The danger of privately interpreting sacred scripture

[JamesCaruso]

When I was young, a particular Bible verse caught my attention:

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

I had had 10 years of Catholic education, and was not new to the Bible when I read this verse, but I was still very young at the time. I wrongly interpreted this verse to mean that there were men so evil in the world, perhaps the devil incarnate, that they might not only kill a person, but they had the power to destroy their soul and send them to hell. You can’t imagine how fearful this made me of other people, especially strangers. This I offer as an example of the danger of private revelation. It did not occur to me to see what the Church had to say about this passage. It was an era when people were freshly being encouraged to read the Bible and be led by the Holy Spirit to understand its truth.

How easy it must have been for those otherwise wise souls of the Protestant reformation to find “revelations” previously not found by the Magisterium. I guess one could argue that the Holy Spirit did in fact lead me to all truth since in the end I came to understand this particular verse. But in those years when I had not come to understand the truth it had an unhealthy effect on me as I carried this fear and secret paranoia regarding other people. Had I realized that I needed an objective measure of Biblical truth that could only be found in consulting the Church I would have been spared this stupid notion I had picked up from reading scripture.

Relying on the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth of the Bible is a subjective practice at best. We can never be sure whether it is us or the Holy Spirit that is the source of our understanding. This is precisely why Christ gave us a Church inerrant in matters of faith and morals. Without it we are all at sea without a compass. One man sees it this way, the next man sees it another. Everyone claims to have the Holy Spirit for his inspiration. When differences arise, only one can be telling the truth. This greater leaning to our own understanding rather than to the Church is the root of the dilemma. It is how every heresy in the history of the Church had its beginning. It is why we must stay ever close to the loving guidance of our Mother, the Holy Catholic Church, given us by a loving Savior for our salvation.

 

[NHInsider]

Indeed. It is amazing how many branches of Christianity began when one person suddenly “discovered” some “truth” in Scripture that the Holy Spirit had kept hidden from all kinds of faithful believers for century after century before finally “revealing” it to that one individual.

Such an insight should always be met with an honest question - “why me, why now?”

Sally

 

[JerryZ]

When I was young, a particular Bible verse caught my attention:

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

I had had 10 years of Catholic education, and was not new to the Bible when I read this verse, but I was still very young at the time. I wrongly interpreted this verse to mean that there were men so evil in the world, perhaps the devil incarnate, that they might not only kill a person, but they had the power to destroy their soul and send them to hell. You can’t imagine how fearful this made me of other people, especially strangers. This I offer as an example of the danger of private revelation. It did not occur to me to see what the Church had to say about this passage. It was an era when people were freshly being encouraged to read the Bible and be led by the Holy Spirit to understand its truth.

How easy it must have been for those otherwise wise souls of the Protestant reformation to find “revelations” previously not found by the Magisterium. I guess one could argue that the Holy Spirit did in fact lead me to all truth since in the end I came to understand this particular verse. But in those years when I had not come to understand the truth it had an unhealthy effect on me as I carried this fear and secret paranoia regarding other people. Had I realized that I needed an objective measure of Biblical truth that could only be found in consulting the Church I would have been spared this stupid notion I had picked up from reading scripture.

Relying on the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth of the Bible is a subjective practice at best. We can never be sure whether it is us or the Holy Spirit that is the source of our understanding. This is precisely why Christ gave us a Church inerrant in matters of faith and morals. Without it we are all at sea without a compass. One man sees it this way, the next man sees it another. Everyone claims to have the Holy Spirit for his inspiration. When differences arise, only one can be telling the truth. This greater leaning to our own understanding rather than to the Church is the root of the dilemma. It is how every heresy in the history of the Church had its beginning. It is why we must stay ever close to the loving guidance of our Mother, the Holy Catholic Church, given us by a loving Savior for our salvation.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Relying on the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth of the Bible is a subjective practice at best.

It certainly can happen, and obviously has with various saints. But someone “finding that truth” and leaving the Church to form their own religion is indicative that it wasn’t the Holy Spirit speaking to them.

 

[dronald]

(Edited)

Surely if people could read at the time it could have been stopped. Again, this is where reformation needs to happen.

 

[COPLAND_3]

There is nothing wrong with private interpretation of the Bible as long as one follows the guidelines of Church teaching on interpretation and strictly stays within Church doctrine. If an interpretation conflicts with Church Doctrine then that’s the danger. Some people are qualified to privately interpret because they have an excellent understanding of Catholicism. If someone does not have top notch gifted understanding of Catholic Doctrine then when they read Scripture they should also have a reliable Catholic Study Bible with footntotes or a Catholic Bible commentary on hand to be able to clarify difficult passages, and to not draw their own conclusions.

What nobody is ever suppose to do is to take the Bible and privately interpret a system of Christian doctrine. Christian Doctrine has been establish through Christ by the Apostles and has been preserved, developed, and articulated by the Catholic Church ever since. There is always room for further understanding of the Bible, but the Christian Faith has been revealed fully, and the only thing the Church does is articulate it to each generation of the world in a way that the generations need to hear it.

