Personal interpretation

[DavidFilmer]

How did you come to know that the “church” is the RCC?

Well, that’s a big question that can be answered on many levels and probably deserves its own thread.

I’ll take a quick swing at it here and cite history. The canon of the New Testament was not defined (by, ahem, the Church) until nearly the Fifth Century. Before that, if you asked a Christian (any Christian) to show you his New Testament, he wouldn’t know what you were talking about. But he would know the Nicene Creed (from the Council of Nicea in 325). He would know who the Pope was. He would know all about the Mass and Confession and all that Catholic stuff. And this applies to EVERY Christian - there were no denominations; everybody was Catholic.

The Church described by historians and the Early Church Fathers is the same Catholic Church we have today. Jesus promised that the gates of hell (ie, the power of Satan) would not prevail over his Church, and they have not.

Centuries before there was a New Testament there was a Church, and that Church remains to this day.

Feel free to open a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you referring to the theory of an “unbroken succession of Bishops” which goes all the way back to the apostle Peter? If so, how does that historical theory logically and necessarily have to lead to the RCC?

As clearly reflected in Scripture, you can see that Christianity is always a “master-apprentice” type of learning. An elder, usually a Bishop who is the rank of elder such as that of an Apostle, would have been trained well to carry the faith before he even becomes a Bishop. So the Ordained carries with them the teachings passed down from generation to generation. Even lay teachers today cannot be experts on their own, they have to be subject to the Bishops. Its one way of ensuring the correct and same teaching is given each and every time.

Usually the breakaway groups would carry most of not all of the correct teaching at first. But as time has showed us, slowly they move away from the correct teaching because they lack guidance from the Church. Look at the Anglicans who have liberalized. Look at the Old Catholics who now is giving away ordinations like campaign stickers during election season. They have lost the sense of whats true and whats right after some time and have succumbed to false teaching.

I didn’t understand this part about the church having such high standards. It seems to me that even after genuine repentance and the desire to do what is good, forgiven sinners will still sin. Are you saying that God only loves us if and when we’re not sinning? You seem to be saying that a religion that worships a God who only loves perfectly righteous people has higher standards than a religion that worships a God who loves sinners enough to send His own beloved Son to suffer and die for our sins.

I hope I’m not asking dumb questions!

God loves us no matter what. Case in point, some early Church Fathers believe that all souls of those who died are subject to the mystical fire which is God’s love. But their experiences of this fire is different, those who are in communion with God are in bliss, heaven. Those who are defiled are purified by the fire, purgatory. And for those who have rejected God in their lives, God’s love becomes the bane of their souls. Think of it as an unwanted suitor. No matter how true and pure a man’s love is for a woman, if a woman doesn’t love him back then whatever the man does only irks the woman. The same for the soul that rejects God. So even in hell its God’s love that envelopes us, but those who die in mortal sin does not have the capacity to accept God’s love and therefore are consumed by it.

Make no mistake, God loves us no matter what. That is true. The question is, do we love God back? Love is a two way street, always. I posted this the other day, its the hands of God and the hand of man (Adam) in the painting of Creation

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGxhkjrtn1RW_nf9as-YDxDReI5GkMWBuYcxXs4ncQjyxrO3h_

Notice God’s hand is stretched out all the way to man, while man stretched out somewhat to God. That is whats happening today in our lives, that is sin. God loves us fully, but we somehow are reluctant to give that full commitment of love to God. We end up in hell not because God doesn’t love us, its because we do not love God back.

There are no dumb questions. I love people who asks questions with a genuine intent to learn, rather than those who only wish to debate and proselytize.

 

[Mark01]

Wonderful post ConstantineTG

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine was only saying that our relationship with God is not one-sided; that is, it is not just God loves us to send His only Son and let that be the end of it. It is that we must also love God with all our hearts and mind. And the Catholic Church is hardly full of “perfectly righteous people”. Quite the contrary… The Church is justified because it is full of sinners. That bolded part is exactly what we believe, but Constantine’s point was that we must return that love with charity to our neighbor. Loving our neighbor is loving God and vice-versa. I embellished Constantine’s point but I hope you get it.

Certainly not! The only person that asks dumb questions is this guy right here.

Thank you Gregg, you made a clearer point than I did. I guess sometimes in my own mind what I say makes sense, but what gets out lacks some of the other points that exists in my mind. I should always remember to be more clear when explaining things.

