Private Interpretation Of Scripture

[PeliganPelican]

I’ve been listening to the Steve Gregg / Staples debate and found it very interesting and informative. I’ve been given the impression that the exergesis of the scriptures was not something that Catholics were encouraged to do so listening to Mr Staples was excellent and has caused me to rethink some of the Protestant “traditions” I may have been taught.

One thing I’d like to ask Tim - relates to the private interpretation of Scripture which in the debate was apparently not encouraged and that the Church is responsible for setting out how the text is to be understood. I understand the principle and assume that this would have also been the case in the time of the Apostles.

Does Tim mean that in all matters of interpretation of Scripture and subsequent practice the Church and/or the Apostles give the authorative meaning and therefore as a result we have uniformed practice in matters worship etc etc.

I’m wanting to clarify that in this authorative administration we have One Church practicing the same rights, etc etc - or is there room for individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition resulting in variations of practice and belief within the Church.

Hope I’ve explained myself clealry - thanks

 

[tobinatorstark]

I’ve been listening to the Steve Gregg / Staples debate and found it very interesting and informative. I’ve been given the impression that the exergesis of the scriptures was not something that Catholics were encouraged to do so listening to Mr Staples was excellent and has caused me to rethink some of the Protestant “traditions” I may have been taught.

One thing I’d like to ask Tim - relates to the private interpretation of Scripture which in the debate was apparently not encouraged and that the Church is responsible for setting out how the text is to be understood. I understand the principle and assume that this would have also been the case in the time of the Apostles.

Does Tim mean that in all matters of interpretation of Scripture and subsequent practice the Church and/or the Apostles give the authorative meaning and therefore as a result we have uniformed practice in matters worship etc etc.

I’m wanting to clarify that in this authorative administration we have One Church practicing the same rights, etc etc - or is there room for individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition resulting in variations of practice and belief within the Church.

Hope I’ve explained myself clealry - thanks

Private interpretation of scripture is wrong on all accounts. The Magisterum is the teachings of Christ and only the Church has the right to interpret the scripture from the way I gather. Tim Staples isn’t one I would trust either. He is the worst apologist ever. Jimmy Akin is also one I wouldn’t listen to either. Terrible apologist. I respect them, but neither one of them have any business in apologetics. I also fit that category of not being fit the apologetics category

 

[Della]

I’ve been listening to the Steve Gregg / Staples debate and found it very interesting and informative. I’ve been given the impression that the exergesis of the scriptures was not something that Catholics were encouraged to do so listening to Mr Staples was excellent and has caused me to rethink some of the Protestant “traditions” I may have been taught.

One thing I’d like to ask Tim - relates to the private interpretation of Scripture which in the debate was apparently not encouraged and that the Church is responsible for setting out how the text is to be understood. I understand the principle and assume that this would have also been the case in the time of the Apostles.

Does Tim mean that in all matters of interpretation of Scripture and subsequent practice the Church and/or the Apostles give the authorative meaning and therefore as a result we have uniformed practice in matters worship etc etc.

I’m wanting to clarify that in this authorative administration we have One Church practicing the same rights, etc etc - or is there room for individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition resulting in variations of practice and belief within the Church.

Hope I’ve explained myself clealry - thanks

With all due respect for tobinatorstark and his opinions of Staples and Akins (which is his right and due) I have to disagree that we can never interpret the Bible. We can interpret the Bible for private devotional use, but not for formulating doctrine/dogma. It is the business of theologians to explore Scripture for theological understanding and the average person’s to read it for spiritual growth.

Catholics are allowed to disagree on those matters on which the Church has not yet made a definitive decision, which is why some dogmas were studied and debated for many centuries before being officially defined, while being believed by most of the faithful.

The Church isn’t the monolithic structure some people think it is. It’s always growing, changing (not in it’s teachings, but in defining those teachings as it learns more and is directed by the Holy Spirit), always ancient and ever new. Doctrines do not change, but doctrines can be defined as dogmas. The only things that change are disciplines (such a celibate priesthood) and devotions, which wax and wane according to cultures and the development of societies. I hope that helps rather than confuses you.

 

[tobinatorstark]

With all due respect for tobinatorstark and his opinions of Staples and Akins (which is his right and due) I have to disagree that we can never interpret the Bible. We can interpret the Bible for private devotional use, but not for formulating doctrine/dogma. It is the business of theologians to explore Scripture for theological understanding and the average person’s to read it for spiritual growth.

Catholics are allowed to disagree on those matters on which the Church has not yet made a definitive decision, which is why some dogmas were studied and debated for many centuries before being officially defined, while being believed by most of the faithful.