 

[JamesCaruso]

It certainly can happen, and obviously has with various saints. But someone “finding that truth” and leaving the Church to form their own religion is indicative that it wasn’t the Holy Spirit speaking to them.

It certainly can happen, but we must always subject any new revelation to the objective and sure teaching of the Church. The subjectivity of living by the Spirit alone is the danger of such approaches of spirituality as the Charismatic Renewal in the Church. It is authentic, but it must always subject itself to the objective teaching of the Church, to the Magisterium. The same occurred in the early Church when the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” was accompanied by more visible signs than today and groups led by the Holy Spirit sometimes began to deviate from the true teaching of the Church. Thank God we have the Catholic Church to anchor us steadfastly to the fullness of truth.

 

[landon13]

(Edited)

Surely if people could read at the time it could have been stopped. Again, this is where reformation needs to happen.

For one thing, the Bible wasn’t withheld from people before the Reformation. Bibles were just so expensive to produce that they were chained in Churches but people weren’t forbidden to see the Bible. And it wasn’t just written in Latin at the time. Many people before the Reformation had translated different parts of the Bible into vernacular. The reformation didn’t need to happen. It was based on Martin Luther’s contempt with the Church and his own interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Memaw]

But isn’t it just as dangerous to have one strict interpreter if they can withhold Bibles and start a fourth crusade?

Surely if people could read at the time it could have been stopped. Again, this is where reformation needs to happen.

Ho-Hum, here we go with the Crusade’s again. Where is the Inquisitions?? Me thinks we need a good lesson in History. God Bless, Memaw

 

[JamesCaruso]

(Edited)

Surely if people could read at the time it could have been stopped. Again, this is where reformation needs to happen.

No, it is not just as dangerous to have one strict interpreter of the scriptures. That one interpreter was authorized by Christ himself. It was not the interpretation of scriptures by the Church, for example, that led to the selling of indulgences, but the interpretation by certain individuals within the Church. We always have to be mindful of the difference between individuals and the Magisterium. Reform was needed, however the Protestant Reformation that ensued due to those who did read the scriptures (and in part wrongly so) was not a reformation at all, but a wholesale departure from the Church. The occasion for reform became an occasion for rejection of doctrines that were not in error. How much better for the present age if the reformers has stayed and worked to reform the Church from within. Instead disunity has resulted and the promulgation of countless erroneous doctrines.

 

[porthos11]

No, it is not just as dangerous to have one strict interpreter of the scriptures. That one interpreter was authorized by Christ himself. It was not the interpretation of scriptures by the Church, for example, that led to the selling of indulgences, but the interpretation by certain individuals within the Church. We always have to be mindful of the difference between individuals and the Magisterium. Reform was needed, however the Protestant Reformation that ensued due to those who did read the scriptures (and in part wrongly so) was not a reformation at all, but a wholesale departure from the Church. The occasion for reform became an occasion for rejection of doctrines that were not in error. How much better for the present age if the reformers has stayed and worked to reform the Church from within. Instead disunity has resulted and the promulgation of countless erroneous doctrines.

Except that the Church is not a one strict interpreter of Scripture. Only very few passages have been authoritatively intepreted by the Magisterium and even then, not at the exclusion of any other meaning. Private interpretation by the faithful is allowed for as long as it is within the living Tradition of the Church.

 

[dronald]

No, it is not just as dangerous to have one strict interpreter of the scriptures. That one interpreter was authorized by Christ himself. It was not the interpretation of scriptures by the Church, for example, that led to the selling of indulgences, but the interpretation by certain individuals within the Church. We always have to be mindful of the difference between individuals and the Magisterium. Reform was needed, however the Protestant Reformation that ensued due to those who did read the scriptures (and in part wrongly so) was not a reformation at all, but a wholesale departure from the Church. The occasion for reform became an occasion for rejection of doctrines that were not in error. How much better for the present age if the reformers has stayed and worked to reform the Church from within. Instead disunity has resulted and the promulgation of countless erroneous doctrines.

“Certain individuals” could say that it’s God’s will and anyone who opposes is going against the CC.

Imagine if the Pope decided today to attack Jerusalem to take it back from the Jews who currently abide therin. Many people would separate themselves from the CC and go somewhere that doesn’t claim authority to attack in the name of God because such is unbiblical. However, in the year 1100 such was not a posibility. So I say that it is not bad to have other Churches (all who belong to the same Church, that is; all those who believe in Jesus Christ and the same shall be saved) but it’s necessary.

 

[po18guy]

It certainly can happen, and obviously has with various saints. But someone “finding that truth” and leaving the Church to form their own religion is indicative that it wasn’t the Holy Spirit speaking to them.

Amen! If demons were visible, we would have Christian unity. We live in the spiritual realm. It is a spirit that animates us. The Holy Spirit is the Unifier - always and everywhere. The demon’s job is to divide, always and everywhere. As we see from Genesis 3, worldly spirits cast doubt and appeal to the ego. This process is very effective and has been employed since creartion and throughout the history of the Church to separate man from God.