What other denominations teach is that God loves us no matter what, and God will accept us no matter what. That is very much true, but that is only half the truth. We must love God back, through direct forms such as praise and worship, and through one another. Jesus Christ is in each one of us. Think of this, Saul persecuted Christians but when Jesus confronted him on his way to Damascus the question of Christ was, “Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Jesus did not say, “Saul, why are you persecuting my followers?” To love God is to love neighbor, there’s really no distinguishing there. We must do both always, there’s no priority of one of the other because Christ is in the least of our bretheren and to love them is to love Christ. So when someone teaches, “it doesn’t matter what I do, God will love me no matter what,” that is very much true. But don’t mistake that you’ll get to heaven no matter what because of God’s love, His hand is stretched out to us always. Are we stretching our hand back out?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not wrong. Anyone is free (and encouraged) to read the Bible, and we naturally draw our own conclusions about the meaning of what we have read.

What we may not do is to interpret the text in a way that is contrary to the teaching of the Church. For example, we ought not read Romans 5:1 (“we are justified by faith”) and suppose that this means “faith alone” (as Martin Luther did). We cannot consider our personal interpretation of Biblical texts to be superior to the teaching of the Church.

Indeed.

Only the CC, who preserved the Scriptures and is its guardian, has the authority to be the **final **interpreter.
[SIGN]
However, all Christians are exhorted to read, and interpret, the Sacred Scriptures.[/SIGN]

Here’s an example: I’m planning a dinner party for 40 people and I’m stressing out about food preparation. Before the party I decide to go to Adoration, and before the Blessed Sacrament I open the Word randomly to the story of Jesus and the Multiplication of the Loaves.

I am certainly free to interpret that verse as, “Don’t worry, PR! I will take care of you! No one will go away from your home hungry.”

***However, we must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written (Catholic).

---

 

[fhansen]

If you are suggesting that Catholics are in complete unity on all matters discussed in the written word, you might be shocked at how many conflicting answers to doctrine can be found by Catholics right here at CAF.

Yes, even Catholics do it-another good reason for abstaining from personal interpretations.

 

[rev_kevin]

It would be of greater benefit to you to study baptist theology. The pope does not have the correct understanding concerning the scripures. Visit www.danvillebaptistky.com
Hope this helps.

 

[po18guy]

It has been explained on this forum that it is wrong to interpret the bible on our own. Why is that wrong? What is the correct way to interpret the bible?

First, look in the bible: Peter condemns the private interpretation of prophecy (2 Peter 1:20). He also states that the ignorant and unstable were distorting Paul’s scripture even while Paul was still alive! (2 Peter 3:16). Notice that it was the Prophets’ and Paul’s scripture that was twisted. The liar and father of lies twisted the meaning oif scripture in his temptation of Christ (Matthew 4:1-10, Luke 4:1-12).

As to understanding scripture, God has always sent men with the authority to interpret. See Nehemiah 8:5-9, where Ezra and the Levites (the priestly class) gave the meaning of scripture so that the masses could understand. See also Acts 8:27-35, where Philip interpreted scripture for the Egyptian eunuch, who was wise enough to know that he could not understand on his own.

From the bible, examine the structure of the Church Christ founded: He sent Apostles forth, lead by the Holy Spirit. He did not hand out scripture, or grant authority to everyone - only to those whom He chose to lead and teach. He sent them not with scripture, but even better, with the fellowship of God’s Holy Spirit. Words written on paper can be twisted, as Peter has testified. The Holy Spirit can neither deceive nor be deceived.

We know from the Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13) that the Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit. They granted that unto their successors by the laying on of hands - Jesus to the Apostles to their successors. In no one else can we be assured, from the bible, that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. From what we have seen over the millennia, from the odd sects and cults that developed, many are guided by a passing spirit.

 

[po18guy]

If you are suggesting that Catholics are in complete unity on all matters discussed in the written word, you might be shocked at how many conflicting answers to doctrine can be found by Catholics right here at CAF.

Look at Paul’s Epistles - even then, many were dissenting and following their egos. It is not a new problem, and it is one which will not be resolved until all determine to deny themselves, take up their crosses, then follow Him - Luke 9:23.

However, dissent does not change the truth that the Church teaches. Truth is One as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One. Though either the proper or improper exercise of our God-given free wills, we can choose obedience or disobedience to the truth.

