Things We Believe That Aren't In The Bible

[Pawel_J]

If the Church was interesting in laymen not knowing the bible she would have not had St Jerome and others translate it into Latin, but rather leave it in Greek (which even then is similar to Latin)

The Church was interested in laymen not knowing the Bible, because there was a serious concern the Bible could be misinterpreted or translated in a “heretic” way, especially after the crusade against the Cathar heresy and killing its believers. A “better” solution was to ban the possession of the Bible by all laymen and to create a monopoly of biblical knowledge for the clergy. This regulation was introduced on the Council of Toulouse in 1229.

 

[Frankk]

God’s word was only allowed in one language that only a small minority could understand. This period lasted approximately from 300 AD. until the 1380’s.

But these things are never as simple as they seem.

Firstly, in c**.360** AD Ulfilas was the first man known to have undertaken an extraordinarily difficult intellectual task - writing down, from scratch, a language which had no written form. He even devised a new alphabet to capture accurately the sounds of spoken Gothic, using a total of twenty-seven letters adapted from examples in the Greek and Roman alphabets. HIs task was to produce a Bible the Goths could read/use.

St Jerome translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin in c.**405 **AD. It’s called the Vulgate. Why? Because it was the common version of Latin spoken by ordinary people throughout the Roman Empire - he wanted [and so did Pope Damascus who commissioned him to do it] ordinary Christians of the Roman Empire to be able to read the word of God.

Toward the end of the **seventh **century, the Venerable Bede began a translation of Scripture into Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon). Aldhelm (AD 640–709), likewise, translated the complete Book of Psalms and large portions of other scriptures into Old English.

The English Bible was first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few select monks and scholars. Such translations were generally in the form of prose or as literal translations above the Latin words. As time went on, however, English translations became more frequent into the evolving Middle English. All of the translations made the Bible more accessible to the public, both to those who were literate and through oral interpretation.

In the late** 8th century** Charlemagne commissioned translation of parts of the Bible for the use of his missionaries in the drive to convert pagan Germans. In the 9th century the Greek brothers Cyril and Methodius, sent from Constantinople to Moravia at royal request, translated the Gospels and parts of the Old Testament into Slavonic.

In the 11th century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament into Old English.

And, of course, even from the dates you quote, after the 1380s the Church remained the solely Catholic Church.

So the idea that the Catholic Church was totally against Bibles in the vernacular is unfounded. There were plenty of vernacular versions knocking around long before the Reformation - the Vulgate being the most famous of these.

However, after the Reformation when vernacular versions became more readily available what happened? Lutherans were immediately challenged by Calvinists and the Calvinists by followers of Zwingli followed by…

The result of this so far is that there are now over 30,000 Christian denominations all preaching a variation on a theme based on their own interpretations of the Bible. Some would describe the situation as sheer chaos.

 

[Frankk]

Pardon me. I meant to type 600 AD in my response.

Apologies, I didn’t notice this until later. Nevertheless, there were plenty of translations into the vernacular after this date **

 

[PJM]

=mmmcounts;6249148]I’m glad you brought this up. I’m going to ask you to do one of two things.

Option one: Please tell me what method of interpretation Catholics use and why the Historical-Grammatical method (used by Protestants) is so wrong and yours is so right.

Option two: Come right out and admit to a kind of genetic fallacy, in that this isn’t at all about how the Bible is interpreted, but who it is interpreted by.

Sure, see the next few post.

The essentional an common ground is that if one’s understanding does not completely agree with that of th CC is has to be wrong.

The reasona and logic behind this truth is that the Bible is a Catholic Book. [Would you permit others to translate at will a book you authored?, neither does God] The CC “birthed” the Bible and it was written specifically to and for Catholics. Not that is dos not hve application to all, so long as it conforms to Catholic Teachings.

"Hermeneutics: Understanding the Bible

In all human communication, the receiver must create meaning from the symbols (the message) used by the communicator. All Christians must discover the meaning intended by the author(s) of the books of the Bible to understand what God is revealing. The process of discovering meaning from the Bible is called hermeneutics. All Christians recognize that how we approach the Bible determines often what we take from it. Understanding what God would have us know from the Bible is made difficult by many factors:

The Bible contains some very ancient books;
Sometimes it is not even known who the author of a book really was;
Not knowing for certain who an author was is complicated by the period of time in which an author lived;

Since many authors were ancient Semites, their way of thinking and manner of expressing themselves differ from our own;

Since we do not possess any original manuscripts of the books of the Bible, we have to contend with copying and editing which occurred over time;

Then the issue of the multiplicity of human authors and editors complicates our understanding;

Finally, the fact of both a divine and a human author makes understanding a challenge.
Hermeneutics (from the Greek word hermeneia which means speech or interpretation) is used to cover a broad scope in the process of understanding. It refers to
interpretation by speech itself, as language interprets the mind;

the process of translation from an unintelligible language to an intelligible one (cf. 1 Cor 12:10);

interpretation by commentary and explanation.