Those who separate from the Church do so out of doubt in what the Church teaches. They are not lead by the Holy Spirit - they cannot be. A spirit has appealed to them, planting the seeds of doubt and leading them astray by appealing their egos. For the sake of unity, some resist and suppress their egos, while others submit to the leading of worldly spirits and indulge their egos. Well did Peter write, under inspiration, about the ignorant and unstable twisting and distorting the scriptures.

 

[R_C]

(Edited)

The Church has always enforced the apostolic interpretation of Scripture and the strict moral code it requires, and if sins were committed by members of the Church, the Church doctrine does not justify them, but condemn them. It is nonsense to believe that everyone can just pick up a Bible and understand it. The Bible was put together by the Church at a time where there were hundred of heretical documents, forgeries, and communities who tried to pass themselves for Christian all the while misinterpreting Scripture and rejecting the teaching authority of the apostles.

This is very clear if we read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, who learned the faith from the apostles or their immediate successors in times where there was in fact no such thing as a Bible at all.

I refer you to one of Ignatius, disciple of John and successor of Peter to the episcopal see of Antioch, one of Iraeneus (hearer of Polycarp, disciple of John), and one of Clement, disciple and second successor of Peter at the episcopal see of Rome:

let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine, he has no part in the passion.

In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church …]

[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it …] For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place. …]

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. …] it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner … assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome…that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

*t is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church…For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?

t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever … For all these have fallen from the truth.*

Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Except that the Church is not a one strict interpreter of Scripture. Only very few passages have been authoritatively intepreted by the Magisterium and even then, not at the exclusion of any other meaning. Private interpretation by the faithful is allowed for as long as it is within the living Tradition of the Church.

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture

The Bible had been committed to the care of the living magisterium. It was the Church’s part to guard the Bible, to present it to the faithful in authorized editions or accurate translations, it was for her to make known the nature and value of the Divine Book by declaring what she knew regarding its inspiration and inerrancy, it was for her to supply the key by explaining why and how it had been inspired, how it contained Revelation, how the proper object of that Revelation was not purely human instruction but a religious and moral doctrine with a view to our supernatural destiny and the means to attain it, how, the Old Testament being a preparation and annunciation of the Messias and the new dispensation, there might be found beneath the husk of the letter typical meanings, figures, and prophecies. It was for the Church in consequence to determine the authentic canon, to specify the special rules and conditions for interpretation, to pronounce in case of doubt as to the exact sense of a given book or text, and even when necessary to safeguard the historical, prophetical, or apologetic value of a given text or passage, to pronounce in certain questions of authenticity, chronology, exegesis, or translation, either to reject an opinion compromising the authority of the book or the veracity of its doctrine or to maintain a given body of revealed truth contained in a given text. It was above all for the Church to circulate the Divine Book by minting its doctrine, adapting and explaining it, by offering it and drawing from it nourishment wherewith to nourish souls, briefly by supplementing the book, making use of it, and assisting others to make use of it. This is the debt of Scripture to the living magisterium.

********* When a controversy arises recourse is had first to the Bible. Frequently when decisive texts are found masters wield them skilfully and in such a way as to demonstrate their irresistible force. If none are found of the necessary clearness the assistance of Scripture is not thereby abandoned. Guided by the clear sense of the living and luminous truth, which it bears within itself, by its likeness to faith defended at need against error by the Divine assistance, the living magisterium strives, explains, argues, and occasionally subtilizes in order to bring forward texts which, if they lack an independent and absolute value, have an ad hominem force, or value, through the authority of the authentic interpreter, whose very thought, if it is not, or is not clearly, in Scripture, nevertheless stands forth with a distinctness or new clearness in this manipulation of Scripture, by this contact with it.*******

********As regards Biblical interpretation properly so called the Church is infallible in the sense that, whether by authentic decision of pope or council, or by its current teaching that a given passage of Scripture has a certain meaning, this meaning must be regarded as the true sense of the passage in question. It claims this power of infallible interpretation only in matters of faith and morals, that is where religious or moral truth is in danger, directly, if the text or passage belongs to the moral and religious order; indirectly, if in assigning a meaning to a text or book the veracity of the Bible, its moral value, or the dogma of its inspiration or inerrancy is imperilled.

---

newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

[JamesCaruso]

Except that the Church is not a one strict interpreter of Scripture. Only very few passages have been authoritatively intepreted by the Magisterium and even then, not at the exclusion of any other meaning. Private interpretation by the faithful is allowed for as long as it is within the living Tradition of the Church.

All that the Magisterium teaches is authoritative in matters of faith and morals, and it draws from the Bible frequently in its teaching capacity. Any interpretation of scripture that is contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium is presumed false. It is true that private interpretation is allowed as long as it does not contradict the teaching of the Magisterium, but once it decides the interpretation of a scripture it is final.

 

[po18guy]

Quite simply, to take 1/3 of God’s revelation, and attempt to reverse engineer the faith from that is like backing your car up until the speedometer reads zero, then proclaiming that you are at the factory.