 

[inkaneer]

If you are suggesting that Catholics are in complete unity on all matters discussed in the written word, you might be shocked at how many conflicting answers to doctrine can be found by Catholics right here at CAF.

Let’s not state falsehood here. Catholics can indeed interpret the scriptures by themselves up to a point. But there are certain areas that have been defined that are not subject to personal interpretation. These are what are called ‘public revelation’ These consist of formally defined doctrine or other teachings which although not formally defined have been universally taught by the church. For instance we worship on Sunday not the Jewish Sabbath. No where is that formally defined in the church but it has been the practice of the church since Apostolic times. There are other areas known as ‘private revelation’ which a Catholic can have a personal interpretation provided that interpretation does not contradict anything in the Public Revelation. Examples of these are the various writings of the Catholic mystics down thru the ages. So Catholicism is not the Monolithic belief system that it is sometimes pictured to be.

As for the question of how do we know that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true teachings and not something dreamed up by mere men the answer is fairly simple. In scripture we read where Jesus made certain statements. First, He stated he would establish a church [Mt 16:18-19]. That occurred on Pentecost when Peter addressed the crowd. Before that happened though Jesus promised that He would remain with His Church until the end of the Age. [Mt 28:19-20]. The Age has not ended yet so if we accept Jesus’ word as true He is still with His Church. Then He stated that that church would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit [John 16:13]. Then He stated that Peter would shepherd his Church [John 21:15-17] Now all we have to do is find the one church among all the Christian denominations that,

A. Has been here since Pentecost when Peter addressed the crowd. This one criteria
eliminates all of the non Catholic denominations that are typically called protestant
since their very history is short by 1500 years at least and leaves only three choices.
They being the Catholic Church, the Coptic Church and the Orthodox Church.
B. Of these remaining Churches only the Catholic Church holds to the shepherding of
Peter through the Apostolic Succession of Popes from Peter.

That being the case then it only follows that the Catholic Church is that Church and is guided into truth by the Holy Spirit as Jesus said. Now, Jesus also said in Matthew 16 that hell would not prevail over this Church. The only way hell could prevail over the church is if the Church taught error. Remember the mission of the Church according to Jesus in Mt 28 was “to teach the nations” So if the church taught error then the Church fails in its mission and Hell prevails. But Jesus said that would not occur. So there you have it, fairly simple and scripturally sound.

 

[Doggg]

Let’s not state falsehood here. Catholics can indeed interpret the scriptures by themselves up to a point. But there are certain areas that have been defined that are not subject to personal interpretation. These are what are called ‘public revelation’ These consist of formally defined doctrine or other teachings which although not formally defined have been universally taught by the church. For instance we worship on Sunday not the Jewish Sabbath. No where is that formally defined in the church but it has been the practice of the church since Apostolic times. There are other areas known as ‘private revelation’ which a Catholic can have a personal interpretation provided that interpretation does not contradict anything in the Public Revelation. Examples of these are the various writings of the Catholic mystics down thru the ages. So Catholicism is not the Monolithic belief system that it is sometimes pictured to be.

There seems to be some unproven assumptions here, as this pertains to bible interpretation:

A) That the RCC is our teaching authority. It belongs to the RCC to decide which specific biblical teachings are in need of clarification.

B) That the combination of Scripture plus the numerous ‘clarifications’ of the RCC are likely to be clearer and more understandable than Scripture by itself.

Do you see the problem?

As for the question of how do we know that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true teachings and not something dreamed up by mere men the answer is fairly simple. In scripture we read where Jesus made certain statements. First, He stated he would establish a church [Mt 16:18-19]. That occurred on Pentecost when Peter addressed the crowd. Before that happened though Jesus promised that He would remain with His Church until the end of the Age. [Mt 28:19-20]. The Age has not ended yet so if we accept Jesus’ word as true He is still with His Church. Then He stated that that church would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit [John 16:13]. Then He stated that Peter would shepherd his Church [John 21:15-17] Now all we have to do is find the one church among all the Christian denominations that,

A. Has been here since Pentecost when Peter addressed the crowd. This one criteria
eliminates all of the non Catholic denominations that are typically called protestant
since their very history is short by 1500 years at least and leaves only three choices.
They being the Catholic Church, the Coptic Church and the Orthodox Church.
B. Of these remaining Churches only the Catholic Church holds to the shepherding of
Peter through the Apostolic Succession of Popes from Peter.

