The Dangers of Self-Directed Bible Study

[Tartini]

Recently, I had a discussion with one of my Protestant colleagues concerning the aspect of Bible study and it’s ultimate value. They claim it is to know “truth” whereas I was more on the side of learning life lessons from Sacred Scripture. They could not quite grasp the danger of self-interpretation and the negative effects it has on not only on what would be considered historical truth (as in the Historical and Archeological aspects of the Bible), but the learning of important and useful life lesson in the process of the Sacred Scripture study itself.

Instead of looking at Sacred Scripture as a edification tool for moral learning, they tended to subscribe to a philosophy that there are hidden prophesies and arcane meanings within the verses, particularly in Revelations and the constant talk of “the Rapture”. The idea of the Rapture seems to be fanatical to some, even though it is not anywhere in Sacred Scripture. .I believe that popular media has done more damage than good here, as well as many aspect of the lessons of Sacred Scripture.

The last thing I want to do is say to them “show me” where it is in the Bible. I usually already know what they are going to point to, but that is not important, as they are unshakable in their private interpretation and distrust any teachings that the Magisterium has considered for over 1500 years!

Bear in mind that it often seems to me those who claim much learning of the Bible (they went to a Bible College) are the only ones who seem to be convinced they are the only experts. Ask them who David is, and they can tell you. Ask them what lessons could be learned from David and how they could impart the wisdom into everyday life, and they are stumped. I must consider that everyone has limits. I have a general knowledge of mathematics, but never would attempt to discuss Einstein’s Relativity Theory. I also never engage in intellectual battles in which the other side is deficient in weapons. Sacred Scripture should never be used in that manner, yet often frustration is the only outcome of such encounters.

Ultimately, both sides lose in the attempt at attempting to come to some gain of knowledge if ignorance is allowed on the field. I encounter this a great deal with Sola Scriptura practitioners and those usually not very well versed in World History to begin with. It leaves me with the impression that they are utilizing the Sacred Scriptures more in an very uncomfortable manner, almost occult in nature (Bibliomancy: fortune-telling by use of the Bible) which leads them to many adverse psychological problems caused by ignorance of the Truth Itself. In turn, they offer these anxieties to others in their errors in teaching.

If one has Christ, why be worried about what is to come about in the World in the future? I find much of it a great waste of intellectual energy that could have been used much more wisely by proper study of Sacred Scripture and Histoy. Any thoughts on what I can say (or not say) or consider when I want to have an intelligent conversation on such a complicated subject as Sacred Scripture? Thanks.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I

Recently, I had a discussion with one of my Protestant colleagues concerning the aspect of Bible study and it’s ultimate value. They claim it is to know “truth” whereas I was more on the side of learning life lessons from Sacred Scripture. They could not quite grasp the danger of self-interpretation and the negative effects it has on not only on what would be considered historical truth (as in the Historical and Archeological aspects of the Bible), but the learning of important and useful life lesson in the process of the Sacred Scripture study itself.

Instead of looking at Sacred Scripture as a edification tool for moral learning, they tended to subscribe to a philosophy that there are hidden prophesies and arcane meanings within the verses, particularly in Revelations and the constant talk of “the Rapture”. The idea of the Rapture seems to be fanatical to some, even though it is not anywhere in Sacred Scripture. .I believe that popular media has done more damage than good here, as well as many aspect of the lessons of Sacred Scripture.

The last thing I want to do is say to them “show me” where it is in the Bible. I usually already know what they are going to point to, but that is not important, as they are unshakable in their private interpretation and distrust any teachings that the Magisterium has considered for over 1500 years!

Bear in mind that it often seems to me those who claim much learning of the Bible (they went to a Bible College) are the only ones who seem to be convinced they are the only experts. Ask them who David is, and they can tell you. Ask them what lessons could be learned from David and how they could impart the wisdom into everyday life, and they are stumped. I must consider that everyone has limits. I have a general knowledge of mathematics, but never would attempt to discuss Einstein’s Relativity Theory. I also never engage in intellectual battles in which the other side is deficient in weapons. Sacred Scripture should never be used in that manner, yet often frustration is the only outcome of such encounters.

Ultimately, both sides lose in the attempt at attempting to come to some gain of knowledge if ignorance is allowed on the field. I encounter this a great deal with Sola Scriptura practitioners and those usually not very well versed in World History to begin with. It leaves me with the impression that they are utilizing the Sacred Scriptures more in an very uncomfortable manner, almost occult in nature (Bibliomancy: fortune-telling by use of the Bible) which leads them to many adverse psychological problems caused by ignorance of the Truth Itself. In turn, they offer these anxieties to others in their errors in teaching.