Roman Catholic Christians have often been accused of not being allowed to read the Bible on their own. This could not be further from the truth. When, in history, Catholics were forbidden to read the Bible it was a particular translation which usually was unauthorized and highly illiterate in its fidelity to original sources. In other words, unauthorized versions were often just simply bad translations.

It is often said Roman Catholics cannot interpret the Bible on their own. The Papal Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritus, of Pope Pius XII in 1943 attempted to counteract this error by stating that there are but few texts whose understanding has been determined by the teaching authority of the Church; and Catholics do indeed have freedom to interpret the Scriptures.

The Catholic Church has been solicitous over the way in which the Bible is interpreted. Experience teaches us that it is easy to find even contradictory meanings from the same Scripture with an unbridled approach to reading and interpreting the Bible.

The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics is the literal meaning of the text.

Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV, September 15, 1920)
As Jerome insisted, all biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense …
Divino Afflante Spiritus (Pius XII, September 30, 1943)

… discern and define that sense of the biblical words which is called literal … so that the mind of the author may be made clear… the exegete must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures. "

Continued

These are the only two options I can suggest. You’ve stated that Protestants misinterpret Scripture. This could have something to do with what we are doing, and if so, I’d be interested in how you’d describe that- and if it’s extremely inaccurate, I have a rather lengthy description of my own.

Or it could have something to do with who we are (as if we can change that ).

 

[PJM]

Continued from previous post: How Catholics Understand the Bible

Literal Sense

The first sense then for understanding the Bible is the literal sense.
Definition: the literal sense of Scripture is the meaning which the human author directly intended and the author’s words convey.
Criteria to understand the literal sense:

The literary form that the author used is the first aid in determining what the author meant. If the author wrote poetry instead of history, then the literary form of poetry assists in determining the meaning intended by the author. Some other literary forms of the Bible include history, law, songs, love stories, stories (parables), etc.

The literary history of the biblical book or of the section of the Bible that contains the book also aids in determining the meaning intended by the author. Literary history of a book includes what is known about the author, his background, his historical period of Israel’s history, etc.

An example of the Church using the literal sense of a scripture passage in order to understand what meaning we should get from it is the 6th chapter of the Gospel according to John.

Literary Form of John 6:25-69:

Most scripture scholars today affirm that John’s gospel is historical in nature. Hence we believe that John strove to preserve both the words and actions of Jesus. Unlike the Synoptics, John wrote through the eyes of the faith of the late Apostolic Church in light of the way that faith translated into practice and worship.

Where John is clearly biographical, the literal meaning is emphasized by linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where literalness is intended, intended meaning is reinforced by recording the reaction to literal meaning by the hearers without the speaker’s correction.

Literary History of John 6:25-69:

The apostle John was an eyewitness to the life and teachings of Jesus. He was one of the Twelve. He was also the last of the Apostles to write and to die. He refers to himself as the “disciple whom Jesus loved.”

Interpretation of John 6:25-69:

Following the details of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes–biographical, Jesus walking on the sea–biographical, Jesus reacts to the crowds’ need for signs. Jesus takes them from manna, bread from heaven, to “true bread from heaven (v. 32)” … “I am the bread (v. 35).” “I am the bread that came down from heaven (v. 41).” This is God saying this: “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” If He was not really the bread that came down from heaven, His omnipotent and creative Word would then have made it so.
Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended.

**Jn 6:51 **

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

**Jn 6:53 **

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

**Jn 6:54 **

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

**Jn 6:55 **

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

**Jn 6:56 **

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying–cannibalism and the drinking of blood–both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

**Jn 6:60,66 **

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” … As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus’ words, Jesus, knowing their thoughts and their error, would surely have known and corrected them. He didn’t. They had clearly understood his meaning–Jesus’ flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk."

Continued on next post

 

[PJM]

Final part On How Catholics Understand the Bible

"Fuller Sense

But the Bible has God, a divine author, besides the human author. The Church teaches that there exists a more-than-literal meaning for understanding the Bible: a fuller sense.
Definition: The fuller sense is the deeper meaning intended by God as divine author. The fuller sense of Scripture, since it is the meaning intended by God, may not have been clearly known and intended by the human author.