That being the case then it only follows that the Catholic Church is that Church and is guided into truth by the Holy Spirit as Jesus said. Now, Jesus also said in Matthew 16 that hell would not prevail over this Church. The only way hell could prevail over the church is if the Church taught error. Remember the mission of the Church according to Jesus in Mt 28 was “to teach the nations” So if the church taught error then the Church fails in its mission and Hell prevails. But Jesus said that would not occur. So there you have it, fairly simple and scripturally sound.

You are making the argument here that we can indeed correctly interpret Scripture on our own, and that with this correct interpretation of the Scriptures, we will be capable of identifying which religious institution is the one founded by Jesus through the apostles.

In granting this (we can correctly interpret the bible on our own), you have just destroyed most of the (RC) case for WHY we need the authority of Rome to guide us in all matters of faith and morals. It seems that, in effect, you’ve sided with the sola Scriptura crowd.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There seems to be some unproven assumptions here, as this pertains to bible interpretation:

A) That the RCC is our teaching authority. It belongs to the RCC to decide which specific biblical teachings are in need of clarification.

B) That the combination of Scripture plus the numerous ‘clarifications’ of the RCC are likely to be clearer and more understandable than Scripture by itself.

Do you see the problem?

It has always been this way with the Jews. Back in the day of Jesus, many teachers would sit around the temple explaining Scripture and the Laws. Some see Jesus as just one of this many teachers, although at a certain point He did start to stand out over the others. But even then scripture was never meant to be understood without instruction. Its really simple and practical. If we all can learn effectively just from books, why just have schools? Would you be comfortable if your surgeon earned his MD just by reading books?

You are making the argument here that we can indeed correctly interpret Scripture on our own, and that with this correct interpretation of the Scriptures, we will be capable of identifying which religious institution is the one founded by Jesus through the apostles.

In granting this (we can correctly interpret the bible on our own), you have just destroyed most of the (RC) case for WHY we need the authority of Rome to guide us in all matters of faith and morals. It seems that, in effect, you’ve sided with the sola Scriptura crowd.

I think what he means is discern, not interpret. Surely we can use scripture to make sense of what one is telling us. Tradition and scripture should not conflict. I’ve seen many take scripture out of context and make it mean something that would suit their agenda. So definitely you can use scripture to see they are lying. Its not about interpreting scripture itself, but you can see if what they are saying makes sense. Some are just too obvious of a lie.

 

[Doggg]

It has always been this way with the Jews. Back in the day of Jesus, many teachers would sit around the temple explaining Scripture and the Laws. Some see Jesus as just one of this many teachers, although at a certain point He did start to stand out over the others. But even then scripture was never meant to be understood without instruction. Its really simple and practical. If we all can learn effectively just from books, why just have schools? Would you be comfortable if your surgeon earned his MD just by reading books?

I agree with you that the bible needs to be taught and explained. Without serious study, much of it will be vaguely understood at best. But how do we get from this, to the knowledge that the RCC is our teaching authority?

I think what he means is discern, not interpret. Surely we can use scripture to make sense of what one is telling us. Tradition and scripture should not conflict. I’ve seen many take scripture out of context and make it mean something that would suit their agenda. So definitely you can use scripture to see they are lying. Its not about interpreting scripture itself, but you can see if what they are saying makes sense. Some are just too obvious of a lie.

To me, it seems that in making sense of difficult bible passages, there isn’t much difference between correctly discerning and correctly interpreting it. I agree with you that people will often approach the bible from a biased point of view–with an agenda.

 

[po18guy]

In granting this (we can correctly interpret the bible on our own), you have just destroyed most of the (RC) case for WHY we need the authority of Rome to guide us in all matters of faith and morals. It seems that, in effect, you’ve sided with the sola Scriptura crowd.

All scriptural interpretation must be done in the light of the teaching authority that Jesus gave to His Church. There is either a single repository of revealed truth, or there is none. Since the bible is a later development of the Church, even NT scripture was guided by the teaching that the Church undertook since day one. One can read the first verses of Luke for testimony to this. Scripture testifies to the Church, since the Church preceded scripture. Since scripture testifies to the Church, the Church to which it testifies to must have had not only unity, but the authority to teach the Gospel message in the first place. Even Paul travelled to meet Peter and so ensure that they were on the same page.