If one has Christ, why be worried about what is to come about in the World in the future? I find much of it a great waste of intellectual energy that could have been used much more wisely by proper study of Sacred Scripture and Histoy. Any thoughts on what I can say (or not say) or consider when I want to have an intelligent conversation on such a complicated subject as Sacred Scripture? Thanks.

I used to be an Evangelical so I pretty much can identify with what you are saying. I became very uncomfortable going to “Pentacostal” assemblies where it seemed for all the world as if some of the preachers were as you say “fortune telling using Scripture” (and Scripture out of context to boot!) It gave me so many psychological problems I had to seek professional help (to the chagrin of one pastor!). This pastor took Psalm 1 (about not seeking counsel from the ungodly) and practically bludgeoned me silly with it! He had no clue that a psychologist could be at all a “Christian”! Since converting to Catholicism I’ve had no such problems as that, even when they did the “scrutinies” during RCIA. When the priest laid his hands on my head at that time I felt such peace I was absolutely blown away by it!

 

[Orchanian]

I actually think that people who say they do self-directed Bible Study are fooling themselves. The “inductive” Bible Study I’ve attended (Precept by Kay Arthur) is very other directed. They suggest what passages to read to understand the passage you are in. They explain their interpretation of the greek words (you may look up the greek, but they will suggest what particular translation best fits). They give you history of the time (sometimes) to help you better understand. So it’s really not self-directed. I can point to a series of Scripture passages in sequence to get you to come to the same understanding as I have. That doesn’t make it self-directed. That makes it other directed.

Also, many of those who use self-directed terminology come to the table with preconceived ideas (faith alone, scripture alone, etc.) and these ideas color the way they read the Scripture.

There are a few passages that come to mind about how we need help to understand. One is the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts who is reading Scripture and one of the Apostles asks him if he understands what he’s reading. The Ethiopian answers, how can I if no one explains it to me. A second passage is 2 Peter 3:14-18, where Peter writes that Paul’s writing is sometimes difficult to understand and can be misinterpreted.

As for the prophecies about end times, Jesus very clearly stated that we are not to be trying to figure out when that date is. Only the Father knows. Who are we to try to find the “secret” information when Jesus told us not to do that. I think there are some people who need that kind of focus, but I’m not sure why. Maybe they want to see people punished for the evil ways they live and this is a way to feel that God is going to take care of it. But I’m with you - it’s a dangerous place to be. By the way, not all protestants believe in the Rapture.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

I believe that the Sacred texts that are read at Mass on Sundays and Daily Mass, in a certain sequence, with commentary by a priest in his homily or with a supplemental such as the Magnificat, is the greatest Bible Study we can ever have! The Church , in Her wisdom made that easy for us, now we must pray to the Holy Spirit to appreciate what we are hearing , and then live it out…there’s where the ‘rubber meets the road’. If we are studying the Bible on our own, I think the best way is to reflect on the same readings that the universal Church has already formatted for us. The Liturgy of the Hours can be prayed in union with our Holy Father, too! What a treasure we have in the Catholic Church.

 

[Cristian_B]

I must say, that even if I am a Protestant, some of the “Protestants” are “brood of vipers”. And it is quite shameful for me to say that but they are part of the “lamb that speaks like a dragon”.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I actually think that people who say they do self-directed Bible Study are fooling themselves. The “inductive” Bible Study I’ve attended (Precept by Kay Arthur) is very other directed. They suggest what passages to read to understand the passage you are in. They explain their interpretation of the greek words (you may look up the greek, but they will suggest what particular translation best fits). They give you history of the time (sometimes) to help you better understand. So it’s really not self-directed. I can point to a series of Scripture passages in sequence to get you to come to the same understanding as I have. That doesn’t make it self-directed. That makes it other directed.

Also, many of those who use self-directed terminology come to the table with preconceived ideas (faith alone, scripture alone, etc.) and these ideas color the way they read the Scripture.

There are a few passages that come to mind about how we need help to understand. One is the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts who is reading Scripture and one of the Apostles asks him if he understands what he’s reading. The Ethiopian answers, how can I if no one explains it to me. A second passage is 2 Peter 3:14-18, where Peter writes that Paul’s writing is sometimes difficult to understand and can be misinterpreted.

As for the prophecies about end times, Jesus very clearly stated that we are not to be trying to figure out when that date is. Only the Father knows. Who are we to try to find the “secret” information when Jesus told us not to do that. I think there are some people who need that kind of focus, but I’m not sure why. Maybe they want to see people punished for the evil ways they live and this is a way to feel that God is going to take care of it. But I’m with you - it’s a dangerous place to be. By the way, not all protestants believe in the Rapture.

