Reporter Slams Protestant & Catholic Interpretations of Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter stumbler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stumbler

Guest
By Steve Gushee
Palm Beach Post Religion Writer

June 10, 2005

The behavior of a jury recently demonstrated that the ancient rules forbidding the laity from reading the Bible were not all bad.

A Denver jury in March studied a Bible in its deliberations on sentencing a convicted murderer and recommended the death penalty. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned the verdict on the grounds that a jury is not allowed to consult outside sources.

That’s probably a sound decision. Reading the Bible can lead to great spiritual insight or dangerous and misleading ends.

The Protestant tradition has encouraged all Christians to read the Bible and be guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding the word of God. That’s risky. Too often, the faithful substitute their own understanding, prejudice and needs for that of the Spirit.

The Catholic tradition historically guarded against that by reserving scriptural interpretation to church leaders only. That’s even worse. The abuse of power by having exclusive access to the word of God has been irresistible through the centuries.

The Bible is filled with wisdom. It is also laden with contradiction, archaic tribal customs and passages that exult a vengeful God. Scripture has countless mixed messages, outdated social ideas and cultural practices rooted in both mythical and historical background that need to be interpreted. . . .
Full article
 
stumbler said:
The Catholic tradition historically guarded against that by reserving scriptural interpretation to church leaders only. That’s even worse. The abuse of power by having exclusive access to the word of God has been irresistible through the centuries.
Click to expand...

This is, of course, false. Catholic churches (at least those who could afford it) kept a public bible available. While the Church reserves to itself the power to teach faith and morals, no Catholic is forbidden to either read or interpret the bible – provided only that he does not dispute those points the Church has established as de fide.
 
The Colorado Supreme Court overturned the verdict on the grounds that a jury is not allowed to consult outside sources.
Click to expand...
Maybe the jurists on the Colorado SC can get in touch with the Justice Kennedy of the SCOTUS about his consultation of “international” law when arriving at his decisions about US Constitutional matters??
 
vern humphrey:
This is, of course, false. Catholic churches (at least those who could afford it) kept a public bible available. While the Church reserves to itself the power to teach faith and morals, no Catholic is forbidden to either read or interpret the bible – provided only that he does not dispute those points the Church has established as de fide.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Back then, bibles were not mass-produced as they are now. They were hard to come buy and probably very expensive, so they were guarded from theft and vandalism. No one was ever forbidden to read the bible, just to interpret it to suit themselves, as is done very often today.
 
40.png
davy39:
Exactly! Back then, bibles were not mass-produced as they are now. They were hard to come buy and probably very expensive, so they were guarded from theft and vandalism. No one was ever forbidden to read the bible, just to interpret it to suit themselves, as is done very often today.
Click to expand...
I sent an email to this clown (just click on his by-line in the story) and asked if Catholics couldn’t read the Bible, how did Guttenberg expect to make any money?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
The Palm Beach Post is more virulently anti-Christian than the New York Times. Yes, I know that is hard to believe but I live where the rag is published.

It is also, of course, anti Boy Scout of America, pro-ACLU, pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda and, naturally, anti-Republican.

It wanted Elian returned to Cuba and Terri Schaivo dead in no uncertain terms.

Cancelled my subscription when the editorial page had twofer cartoons. One compared Newt Ginginch to OJ Simpson and the killer of Jon Benet Ramsey . The other compared the Republican congress to Saddam’s Republican guard.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
It wanted Elian returned to Cuba and Terri Schaivo dead in no uncertain terms.
Click to expand...
Don’t know about you, but I think the first was a good thing, the second bad.
 
vern humphrey:
no Catholic is forbidden to either read or interpret the bible – provided only that he does not dispute those points the Church has established as de fide.
Click to expand...
Yes, and, in fact, there’s not all that much that the Church has established as de fide, so very much in Scripture is open to our own interpretation.

When I would debate with Fundies on several of their sites, I’d get asked, “what is your church’s interpretation of this or that passage in Scripture?” Most of the time, I’d say, “there is no official interpretation of that.” Of course, I always explained when the Church did have an intrepetation.
 
To be sure, that reporter was correct about the dangers of some non-Catholic Scripture interpretation. The Fundies are great ones for “Me, and my Bible, and the Holy Spirit.”
 
40.png
Richardols:
Yes, and, in fact, there’s not all that much that the Church has established as de fide, so very much in Scripture is open to our own interpretation.

When I would debate with Fundies on several of their sites, I’d get asked, “what is your church’s interpretation of this or that passage in Scripture?” Most of the time, I’d say, “there is no official interpretation of that.” Of course, I always explained when the Church did have an intrepetation.
Click to expand...
Debating with fundies is fun – if you have a sense of humor. I can recall one exchange:

“Catholics don’t believe in Jesus. They believe in Mary.”

“No, Catholics believe in Jesus.”

“No they don’t”

Yes, we do."

"You obviously don’t know any Catholics."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Or:

“I’ve been reading some history. After Constantine became Emperor, the Catholics took over.”

“You’re a Seventh Day Adventist, right?”

"Yeah. How did you know?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
 
Or the time, one guy told me, “I don’t believe in the Pope!” I asked innocently, “Then who do you think that is who lives in the Vatican and wears a white suit?”
 
The trouble is - those people were dead serious. Apologetics isn’t as simple as some posters on this Forum think it is - just present the Truth of the Faith and people will just line up for RCIA from the sheer logic of it. NOT.
 
40.png
Richardols:
The trouble is - those people were dead serious. Apologetics isn’t as simple as some posters on this Forum think it is - just present the Truth of the Faith and people will just line up for RCIA from the sheer logic of it. NOT.
Click to expand...
Oh, you’re right there.

Father, forgive me if I’m lacking in faith, but some of these people will NEVER come to the Church and will always attack it. The value in refuting them is to make them understand that Catholics are not helpless victims of their canards. So perhaps next time they will not pick on someone who might be less knowledgeable or firm in the Faith than you and I.

For converting others who can be converted, I say we must be Saint Francis of Assisi, not Savonarola.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top