The Church isn’t the monolithic structure some people think it is. It’s always growing, changing (not in it’s teachings, but in defining those teachings as it learns more and is directed by the Holy Spirit), always ancient and ever new. Doctrines do not change, but doctrines can be defined as dogmas. The only things that change are disciplines (such a celibate priesthood) and devotions, which wax and wane according to cultures and the development of societies. I hope that helps rather than confuses you.

Please explain yourself as to why we can privately interpret scripture. Provide some sort of documentation from the Catholic Church. ie:scripture, encyclical, church document

 

[COPLAND_3]

Catholics have the liberty to read and interpret Scripture under some guidelines, and that is going by the senses of Scriptures. Here is where the Catechism talks about the senses of Scripture scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#115

But when interpreting Scripture this does not mean that you go unrestrained, and a Catholic should be taught well how to approach the Bible before ever deciding to interpret it.

 

[Nita]

Hi PeliganP,

It isn’t as though there is some official commentary that we must have handy if we’re going to read Scripture.

With the passage of time, the Church has officially defined many truths - most generally because an interpretation different from what had been taught was being put forth. (New heresies are often what “forces” the Church to officially define a doctrine.) For a Catholic, it is very important to learn these defined doctrines. They are the “hedge” (cf Is 5:5) or “ramparts” (cf Ps 48:13) God has provided to protect His NT people – to keep us from falling into error when reading Scripture. We are free to read Scripture and see applications to our lives, learn new insights about God, … — as long as these thoughts/ideas do not conflict with Church doctrine.

To give you an example, as a Christian you believe that Jesus is God. Thus, when you’re reading Scripture, you would never interpret a verse in such a way that it would contradict that belief. Because that belief is sure, you know there must be an interpretation that agrees with that truth.

My personal experience is that Church doctrine gives me a great sense of security when reading and pondering passages - a confidence that my understanding will be in conformity with truth. Also, the deeper my knowledge of Catholic doctrine became, the more alive Scripture became; the more spiritual pearls I discovered in it.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Hi PeliganP,

It isn’t as though there is some official commentary that we must have handy if we’re going to read Scripture.

With the passage of time, the Church has officially defined many truths - most generally because an interpretation different from what had been taught was being put forth. (New heresies are often what “forces” the Church to officially define a doctrine.) For a Catholic, it is very important to learn these defined doctrines. They are the “hedge” (cf Is 5:5) or “ramparts” (cf Ps 48:13) God has provided to protect His NT people – to keep us from falling into error when reading Scripture. We are free to read Scripture and see applications to our lives, learn new insights about God, … — as long as none of our thoughts/ideas do not conflict with Church doctrine.

To give you an example, as a Christian you believe that Jesus is God. Thus, when you’re reading Scripture, you would never interpret a verse in such a way that it would contradict that belief. Because that belief is sure, you know there must be an interpretation that agrees with that truth.

My personal experience is that Church doctrine gives me a great sense of security when reading and pondering passages - a confidence that my understanding will be in conformity with truth. Also, the deeper my knowledge of Catholic doctrine became, the more alive Scripture became; the more spiritual pearls I discovered in it.

Excellent!

 

[porthos11]

Contrary to popular belief, private interpretation is not forbidden. What is forbidden is interpreting the Scripture apart from the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. But the Church has not interpreted the vast majority of the Bible, allowing much leeway in understanding within the confines of Tradition.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Contrary to popular belief, private interpretation is not forbidden. What is forbidden is interpreting the Scripture apart from the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. But the Church has not interpreted the vast majority of the Bible, allowing much leeway in understanding within the confines of Tradition.

Thanks for clarifying that up for us

 

[Randy_Carson]

Private interpretation of scripture is wrong on all accounts. The Magisterum is the teachings of Christ and only the Church has the right to interpret the scripture from the way I gather. Tim Staples isn’t one I would trust either. He is the worst apologist ever. Jimmy Akin is also one I wouldn’t listen to either. Terrible apologist. I respect them, but neither one of them have any business in apologetics. I also fit that category of not being fit the apologetics category

Jimmy Akin, Director of Apologetics for Catholic Answers, and Tim Staples, staff apologist for Catholic Answers, are two of the finest Catholic apologists on the planet today.

 

[PeliganPelican]

Further to my first question, thanks for the responses which are helpful although not that clear - it seems that their isn’t unity on the answer - and for me its hard to know who speaks with authority on this this matter.

The main thrust of my question was to answer the following:

I’m wanting to clarify that in this authorative administration we have One Church practicing the same rights, etc etc - or is there room for individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition resulting in variations of practice and belief within the Church.

For example I’ve noticed on the forum people asking about what they should eat on a certain day “I presume this relates to a special day or days”.