In fact I went to a protestant church that taught that the “Rapture” was false doctrine. That it goes back in church history less than 200 years. That it was thought up by an Irish protestant preacher named John Nelson Darby and popularized by C I Scholfield who wrote a very popular protestant study bible that bears his name. It was originally from a “vision” or dream one of Mr Darby’s parishioners had. It has brought tons of false “comfort” to millions of people over the past 2 centuries. After all the world is going to h**l in a handbasket anyhow so why should we do anything to try and make it a better place? And we’re outa here any time so phooey on the world!

 

[Ron_Conte]

There is a long tradition in the Catholic Faith of reading Scripture and meditating on its meaning, in order to find new insights into the Deposit of Faith.

“In this context, I would like in particular to recall and recommend the ancient tradition of Lectio divina: the diligent reading of Sacred Scripture accompanied by prayer brings about that intimate dialogue in which the person reading hears God who is speaking, and in praying, responds to him with trusting openness of heart (cf. Dei Verbum, n. 25). If it is effectively promoted, this practice will bring to the Church - I am convinced of it - a new spiritual springtime.”

“As a strong point of biblical ministry, Lectio divina should therefore be increasingly encouraged, also through the use of new methods, carefully thought through and in step with the times. It should never be forgotten that the Word of God is a lamp for our feet and a light for our path (cf. Ps 119[118]: 105).”
Pope Benedict XVI, vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050916_40-dei-verbum_en.html

We must read and understand Scripture in the light of Tradition and Magisterium, )and Tradition in the light of Scripture and Magisterium, and the teachings of the Magisterium in the light of Tradition and Scripture). But personal interpretation of Scripture is not contrary to Catholic belief and practice. We subjugate our own understanding to the teachings of the Church, but we do not cease from continually seeking a new and deeper understanding of Scripture.

 

[crazzeto]

I most certainly agree that the best way to learn scripture is through a directed study of some sort. Right now I’m taking a CSS (Catholic Scripture Study) course on The Apacolypse of John, written by Dr. Hanh. It’s a terrific study, and I can’t tell you how much I’m learning about not just that book in the bible, but salvation history in general! Next I’ll be taking on the Gosple of John with Steve Ray’s study book.

That said, I would take this time to put forth my opinion that if one bares in mind the principals of good Catholic scripture study, there’s nothing wrong with just reading the bible. In fact I’m also doing that right now, I’m reading a chapter a night out of the Pentituch, currently I’m in Leviticus (9). No doubt that when one does this they’ll come up with a whole bunch of questions, and maybe even be confused for a bit.

As long as one remembers always that there is more to scripture than just reading it liniarly, and is patients and wise enough to seek good answers from good sources (like your parish priest or spiritual director) then one can also learn this way. I most certainly have been learning this way as well.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If you decide to allow someone else to direct your study of Scripture, be careful who you believe.

 

[crazzeto]

If you decide to allow someone else to direct your study of Scripture, be careful who you believe.

Certainly look for highly regarded programs, the CSS program provides books authored by the likes of Dr. Scott Hanh and Steve Ray, good Orthodox Catholics (and protistant converts) as well as others. If you take a course as I am, then you also get to watch a video with a Priest who goes over the chapter of the book you just studied and really provides excellent in depth information, it’s wonderful!

 

[portarica]

What is the real danger in self directed study?

If you start with what Jesus considered as the greatest law: Loving your neighbor and all that entails, the rest is pretty easy.

Just look for what is in concordance with what Jesus taught ( especially the parables because they are not conditional)and assign priority to that and then you can see things that vary in there relationship to was was of Jesus and what was of the OT or law.

The church has recognized that the bible is not literal and that the OT especially is not to be take literally because it is less developed that the OT.

And the nice thing about technology is that individuals now have access to info and the ability to juxtaposition that info with historical facts.

For instance we know slavery is bad in terms of Jesus’ teachings even though some Biblical authors thought it was OK, ie Paul and most of the OT.

Peace

 

[crazzeto]

Actually the Church reconginzes that the sum total of Scripture has a literal meaning. One can not however read scripture, out of any context particularly the historical and cultural context and expect to come by the literal meaning.

Don’t fall for the heresy of "the bible is just a collection of good moral stories’. Don’t forget that God is the principal author of Scripture. That said, I do agree that certainly one should avoid the literalist interpetation of scripture.