The man-made, 16th century doctrine of “sola scriptura”, which the bible itself does not teach, is the single most powerful cause of the theological entropy that has been demonstrated in the Body of Christ. The division that has demonstrably occurred since its introduction simply cannot be denied. Let’s look at a time line of Christian unity: At her foundation, there was one Church, founded by Jesus Christ, with authoritative Apostles sent forth. Due to conflicting human egos, it was a never ending struggle to maintain unity, which Christ had prayed for, and which Paul taught. This worked for just over 1,000 years. Then, there was a schism and the Church became divided into two parts - both retaining their hierarchical authority. This functioned for another 500 years, with great doctrinal unity and efforts being made at reconciliation. At that 1,500 year mark, the doctrine of sola scriptura was introduced. Look at the amazingly rapid disintegration in the Body of Christ from that point onward. The reformers split even as they were reforming. Denomination after another split, and the splits even split while they were splitting. The individual human ego, which had caused all division in the first place, was now in charge of determining truth. Heresy upon heresy appeared. Today, there is scarcely a community that celebrates in any manner that the reformers would even recognize.

Consider: Either a single, united authority (the Apostles and their successors guided by the Holy Spirit) is the true teacher of the Gospel, or each individual ego determines what truth is. Just as law must be unified and interpreted by authority, so also must the truth be authoritatively interpreted. Sola scriptura breeds theological lawlessness. The innumerable disagreeing denominations all bear witness to the disintegrating nature of their founding doctrine - sola scriptura.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[po18guy]

I agree with you that the bible needs to be taught and explained. Without serious study, much of it will be vaguely understood at best. But how do we get from this, to the knowledge that the RCC is our teaching authority? To me, it seems that in making sense of difficult bible passages, there isn’t much difference between correctly discerning and correctly interpreting it. I agree with you that people will often approach the bible from a biased point of view–with an agenda.

Either there is one authority to teach, guide and interpret, or there is none. From the bible, Jesus clearly gave unprecedented authority to twelve men. The Holy Spirit inspired them to appoint successors. Trace all authority back. All non-Catholic church roots eventually stop at the door of the Catholic Church, which itself traces in an unbroken line to Jesus.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree with you that the bible needs to be taught and explained. Without serious study, much of it will be vaguely understood at best. But how do we get from this, to the knowledge that the RCC is our teaching authority?

Scripture reflects that. First is that Jesus handed over the keys to heaven to Peter, akin to a king handing over keys to a caretaker of the kingdom while he is away.

Second is the authority He gave to the Apostles. And even in Acts, the Apostles held a Council to decide on circumcision among the Jews. St. Paul himself has to subject himself to the decision of the Council. Because Jesus himself taught the Apostles directly, they have the fullness of teaching. This is what we call the Deposit of Faith. Then it was up to the Apostles to train successors, and so on and so forth.

To me, it seems that in making sense of difficult bible passages, there isn’t much difference between correctly discerning and correctly interpreting it. I agree with you that people will often approach the bible from a biased point of view–with an agenda.

I have an example, there’s an LDS/SDA wannabe in the Philippines called Iglesia ni Cristo. I forgot where but I recently told this story somehwere in this forum. Anyway, the founder claimed one passage in Isaiah and told everyone it was a prophesy about himself. And the 5 million followers he has today believes in that. Thing is, its one line, taken completely out of context.

It is indeed hard to figure it out by yourself especially if you are undertrained. But the Bible is a good help, better than none. Remember that tradition and scripture should never, ever contradict.

 

[inkaneer]

There seems to be some unproven assumptions here, as this pertains to bible interpretation:

A) That the RCC is our teaching authority. It belongs to the RCC to decide which specific biblical teachings are in need of clarification.

B) That the combination of Scripture plus the numerous ‘clarifications’ of the RCC are likely to be clearer and more understandable than Scripture by itself.

Do you see the problem?

No, I don’t, at least for the Catholic Church. The only problem I see is that you apparently do not believe the words of Jesus

You are making the argument here that we can indeed correctly interpret Scripture on our own, and that with this correct interpretation of the Scriptures, we will be capable of identifying which religious institution is the one founded by Jesus through the apostles.

