiate into different functions, just like the members of the body of christ start as a single cell, if you will, or seed, that was Christ. We are each led to our own work area by the Holy Spirit. I’m just making this up, so I don’t expect anyone else to agree with me.

So what the literal meaning is, is so insignificant compared to the deeper senses, that it serves as a beginning point for discussion and a common language and approach – like talking in stories and parables – that we can use to communicate lovingly with one another through this language we call “Catholic terminology.” Ultimately we want our prayer to become the language of God, which is silence to human ears. Check out how, in CCC 2700-2724.

Alan
 
I appreciate what you are saying. It is important to read the Bible with faith rather than skeptically, I much appreciate the statment in the Vatican II document “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” that the Gospels are historical and faithfully hand on what Jesus really did and taught. (If you want you can google to the Dogmatic Constitution.) The creation account at the beginning of Genesis may not be all literal though, but poetical, though Catholics have to believe that it is to a large extent historical, since such things as the creation of man by God and original sin and some other aspects of this passage are fundamental Catholic beliefs. And you can think it all literal, since the Church has not said otherwise.
 
I just say that focusing on the literal definition, compared to being open to all the senses of scripture, is like listening to a movie sound track on my laptop built in speakers, compared to watching the whole movie in three D and surround sound, in a theater.

I’m speaking in terms of how much the multimedia presentation v. sound track only loses much of the information that went into the artistry involved in creating the movie. You may know the soundtrack by heart, but no matter how well you have the soundtrack memorized, you can still learn something from people who saw the movie in all its glory, even though they may not remember 90% of the actual script.

Let God have all the controls. Don’t restrict Him to a soundtrack, open up and Let him directly go into your heart.

I’m just saying, it pays to keep in perspective that even infallibly knowing every scripture and its literal meaning, without love it is nothing. So don’t stay so focused on the literal, that you fail to notice the subtle, the sublime, and miss the movie the way God is capable of presenting it.

Alan
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Hello all to read and God’s blessing,

I’m well aware that when reading passages that are defined from ex-cathedra we are too fully assent to the Magisterium’s word and passages that are not defined from ex-cathedra it’s more or less up to each individual. But in relationship with 2 Peter 1:20-21 being retro and proactive, am I more inclined to take what has been said in Sacred Scripture as literal when dealing with passages not defined from ex-cathedra until a decree has been made from ex-cathedra saying otherwise of whatever passage in Sacred Scripture?

Thanks
Click to expand...
If you are looking for the “official” interpretation of a large part of scripture or even just “waiting” for that interpretation you will be waiting for quite a while. From what I learned in RCIA and subsequent reading seems to back it up is that the Church has only offered definitive interpretations for a handful of Bible verses and those only have to do with the sacraments themselves.

As Catholics we do enjoy some leeway in our own interpretations of scripture, however the sense and mind of the Church must be our guide when studying the scriptures and attempting to interpret them. Defaulting to a literal interpretation can be just as damaging as always believing an interpretation should be allegorical. The Bible is made up of several different styles of literature including history, poetry and prophecy. Each of these different styles must be approached on their own, understood as the Church believes they should be understood. If you start to interpret everything literally you end up with contradictions and certain pieces of the Bible don’t seem to fit together well. If you interpret with Church in mind those contradictions start to disappear and things make a lot more sense that way.

ChadS
 
On Catholic Answers a few months ago, a Dr. Mary Healy talked on the senses of scripture. Apparently there is a publication that Papa B16 just released or will soon, on the matter of reading and interpreting scripture.

Find it here.

She says that B16 is probably one of the most, if not the most ever, knowledgeable popes when it comes to scriptures and their meanings.

The publication deals with how to read and interpret the scriptures. It sound like it could be very good.

Alan
 
Keep in mind that the Word of God is not a book, but a Person, Jesus Christ. And when He walked the earth, He taught orally, and instructed the Apostles to do likewise. He instituted a Church to carry His teachings forward, and that’s the Catholic Church.

If you want to take the correct approach to reading the Bible, etc., you should read the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum. It’s not that long; you could probably read it in one sitting. (catholicprimer.org/papal/dei_verbum.pdf)

As the Mystery of Unity says that anytime we find one Person of the Trinity, we necessarily and always find the other Two, Bible reading also has a Trinitarian “flavor,” if you will.

So, there are three main principles, which always work together in transmitting the “Word of God” to us, which we should use in order to arrive at the “correct interpretation” of the Scriptures:
  1. It should always be read as a totality, i.e., as a whole rather than in isolated snippets.
  2. It should be read in light of Sacred Tradition, which has equal weight to Sacred Scripture (see 2 Thes 2:15).
  3. It should be read with the analogy of the faith, as provided by the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope and the bishops in union with him). (The Catechism is probably the best instrument for that, at present.)
The Old Testament must also be read in light of the New Testament. That’s why, no matter how “educated” a Jewish person might be on the Old Testament, Hebrew, etc., they should never be teaching in a Catholic seminary, because they don’t understand the New Testament.

The New Testament must also be read as a fulfillment of the Old Testament.

And, although it may be hard to impossible for most of us to see it, every part of Scripture contains all of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top