Criteria to establish the fuller sense:
Because the Catholic Church holds that there are two revealing authorities of Divine Revelation, the Bible and the Holy Spirit, the fuller sense of the Bible can be found in the authoritative interpretation of those revealing authorities. Some of these authorities are the New Testament itself, the Fathers of the Church, the Church in Council **(cf. Acts 15 **model), the “faithful people” faithful to what was handed down to them, etc. The Spirit of Truth is entrusted to faithful people as an authority in the Church.

The fuller sense of any Scripture text has to be in agreement with the literal sense of the words. This fuller sense must be a consequential development of what the human author of the text intended to say.

An example of the fuller sense in the interpretation of Scripture is found by looking at the New Testament.

In the Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 1, verse 23, Matthew says that the conception of Jesus by Mary was a virginal conception and took place so that the words of the prophet Isaiah (7:14) might be fulfilled.

Isaiah gives no evidence that the prophet had Jesus’ conception in the womb of Mary in mind. Isaiah does not speak of a virgin in the strict sense–merely an unmarried woman. Isaiah is not clear that he is even speaking to a distant future conception. The whole meaning of Isaiah’s chapter appears to imply that the birth he prophesies will take place about 735 B.C. during the reign of King Ahaz the father of the future King Hezekiah. The words of Isaiah may have literally meant the conception of the future King Hezekiah. At the time of Isaiah’s words in chapter 7, the mother of the future King Hezekiah would have been unmarried.

Matthew, on the other hand, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, creates an interpretation of Isaiah which is definitely not literal. Matthew clearly interprets Isaiah in a fuller sense: the unmarried woman is the virgin Mary, and God-with-us is Jesus.

** Typical Sense**

Following the lead of Paul himself (cf. Rom 5:14) there is another way for creating meaning in the Bible: the typical sense.

Definition: The typical sense of Bible texts is the deeper meaning that some elements (persons, places, things and events) of the Bible have because God, the divine author of the Bible, intended that these elements foreshadow/shadow further things.
Criteria to understanding the typical sense:

The typical sense of the Bible is created by continuing revelation or growth in the understanding the Word of God. Extra-biblical growth in understanding the Word of God is evidenced in the growth and development of the understanding of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. Types–the typical sense–are discovered in the New Testament, or in the agreement among “faithful people” faithful to what was handed down to them–the Fathers of the Church, in worship-- the liturgy–and its development through the ages, in the documents of the Church, etc. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is a revealing authority in the Church and reveals Himself to “faithful people” in all ages.

The other criterion for discovering the typical meaning of Scripture is understanding that any type found in the text of the Bible has to be related to the anti-type (e.g., Christ to Adam). This confirms that God planned the relationship of the type to the anti-type.

An example of the typical meaning in the Bible is in Paul’s writings. Paul appears to delight in establishing types between the New Testament and the Old Testament. **In 1 Cor 10:6 **Paul typifies those events which occurred to the Israelites in the desert of Sinai throughout the Exodus to those things that happen to Christians.

Another example of a type–the typical meaning in the Bible–is the bronze serpent raised by Moses in the desert. The evangelist John presents raising the bronze serpent as a type of Christ crucified" **(3:14). **

We hope you found this helpful?

Love and prayers

 

[mmmcounts]

Now in regard to interpretation, Jesus established His Church and did this solely through His Apostles.

How loosely are you using the term “apostles”? Also, the question about interpretation has to do with what method is used. It doesn’t have to be a long exposition. You want to see how this is done? Check it out.

I favor the Historical-Grammatical Method of interpretation. There you go. Look it up if you want more details. That’s all you really need.

Every Bible including yours possesses most of the contents of the Catholic Bible from the Septuagint and Vetus Itala to the Latin Vulgate forward

We have the same NT canon, but Protestants use an older OT canon that was put together by the people responsible for receiving, preserving, and ultimately compiling the OT. That would be the Jews.

yet the interpretations of scripture by non-Catholic Christian faiths have been so vast that the many in existence today proves individual interpretation is a road to failure.

Interpretations by non-Catholics are no more vast than what the CC deals with. Check out this page from CAF on the interpretation of Scripture. This article deals with some of the facts on Catholic interpretation…doesn’t really answer the question I put out there, but it does pertain to your response. (It’s written by Jimmy Akin).
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:”

And then he lists them, of course. The main point here is that the CC has not created an infallible commentary that tells you how to interpret every verse in the Bible. Jimmy tells us why. There’s only seven passages, to Jimmy’s knowledge, that have been partially interpreted as if by an infallible person.

This is what Jimmy has to say on the bounds within which Catholic interpretation exists:

"It is much simpler to adopt the approach that the Church has in fact pursued—that is, to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports provided certain minimal boundaries are not crossed."