 

[peary1]

Recently, I had a discussion with one of my Protestant colleagues concerning the aspect of Bible study and it’s ultimate value. They claim it is to know “truth” whereas I was more on the side of learning life lessons from Sacred Scripture. They could not quite grasp the danger of self-interpretation and the negative effects it has on not only on what would be considered historical truth (as in the Historical and Archeological aspects of the Bible), but the learning of important and useful life lesson in the process of the Sacred Scripture study itself.

Instead of looking at Sacred Scripture as a edification tool for moral learning, they tended to subscribe to a philosophy that there are hidden prophesies and arcane meanings within the verses, particularly in Revelations and the constant talk of “the Rapture”. The idea of the Rapture seems to be fanatical to some, even though it is not anywhere in Sacred Scripture. .I believe that popular media has done more damage than good here, as well as many aspect of the lessons of Sacred Scripture.

The last thing I want to do is say to them “show me” where it is in the Bible. I usually already know what they are going to point to, but that is not important, as they are unshakable in their private interpretation and distrust any teachings that the Magisterium has considered for over 1500 years!

Bear in mind that it often seems to me those who claim much learning of the Bible (they went to a Bible College) are the only ones who seem to be convinced they are the only experts. Ask them who David is, and they can tell you. Ask them what lessons could be learned from David and how they could impart the wisdom into everyday life, and they are stumped. I must consider that everyone has limits. I have a general knowledge of mathematics, but never would attempt to discuss Einstein’s Relativity Theory. I also never engage in intellectual battles in which the other side is deficient in weapons. Sacred Scripture should never be used in that manner, yet often frustration is the only outcome of such encounters.

Ultimately, both sides lose in the attempt at attempting to come to some gain of knowledge if ignorance is allowed on the field. I encounter this a great deal with Sola Scriptura practitioners and those usually not very well versed in World History to begin with. It leaves me with the impression that they are utilizing the Sacred Scriptures more in an very uncomfortable manner, almost occult in nature (Bibliomancy: fortune-telling by use of the Bible) which leads them to many adverse psychological problems caused by ignorance of the Truth Itself. In turn, they offer these anxieties to others in their errors in teaching.

If one has Christ, why be worried about what is to come about in the World in the future? I find much of it a great waste of intellectual energy that could have been used much more wisely by proper study of Sacred Scripture and Histoy. Any thoughts on what I can say (or not say) or consider when I want to have an intelligent conversation on such a complicated subject as Sacred Scripture? Thanks.

I learned a long time ago - never argue with idiots.

 

[portarica]

Actually the Church reconginzes that the sum total of Scripture has a literal meaning. One can not however read scripture, out of any context particularly the historical and cultural context and expect to come by the literal meaning.

Don’t fall for the heresy of "the bible is just a collection of good moral stories’. Don’t forget that God is the principal author of Scripture. That said, I do agree that certainly one should avoid the literalist interpetation of scripture.

Exactly, if you take something as pure and wise as treating the least like they may be Jesus in the guise of the least everything else just flows from that in such an exceptionally logical and beautiful way that you realize what Jesus was driving for when He preached.

Peace

 

[Crumpy]

This may be relevant or maybe not.

I was reading about the Reformation and the idea of John Wycliffe that every person should be able to interpret scripture for himself.

Well, that immediately makes no sense just from a logical point of view. But, from the view of scripture itself, Paul is always trying to get people back into the fold, not to forget or abandon what they have been taught. We just don’t find Biblical evidence that people should adopt any interpretation of meaning that strikes them.

We notice in the example of when Jesus was lost at age 12 and his parents found him in the Temple, discussing scripture with the experts. As demonstrated there, it is healthy and desirable to discuss scriptures and to tease out its meaning.

Catholic experts say that the Church has given official interpretations for less than 1% of all of scripture (see the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, section on Official Pronouncements).

The guideline for the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (around 1991) stated that the way for a Catholic to read scripture is to read it with a good Catholic commentary nearby.

Take the last verse in the gospel of St. John: 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

The Second Vatican Council and more specifically the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives guidelines for explaining the “senses” of scripture. Go to the CCC for details. the point here is, four people might be discussing the four senses of this verse and yet not agree, owing to the various levels of meaning.

I think there’s the opposite danger, of cowering in fear from discussing the Bible, as many Catholics do, that they might say something that is not correct. It’s better to discuss it and to be open to suggestion from someone who might offer gentle correction.

The verse above is really a bit vague. did Jesus do all these things that can’t be written down during his earthly ministry? or, as I suggest, does this refer to all the things Jesus did then and continues to do, such as what he has done in your life and in mine? I think the latter is more correct because he has done great things in my life.