Does the individual have the right to interpret scripture on matters relating to such matters as this or do they have to follow the interpretation of the church.

Thanks for all the help so far,

 

[Crumpy]

It may help to recast this question into a slightly different framework.

Scripture is there for us. It is not behind a fence where only some experts and church bureaucrats have the sole access.

Collectively, the Church, and we as individuals may derive much personal insight and inspiration from reading scripture and, let’s say, consulting different commentaries on scripture as we should.

But, fortunately, and wisely, Christ has given us a Church to guide us and lead us on the path of truth – call this the “interpretation” of scripture, if you will.

To argue against a teaching authority (magisterium) which is the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture, with the guidance and blessing the Holy Spirit, is to say that scripture actually means nothing at all, because it could be twisted any way that somebody wanted to twist it.

One of the early reformers was John Wycliffe, in England. As I understand it, he was the advocate of private interpretation of Scripture (as opposed to the Church as the guardian of orthodoxy) – right, he believed everybody should be able to interpret scripture for themselves – except Catholics, of course! Uh, huh. This would be a ridiculous joke except for the fact that that is what he believed. Right? Everybody has the right to interpret scripture – except that thar guy down in Rome that Catholics call the ‘pope.’

 

[Christy_Beth]

2 Peter 1:20 Know that first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.

I think this says loads about the issue. Sorry about not being able to go on about this. I believe that we should all learn to be apologists, because there people out there who would willingly lead others astray.

 

[Tim_Taylor]

It is clear we have one head, and one teacher, the Priest, Prophet, and the KING of kings. The Church as the BRIDE OF CHRIST, having CHRIST as our HEAD, we must listen then to the teachings of the Church. Where there is some dispute on the Scripture, we must capitulate to the Church. For instance, if the Church teaches, and it does, that the woman in Revelation 12:1 is our Blessed Virgin Mother, then we accept that this is so. However the Scripture says take up your cross every day and follow CHRIST. How are we to take this? Does the Church teach we are to carry a cross upon our shoulder? Clearly there’s interpretive leeway here to private interpretation, that a persons personal circumstances may bring suffering, and we are to then carry our cross, and bear such suffering. Thus we’ve interpreted, to some extent, by private interpretation, tailored to our individual lives, as suffering servants. Thus we capitulate, to authentic teaching, from the ONE TEACHER, our LORD. But there’s room for private interpretation too.

Saint John writes in his Gospel, that all that JESUS CHRIST said and did is not written. Is it therefore acceptable to picture the scene, when it is not written in the Scripture? Of course, in fact we are asked to do this. If you watch a film about JESUS CHRIST, the scene is probably constructed from the historical record, and the imaginations or vision of the filmmakers. This of course is a private interpretation given what understanding there is, so long as they stay true to what is known, by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. It would not be acceptable to change the meaning with some anachronism, because that clearly would not be true to the Gospel. However we could see CHRIST in the world today, and should in one another, and particularly in the least of people.

Ultimately we must accept the teachings of the Church, because we are lead in CHRIST, and it is given us that the gates of hell will not overcome JESUS CHRIST’s Church. Thus, we may be confident in our acceptance of Catholic Teachings. It is wisdom to read the scriptures and to discern its meaning, good for every understanding of theological argument. Thus we should examine the Scriptures, and arguments, and ultimately capitulate to CHRIST’s authority through HIS BRIDE, the Church on Earth.

Amen
LOVE your neighbor as yourself.
GOD bless you all.

 

[davidv]

Further to my first question, thanks for the responses which are helpful although not that clear - it seems that their isn’t unity on the answer - and for me its hard to know who speaks with authority on this this matter.

The main thrust of my question was to answer the following:

I’m wanting to clarify that in this authorative administration we have One Church practicing the same rights, etc etc - or is there room for individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition resulting in variations of practice and belief within the Church.

For example I’ve noticed on the forum people asking about what they should eat on a certain day “I presume this relates to a special day or days”.

Does the individual have the right to interpret scripture on matters relating to such matters as this or do they have to follow the interpretation of the church.

Thanks for all the help so far,

Perhaps this excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church will be helpful in getting to the “unity” in the Church:

131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life."109 Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."110

132 "Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’"112

 

[PeliganPelican]

Once again thanks for all the replies to my question but I’d still like to get a clear answer to my practical question.

I’m wanting to clarify that in this authorative administration we have One Church practicing the same rights, etc etc - or is there room for individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition resulting in variations of practice and belief within the Church.

For example I’ve noticed on the forum people asking about what they should eat on a certain day “I presume this relates to a special day or days”.

Does the individual have the right to interpret scripture on matters relating to such matters as this or do they have to follow the interpretation of the church.