It’s not so different with Protestants. We don’t have any body of individuals that pretends to be infallible, and we certainly don’t have seven verses that have been partially but not fully interpreted like this. But the rest is pretty much standard. Within classic Protestantism and with the exception of the somewhat lunatic liberal fringe, there is a set of boundaries that cannot be crossed. There is a healthy respect for certain core doctrines that are held in common as orthodox. It’s not quite as expansive as the “Catholic core,” but it’s not that far short. I don’t think it’s perfect, but I do think it’s better.

Aside from that, scholars have freedom to interpret as they feel the evidence leads, provided they don’t cross certain boundaries. It is differences on these sorts of interpretations that lead to the different denominations- which, for the record, cannot be accurately portrayed as “divisions” in the same way that the Schism was a division in the church. There are virtually identical differences within Catholicism, but denominationalism does not tend to express itself in the same way as there is a different sort of hierarchy- in that there is one. In terms of different groups of people who rightly exercise their freedoms of interpretation within comparable bounds, however, the things that happen among Protestants aren’t as unique and different as you make them out to be.

In other words, the existence of various interpretations within mutually agreed-upon boundaries is a common reality within Protestantism and Catholicism. With few exceptions, we’re looking at the same kind of thing. There are a bunch of denominations within Protestantism, but it’s not because of this thing on which we have so much in common. It has to do with what we don’t have in common- a hierarchy that closely resembles the Roman system of government as it was at the rise of Christianity in Rome.

I should also mention that many of these scholars after receiving the fullness of their educations have converted from many other faiths to Catholicism and many were preachers and teachers, pastors, ministers, reverends, bishops and what have you in various protestant generated faiths. That catagory of conversion is incomparable to the opposite.

You’re right, there is no comparison. Would you like to know why? Let me tell you.

“Because the accounts of a number of high-profile Evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism have hit the press, we sometimes overlook the fact that statisticians tell us that in America, Catholics are becoming Evangelicals faster than the reverse by a ratio of about three to one.”

• D. A. Carson.

This is just America, but I don’t think the Catholic inability to evangelize people bodes well for you in the rest of the world, either. Oh, one explanatory note: The Catholic population in America has stayed pretty static because nearly half the immigrants that come here are Catholic. Kids who grow up Catholic wind up being something else about a third of the time, though. Those two things pretty much offset one another.

The genetic fallacy is in the assumption modern man (over the last 500 years through today) can better know the teachings of Christ over and above the origin and lineage of those teachings.

I think you’re trying to describe a variation of the Argument From Age. That’s a different fallacy.

 

[Frankk]

I think you’re trying to describe a variation of the Argument From Age. That’s a different fallacy.

The Argument from Age concept is, itself, a sophistry. Church teaching derives, in part, for the Early Church Fathers. By definition they are ‘from Age’ if you want to put it like that. The notion of Argument from Age would rule out any teachings [on any subject] which had their origin centuries ago.

 

[fermat]

We have the same NT canon, but Protestants use an older OT canon that was put together by the people responsible for receiving, preserving, and ultimately compiling the OT. That would be the Jews.

Not exactly. The Jew did have a defined canon of scripture. Unlike the NT, no body rabbis ever made a decree that a particular list of books was scripture, exclusive of any other books.

You are pinning your acceptance of a truncated OT canon on the authority of the same group of people who reject all the NT.

 

[mo3]

This is what Jimmy has to say on the bounds within which Catholic interpretation exists:

"It is much simpler to adopt the approach that the Church has in fact pursued—that is, to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports provided certain minimal boundaries are not crossed."

It’s not so different with Protestants. We don’t have any body of individuals that pretends to be infallible, and we certainly don’t have seven verses that have been partially but not fully interpreted like this. But the rest is pretty much standard. Within classic Protestantism and with the exception of the somewhat lunatic liberal fringe, there is a set of boundaries that cannot be crossed. There is a healthy respect for certain core doctrines that are held in common as orthodox. It’s not quite as expansive as the “Catholic core,” but it’s not that far short. I don’t think it’s perfect, but I do think it’s better.

This is your interpretation of what Jimmy Akin has said but in context it is not accurate. You did not provide the definition of the minimal boundaries and the corresponding results achieved by the “official” Catholic Church. There is only 1 Catechism of the Catholic Church and it provides the “official” interpretation of both the “written” and “oral” teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no “official document” or teaching that is in conflict with the Catechism. Just because you might find a priest, apologist, or Catholic that does not believe or interpret things as defined by the ”official” Church documents, does not mean there are different interpretations that are allowed and are in conflict with “official” Church teachings.

In other words, the existence of various interpretations within mutually agreed-upon boundaries is a common reality within Protestantism and Catholicism.