In granting this (we can correctly interpret the bible on our own), you have just destroyed most of the (RC) case for WHY we need the authority of Rome to guide us in all matters of faith and morals. It seems that, in effect, you’ve sided with the sola Scriptura crowd.

I did not interpret anything. All I did was take the very words of Jesus literally as translated. That is not interpretation. Those words are the same in any Bible whether it be protestant or Catholic. Interpretation assigns a different meaning to words other than the literal one. I find we Catholics are more literal in our understanding of scripture than protestants. For instance Mt 26:26-28:

"26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
[Mt 26:26-28 RSV]

Catholics do not interpret this passage as we take Jesus literally here . When Jesus says the bread is His Body and the Wine is His Blood then the Bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood. There is no interpretation and especially so when John 6 is considered. There Jesus said that he who ate his flesh had life eternal. and He said Hisflesh was real food. Protestants, however, interpret Mt 26:26-28 into something other than the literal meaning. They claim It is not His actual Body it is only a symbol. They claim the same for the wine. Yet nowhere in the Greek words does one find any hint of symbolism.

Now Jesus did use symbolism. He claimed he was a door. He claimed He was a vine. He claimed He was a shepherd when in fact He was none of those. So why do we think the Bread is His Body? Because Jesus commanded the Apostles to do the very same thing. Do this in remembrance of me He said and we know the early church did exactly that. Search the first 500 or 1000 or 1500 years of the church and see if the church ever taught sola scriptura. You won’t find it. Sola scriptura was invented in the 16th century as a denial of Church authority and by doing so is directly contradicted by Mt 16:18-1; John 16:13; 2 Thess 2:15 and a couple of other scripture passages.

If you want to see the effects of interpreting scripture on your own all you need to do is look at the divisions in protestantism. There are thousands of protestant denominations all claiming to be spirit led and preaching truth but all differing in the truth taught. A good example is the many contradicting teachings on Baptism. Protestants can’t agree on whether it is necessary or not, whether it saves or not, adult only or infant too, pouring or immersion, sacrament or ordinance. There are plenty more differing interpretations too. Is God a Trinity or not? The list goes on and on. That is what interpreting scripture on your own will do. It is called chaos and chaos is the work of satan not God.

 

[Philthy]

I agree that teaching and believing contradictory doctrines is a dangerous thing for the church.

Agreed

Our own personal interpretation of Scripture can lead to error.

Well, that is an understatement. Not only can it lead to error, but it is likely to lead to error, and even worse there is no external objective means for us to measure the veracity of our interpretations. Agreed?

Has the RCC solved this problem?

The faith handed on to, and taught by, the first generations of Christians - as witnessed by the ECFs - is substantially similar to the faith taught by the Catholic Church today.
The term " The Catholic Church" had become reasonably common very close to the first century.
On all major doctrine that were debated at the time, the positions articulated by those early Christians were then and are now the positions articulated by the Catholic Church today.
I would say that those facts are evidence that the Catholic Church has solved this problem as a church. That does not, of course eliminate the possibility that some will persist in placing personal opinions above those teachings. As long as sin remains in the world there will be no solution to the latter problem…

Blessings!

 

[gtrenewed]

Here’s an example: I’m planning a dinner party for 40 people and I’m stressing out about food preparation. Before the party I decide to go to Adoration, and before the Blessed Sacrament I open the Word randomly to the story of Jesus and the Multiplication of the Loaves.

I am certainly free to interpret that verse as, “Don’t worry, PR! I will take care of you! No one will go away from your home hungry.”

That is not an interpretation but a word of encouragement. For it to be an interpretation you would espouse this as the only meaning of that scripture.

However, we must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written (Catholic).

This would be the contextual teaching as taught by the apostles and passed down through the church. But to be encouraged by scripture in a meditative environment is a gift from the Holy Spirit. Using your example, it would give me peace and strength to continue with the preparation with joy.

 

[PRmerger]

That is not an interpretation but a word of encouragement. For it to be an interpretation you would espouse this as the only meaning of that scripture.

Huh? Who says that for something to be an interpretation one must espouse it as the only meaning of that Scripture.

Don’t Protestants state that each and every individual is free to interpret the Scriptures as long as the Holy Spirit is guiding him? How could millions of Christians be allowed to proclaim what each Bible verse they read means for everyone else.

Whose paradigm is this?