I understand what is being said but how does this work in practice. The forum questions that I have seen which talk about certain food eaten on a certain day causes me to wonder if these matters are a matter of private interpretation or is this a matter clearly defined as a authorative church practice?

Thanks Mark

 

[Nita]

Further to my first question, thanks for the responses which are helpful although not that clear - it seems that their isn’t unity on the answer - and for me its hard to know who speaks with authority on this this matter.

The main thrust of my question was to answer the following:

I’m wanting to clarify that in this authorative administration we have One Church practicing the same rights, etc etc - or is there room for individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition resulting in variations of practice and belief within the Church.

For example I’ve noticed on the forum people asking about what they should eat on a certain day “I presume this relates to a special day or days”.

Does the individual have the right to interpret scripture on matters relating to such matters as this or do they have to follow the interpretation of the church.

Thanks for all the help so far,

The example you give (regarding food) really has nothing to do with interpreting Scripture. It is a Church regulation. We are to obey Church regulations. Someone who knows a Church regulation and yet willingly disobeys it, is guilty of the sin of disobedience. For some, and perhaps especially for those who are not Catholic, there may be a difficulty in distinguishing what is just regulation and what is doctrinal. It might help if you stated the exact topics you are concerned about.

If the Church has officially defined a doctrine as true, one is not free to dissent. Even tho our present understanding would seem to go contrary to such a conclusion, we are to acknowledge the Church’s declaration as true, not our own conclusions. Scripture is to be interpreted in conformity with those declared doctrines.

My personal experience has been that when I accepted the Church’s teaching over my own thinking (and it has definitely happened for me) - and then sought God’s help to understand **why ** the Church was right and not me - God has always shown me why. And it’s been awesome.

 

[PeliganPelican]

Thanks for your reply. I’m really interested in the issue of authority and that of scripture and tradition. I assume that from your post I would correct in understanding that if the Church sets a specific day as being a Holy Day a christian who choose not to observe that day as holy would be committing a sin.

Is this also the same for those people on the forums who have asked about what food they can eat on a certain day of the week. I understand from your post that this is not a matter of doctrine as you say but is a matter of church rules.

Thanks

 

[NHInsider]

Thanks for your reply. I’m really interested in the issue of authority and that of scripture and tradition. I assume that from your post I would correct in understanding that if the Church sets a specific day as being a Holy Day a christian who choose not to observe that day as holy would be committing a sin.

Is this also the same for those people on the forums who have asked about what food they can eat on a certain day of the week. I understand from your post that this is not a matter of doctrine as you say but is a matter of church rules.

Thanks

Not to complicate things, but a couple of observations:

First, this is a site with global reach - there are posters here from all over the world. Some of the “church rules” you are looking at (such as the Holy Days of Obligation) are set by national councils of bishops for their own people and vary from place to place. So variation in practice does not necessarily mean disobedience.

Next, the Church tends to define things in response to error. There are many things in Scripture about which there has been no official and definitive statement, and Catholics are not obliged to always hold the same interpretation of these things.

Finally, many, many aspects of catholic practice (“small-t traditions”) vary from time to time and place to place. Many are culturally/ethinically connected. They may or may not be based on varying interpretations of Scripture. Because they are not matters of doctrine the variations are not an issue.

I would also observe that catechesis is inconsistent and sometimes when people post questions here about things like fasting regulations it’s because they’re confused. (It’s not like “collation” is a commonly used English word.

 

[Nita]

Thanks for your reply. I’m really interested in the issue of authority and that of scripture and tradition. I assume that from your post I would correct in understanding that if the Church sets a specific day as being a Holy Day a christian who choose not to observe that day as holy would be committing a sin.

Yes, a sin of disobedience. Again, this presumes it is a regulation where they live, that they are aware of the regulation, and freely choose to disobey it. Also it presumes there are no extenuating circumstances that cause a problem with obeying it. (Eg. illness, other serious responsibility;…)

You might compare it to a parent telling their child they are to be home at 5 PM for supper. There is nothing morally compelling about the 5PM hour being when one must eat. The moral point involved is obedience to a legitimate authority. If the child deliberately disregards the order, he is guilty of a sin - the sin of disobedience.

Is this also the same for those people on the forums who have asked about what food they can eat on a certain day of the week. I understand from your post that this is not a matter of doctrine as you say but is a matter of church rules.

Yes. The moral issue again is obedience to a legitimate authority.
Actually we’re not told what to eat, but rather what not to eat.
We’re not to eat meat on Fridays (and also Ash Wednesday which occurs only once a year). On “non Lenten” Fridays, we are free to substitute some other sacrificial act in lieu of abstaining from meat.