This is a very misleading statement. If you are talking about “individual” Catholics, it is true. If you are making this statement about “Catholicism” (which seems like you mean the “Catholic Church”) it is false. The Catholic Church has “one” comprehensive teaching of Jesus Christ as outlined in the Catechism.

God bless.

 

[mo3]

This is just America, but I don’t think the Catholic inability to evangelize people bodes well for you in the rest of the world, either.

You are making sweeping generalizations that are not accurate and have a very limited historical view. Do you have any idea what the Church is doing in Africa or China?

Can you tell me what has been the largest mass evangelization in the history of mankind? When you get the answer, you will be “double” amazed at who is responsible.

Oh, one explanatory note: The Catholic population in America has stayed pretty static because nearly half the immigrants that come here are Catholic. Kids who grow up Catholic wind up being something else about a third of the time, though. Those two things pretty much offset one another.

This is mathematically impossible. If 1/3 of American Catholic kids end up something else since 1776, then it would be impossible to have 70 million Catholics in the USA today.

God bless.

 

[twb1621]

.

How loosely are you using the term “apostles”? Also, the question about interpretation has to do with what method is used. It doesn’t have to be a long exposition. You want to see how this is done? Check it out.

If you feel you are offered too much information, perhaps you do not wish to know the truth or can not credibly refute what is offered. This appears nothing more than a response of avoidance. You refer to method, these are some of the criteria used in proper interpretation;

The Bible is a library of books with many different forms of ancient writing contained in these books, e.g., prose, proverbs, parables, prophesy, prayers, poetry, (narrative hymns), legends, legal documents, letters, sermons, songs, stories, etc. This is called Literary Form.

In order to be able to understand a passage of the Bible one must be aware of:

In what form it was written, e.g., prose, poetry, history, etc. (Literary Form)
Why it was written.
When it was written.
What is the whole book about?
What is the meaning of each word?
How does it fit in with other parts of the Bible on the same subject?
The Old Testament is organized under three major headings:
The Law - this is the first in importance and consists of the first five books.
The Prophets - this consists of the preaching attributed to the prophets and their writings and the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings.

Should I go on? Yes, some of scripture can be understood literally but other contents can not. Scripture cannot contradict itself, so presenting credible rebuttals supported by scripture in opposition to other scriptural passages without provide additional explanation as to all verses involved is worthless. The Catholic Church’s teachings are proven by the lineage of the teachings of scripture and Christianity from the beginning.

I favor the Historical-Grammatical Method of interpretation. There you go. Look it up if you want more details. That’s all you really need.

That’s a rather ambiguous description of interpretation. That can mean different things to different people depending on the verses one chooses to utilize and those one chooses to avoid.

We have the same NT canon, but Protestants use an older OT canon that was put together by the people responsible for receiving, preserving, and ultimately compiling the OT. That would be the Jews.

Yes the Jews… however it was also the Jews who translated the Hebrew Texts into Greek better known as the Septuagint also. And yes, you do use the Hebrew version, the one rewritten after the destruction of the temple by the people who denied Christ as the Messiah and urged His crucifixion I believe.

Those who establish their own non-Catholic Christian Faiths switched out the Septuagint which is the resource Jesus and His Apostles referred to in their teachings and reverted to the rewritten Hebrew Old Testament. However, the Septuagint was not destroyed and exposes the differences in the rewritten Old Testament. The organizers of the faiths generated after the “reformation” made this change along with the removal of the seven books, which I might add have been authenticated as part of the Septuagint by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now, who has the better wisdom than the apostles to change which Old Testament writings should be referred to?

In other words, the non-Catholic Christian faiths generated after the reformation over the last 500 years altered what was always recognized as the Inspired Word of God and changed it to their discretion. Now, justify for me who has the divine authority to denounce portions of the contents of the Inspired Word of God, change those contents incorporating their own selection while removing others, retaining selected parts still claiming those to be the Inspired word of God, again all at their own discretion, to then claim their completed adapted version the Inspired Word of God.
continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

Continued from previous post;

Lets look at the Septuagint;The Septuagint Version is first mentioned in a letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates approximately 300 years before the birth of Christ so we know of its existence at least as far back as that time. Eleazar, the Jewish high-priest, provided Ptolemy a copy of the Law, and the Jews capable of translating it into Greek. As a result, a richly ornamented copy of the Law was sent to him and seventy-two Israelites, six from each tribe, were deputed to go to Egypt and carry out the wish of the king. They were received with great honor and during seven days astonished everyone by the wisdom they displayed in answering seventy-two questions which they were asked; then they were led into the solitary island of Pharos, where they began their work, translating the Law, helping one another and comparing translations in proportion as they finished them. At the end of seventy-two days, their work was completed, The translation was read in presence of the Jewish priests, princes, and people assembled at Alexandria, who all recognized and praised its perfect conformity with the Hebrew original.