In fact, we can assess somebody’s spiritual maturity by asking them to say what Jesus has done (and continues to do) in their life. And, in certain sense, that is the point, that we want to invite Jesus into our lives and to take control of them.

But, do you disagree? Am I wringing too much out of that verse? The church says that the Spirit who was the author of scripture did not just write it and quit, but still breathes life into it and into the Church, which is you and me.

The Church teaches that Scripture is an endless source of inspiration, and we would be selling ourselves short to adopt a view that there is one and only one interpretation, one and only one lesson to be had from it.

The underlying issue in this thread is whether the Church is the final authority on scripture (which Catholics accept) or whether that authority rests on each and every believer (which the Reformation asserted). The historical irony was that while Protestants believed the latter, sure everyone can interpret the Bible for themselves — oh, yes, except Catholics! Right. gotcha.

 

[LegoGE1947]

This may be relevant or maybe not.

I was reading about the Reformation and the idea of John Wycliffe that every person should be able to interpret scripture for himself.

Well, that immediately makes no sense just from a logical point of view. But, from the view of scripture itself, Paul is always trying to get people back into the fold, not to forget or abandon what they have been taught. We just don’t find Biblical evidence that people should adopt any interpretation of meaning that strikes them.

We notice in the example of when Jesus was lost at age 12 and his parents found him in the Temple, discussing scripture with the experts. As demonstrated there, it is healthy and desirable to discuss scriptures and to tease out its meaning.

Catholic experts say that the Church has given official interpretations for less than 1% of all of scripture (see the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, section on Official Pronouncements).

The guideline for the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (around 1991) stated that the way for a Catholic to read scripture is to read it with a good Catholic commentary nearby.

Take the last verse in the gospel of St. John: 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

The Second Vatican Council and more specifically the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives guidelines for explaining the “senses” of scripture. Go to the CCC for details. the point here is, four people might be discussing the four senses of this verse and yet not agree, owing to the various levels of meaning.

I think there’s the opposite danger, of cowering in fear from discussing the Bible, as many Catholics do, that they might say something that is not correct. It’s better to discuss it and to be open to suggestion from someone who might offer gentle correction.

The verse above is really a bit vague. did Jesus do all these things that can’t be written down during his earthly ministry? or, as I suggest, does this refer to all the things Jesus did then and continues to do, such as what he has done in your life and in mine? I think the latter is more correct because he has done great things in my life.

In fact, we can assess somebody’s spiritual maturity by asking them to say what Jesus has done (and continues to do) in their life. And, in certain sense, that is the point, that we want to invite Jesus into our lives and to take control of them.

But, do you disagree? Am I wringing too much out of that verse? The church says that the Spirit who was the author of scripture did not just write it and quit, but still breathes life into it and into the Church, which is you and me.

The Church teaches that Scripture is an endless source of inspiration, and we would be selling ourselves short to adopt a view that there is one and only one interpretation, one and only one lesson to be had from it.

The underlying issue in this thread is whether the Church is the final authority on scripture (which Catholics accept) or whether that authority rests on each and every believer (which the Reformation asserted). The historical irony was that while Protestants believed the latter, sure everyone can interpret the Bible for themselves — oh, yes, except Catholics! Right. gotcha.

I am of the opinion that that last verse of John’s Gospel you mentioned refers to both what Jesus did while he was on earth AND what he continues to do in his body the Church. The human authors of the Scriptures, being human, might only have been able to recall certain things Jesus may have done and as such were inspired to write only those things down but then they added that surely Jesus did so much more than what was merely written. And can you imagine if we tried to commit to writing all that has been done in the space of 2000+ years!! I don’t think there are enough trees in the whole world that could produce that much paper!!

 

[shinkumi]

The Bible should read in four context :

* Literary
* Historical
* Social
* Cultural

website promotions

 

[Fidelis]

The Bible should read in four context :

* Literary
* Historical
* Social
* Cultural

Those are important considerations, but the teaching of the Church would flesh it out in this way (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

**THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE **

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

**111 **But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

**The senses of Scripture **

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

**118 **A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

**119 **“It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. (st. Augustine)

 

[Cristian_B]

I learned a long time ago - never argue with idiots.

Felt the need to tell you this.

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,[a]’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

[a]An Aramaic term of contempt

Calling someone an idiot, while not being an idiot, is commonly known as insulting and dishonoring. I believe that what you did is sin, whether you mean it or not.

I will remember you what “idiot” means.

idiot - a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

It is not funny to call someone an idiot.

Do not replay to this message. Let us stay on topic.