Source and references;
newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

Interpretations by non-Catholics are no more vast than what the CC deals with. Check out this page from CAF on the interpretation of Scripture. This article deals with some of the facts on Catholic interpretation…doesn’t really answer the question I put out there, but it does pertain to your response. (It’s written by Jimmy Akin).

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:”

And then he lists them, of course. The main point here is that the CC has not created an infallible commentary that tells you how to interpret every verse in the Bible. Jimmy tells us why. There’s only seven passages, to Jimmy’s knowledge, that have been partially interpreted as if by an infallible person.

This is what Jimmy has to say on the bounds within which Catholic interpretation exists:

"It is much simpler to adopt the approach that the Church has in fact pursued—that is, to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidencebest supports provided certain minimal boundaries are not crossed."

It’s not so different with Protestants. We don’t have any body of individuals that pretends to be infallible, and we certainly don’t have seven verses that have been partially but not fully interpreted like this. But the rest is pretty much standard. Within classic Protestantism and with the exception of the somewhat lunatic liberal fringe, there is a set of boundaries that cannot be crossed. There is a healthy respect for certain core doctrines that are held in common as orthodox. It’s not quite as expansive as the “Catholic core,” but it’s not that far short. I don’t think it’s perfect, but I do think it’s better.
Refer to the underlined statments above;
What you quote here is not new nor is it disputed. But the boundaries were well crossed after the “reformation”. Your attempt to compare and derive an appropriate path for interpretation to follow is admirable but your choices are based on less that full consideration of the facts leaving flawed conclusions.

Continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post;

I again refer to my previous answer above. You do not keep in consideration the Church itself was assigned the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the teachings of Christ And in the acceptable inspired interpretations of the life of the Church in unison with the Sacred Traditions of those teachings, not by Scripture alone. Christ specifically told His Apostles and I urge you to Remember these words;
John CH16; 12 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.”

Note: These divine inspirations are revealed to use over time. Who did Jesus say would be guided by the Holy Spirit until His return… His Apostles, His Church. Who will the Holy Spirit reveal these enlightenments to and who will be responsible to teach them throughout all time awaiting Jesus’ return… His Church. The teachings of Christ have never changed from the beginning but have been brought to further clarity over 2000 years. But your comparison to the protestant faiths is invalid due to the fact no tradition is recognized nor the Church’s full teachings, the recognized Inspired word of God has been changed over the last 500 years by the non-Catholic Faiths which has lead to numerous Interpretations many in opposition to the Catholic Church, and the liniage of those non-Catholic teachings are edited to suite what they can believe rather than believing what is taught with faith and trust in our Lord.
Now, if what you say were true, our faith and beliefs would be one and our words would be one. But they are far from that or we all would be of the Catholic Faith.

We are specifically directed;
1 Corinthians CH1; 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

Ephesians CH4; 1 “I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body (the Church) and one Spirit (Holy Spirit); as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

(CCC) The Catholic Church teaches;
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

94 “…in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

Aside from that, scholars have freedom to interpret as they feel the evidence leads, provided they don’t cross certain boundaries. It is differences on these sorts of interpretations that lead to the different denominations- which, for the record, cannot be accurately portrayed as “divisions” in the same way that the Schism was a division in the church. There are virtually identical differences within Catholicism, but denominationalism does not tend to express itself in the same way as there is a different sort of hierarchy- in that there is one. In terms of different groups of people who rightly exercise their freedoms of interpretation within comparable bounds, however, the things that happen among Protestants aren’t as unique and different as you make them out to be.

In other words, the existence of various interpretations within mutually agreed-upon boundaries is a common reality within Protestantism and Catholicism. With few exceptions, we’re looking at the same kind of thing. There are a bunch of denominations within Protestantism, but it’s not because of this thing on which we have so much in common. It has to do with what we don’t have in common- a hierarchy that closely resembles the Roman system of government as it was at the rise of Christianity in Rome.

continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post;

You’re right, there is no comparison. Would you like to know why? Let me tell you.

“Because the accounts of a number of high-profile Evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism have hit the press, we sometimes overlook the fact that statisticians tell us that in America, Catholics are becoming Evangelicals faster than the reverse by a ratio of about three to one.”

• D. A. Carson.

He wouldn’t happen to be an Evangelical, would he? Yes he is. Interesting seeing as how an increasing number of full Parishes including their pastors of some other faiths are converting to Catholicism with the pastors attending Catholic courses for two to four years in order to convert themselves to Catholic Priests. Its also interesting considering Muslims and Jews are also converting and the Orthodox Churches are holding serious discussions with the Catholic Church in consideration of returning under the papacy. But aside from all that, I was not speaking initially of the conversion of individuals, I was referring to scholars and professors fully educated men and women who came from Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelical, Anglican, Church of God, Church of the Brethren, Pentecostal and so on, converting after obtaining full knowledge in Christianity.

This is just America, but I don’t think the Catholic inability to evangelize people bodes well for you in the rest of the world, either.

I would say you should look into the number of Catholic missionaries, ministries, shelters, hospitals, parishes, rescue organizations and so on before making such a statement. I’ll give you the option to look that up on your own. That’s just anti-Catholic rhetoric you are repeating here.

Oh, one explanatory note: The Catholic population in America has stayed pretty static because nearly half the immigrants that come here are Catholic. Kids who grow up Catholic wind up being something else about a third of the time, though. Those two things pretty much offset one another.

**Catholic population (**653.6m- 1970)… (709.6m - 1975)… (852.0m - 1985)…(989.4m - 1995)… (1.045b - 2000)… (1.115b - 2005)…(1.147b - 2007)

Source;
http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/

Not all the statistics for the Catholic Church are positive but that only reflect honesty in the research. Those who convert to Catholicism are converting to a faith that requires much more in its teachings than those they came from but the reasons are for the most part the same. They find the answers to questions their previous faiths could not answer and the confusion they had could not be clarified. The same reasons Scholars often convert to Catholicism.

Now as far as the conversion of those over the last 50 years, try reading of the decline of morality, self respect and the respect for life over the last 50 years and that will explain the conversion from the full teachings to the less demanding teachings. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll ring a bell? That’s the generation that has produced the most conversions and misguided many of their children in the teaching of faith.

Truthfully, IMO… those Catholics who convert to other Christian Faiths speaking of those previous kids now adults you refer to especially, have been seeking the comfort of beliefs they have already been taught so they do not have to learn a completely new faith while joining a faith they can disregard other teachings they are not willing to accept. They do not know their own faith which is often evident in forums, and their devotion to the teachings of Christ rests on the same things as the Churches they adopt, limited responsibility to follow Christ’s full teachings. In other words, partial Christianity.

The questionnaire of a Catholic ignorant to the Catholic faith reads;
Who accepts birth control… some will go there.
who accepts abortion… Some will choose there.
who is flexible with attendance at Church as a requirement… some will definitely go there.
Who ignores the necessity of Marriage between people who live together… Go there.
Who accepts same sex intimate relationships or marriages…. Another big one.
Who doesn’t have Penance or reconciliation… Biggie.
who doesn’t believe in Hell… some really like this one.
Who believes they are “born again” and saved no matter what sins one commits through their life and there is no obligation to have to perform any works to retain salvation… that’s a real big one.
continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

Continued from previous post;

The comparison is not valid. Your are misunderstanding what interpretation means in the Catholic Faith and what Sola Scriptura suggests. The separation of Christians from the Catholic faith and subsequently from their own ranks is proof of this. There is no such thing in Scripture as selective faith. We are speaking of faith and trust in the teachings of Christ which although some may not understand, must accept in that Faith and trust in Christ. Unless you can show me a protestant faith that refers to the unaltered Bible descended from the Latin Vulgate with all of the contents intact, and a maintains the same beliefs as those taught through Scripture, Tradition, and the Church, you are comparing faiths that base their beliefs on individual opinions rather than the authority of the Bride of Christ as He made His covenants.

Take notice to all the scriptural items that are being run from to go to some non-Catholic faith.
Frankly, if this is the kind of Christian converts these faiths consider “Faithful”, that says something in itself. A Catholic who knows His or her faith does not leave the Church. Those who do, do so because they can’t accept or understand all the teachings or do not know the faith. If you don’t believe it, ask around.

I think you’re trying to describe a variation of the Argument From Age. That’s a different fallacy.

Is it my brother? You can always provide your credible sources and I mine if you believe that.

too much information? you can never get too much truth if your truly interested in making the right decisions…

 

[jericho777]

How about a baby that dies after 3 days of life? How about the 50 million aborted babies since 1973? Please quote chapter and verse which says these humans have sinned.

Your translation of Romans 5:12 is inaccurate. It should read:
Rom 5:`2 - Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned.

Please quote chapter and verse which says your translation is “more accurate” than the NAB Bible.

God bless.

Hi mo3

You are a sinner from conception. Remember it is God who saves and delivers His people. Even those who are not born or who die shortly after.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Ps 51:5 For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.

Orthodox Jewish Bible
Surely, I was brought forth in avon; and in chet did immi conceive me *.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Contrary to popular belief Rom 3:23 for ALL have SINNED and fall short of the glory of God

I have looked at 17 different translations and they all read the same. Yours is the only one that is different.

This is a literal word for word translation of the Greek.
because of this just as therefore one man the sin into world entered and therefore sin the death so to all man death passed through because that all sinned.

There is no need to be snippy y’all need to demonstrate why yours is different from the original language.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.*

 

[mo3]

You are a sinner from conception. Remember it is God who saves and delivers His people. Even those who are not born or who die shortly after. .

I think you have clarified your position. You believe unborn humans and young babies have sinned. I disagree. Most theologians will also disagree with you. Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

There is no need to be snippy y’all need to demonstrate why yours is different from the original language.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

The word “all” must be understood in the overall context of the Bible. Also remember that death didn’t spread to “all” men. Enoch and Elijah did not die. In the Greek, the same word is used in both Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12.

God bless.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Hello MMM…

With all due respect, a response to both of your options.

Christ made a commitment to His bride, His Church that she would never fail, that she would be guided by the Holy Spirit and that He would never abandon her. These things are scriptural. He also urged us to persevere. This is scriptural.

Now in regard to interpretation, Jesus established His Church and did this solely through His Apostles. The Apostles continued the growth and establishment of the Church by His direction through the assignment of their successors and formation of the hierarchy, the very same Faith which came to be know as “Christian” in Antioch and a short time later was recognized as the “Catholic or universal Church” of which remained its identity.

The ECFs, the successors to the apostles, some who personally received their teachings from the apostles and then through their own successors attest in their writings the teachings of the faith both what was written and to many of the apostolic traditions of the faith . Further, the ECFs and their successors also were responsible for the recognition and selection of writings from among many as the Inspired Word of God, the compilation of those writings, the teachings and interpretations of those writings and the closure of canon of what we refer to as the Bible, of which all this was ordered to be done by the Catholic Church through pope Damasus.

The Bible was introduced by the Catholic Church for the teachings of the Catholic Faith as it was taught with the accompaniment of Sacred Tradition and as taught by the Apostles and to them by Christ. These same ECFs attest to the failure of individual interpretation as does scripture without the guidance of the Church.

Now, to call into question the validity of the ECFs or their successors continued guidance by the Holy Spirit is self defeating to Christianity itself. It then raises question to the validity of scripture as the Inspired Word of God as well as the continued commitment He made to His Church.

Every Bible including yours possesses most of the contents of the Catholic Bible from the Septuagint and Vetus Itala to the Latin Vulgate forward, as closed through canonization by the Catholic Church, yet the interpretations of scripture by non-Catholic Christian faiths have been so vast that the many in existence today proves individual interpretation is a road to failure. The fact that individual interpretation has lead to many distorted beliefs is also proven by the fact that many of these interpretations conflict with other teachings of scripture, of which non-Catholics can not explain why. Follow the lineage of the interpretations you follow and follow the lineage of the interpretations of the Catholic Church and I promise you many of your interpretations will end in a relatively short period of time. The Bible was taken from its own element and used to establish altered beliefs and to eliminate teachings that some could not accept in faith.
If you would like the breakdown on how proper interpretation is performed or some of the modern day professors and scholars names, many of whom have served on committees in there specialized fields of relevant study, I will be glad to provide that for you. Their determinations have coincided with the interpretations that fullfill the lineage of Scripture. I should also mention that many of these scholars after receiving the fullness of their educations have converted from many other faiths to Catholicism and many were preachers and teachers, pastors, ministers, reverends, bishops and what have you in various protestant generated faiths. That catagory of conversion is incomparable to the opposite.

The genetic fallacy is in the assumption modern man (over the last 500 years through today) can better know the teachings of Christ over and above the origin and lineage of those teachings.

Great post!!! It seems authority is the biggest problem with protestants I hope the holy spirit will open their eyes to the thruth.

Matt

 

[jericho777]

I think you have clarified your position. You believe unborn humans and young babies have sinned. I disagree. Most theologians will also disagree with you. Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

Precisely BEFORE they had done good or evil God elected which one he would save. What did David say in Ps 51:5? Is it not clear? It is always God’s choice. Just as at conception we are alive so are also guilty of sin. Do you think God is unable to save an un born /new born? Children are sanctified by their parents.
1 Chor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Rom 9:11-13 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The word “all” must be understood in the overall context of the Bible. Also remember that death didn’t spread to “all” men. Enoch and Elijah did not die. In the Greek, the same word is used in both Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12.

God bless.

Enoch and Elijah did not die. Correct we are still waiting for the two witness in Rev. They are prime candidates for the job. All means all in both verses. Did you not read the Greek word for word?