Two reasons I hated the Catholic interpretation

[sdegutis]

The Catholic interpretation of Scripture constantly interprets actual miraculous events as being related to spiritual events. For instance, the calming of the storm is often interpreted as both an actual event with a natural miracle, and as a metaphor for how Jesus can calm the storms of our souls if we call on him during turbulent temptations. Before I was a Catholic I felt like this second interpretation was greatly diminishing the amazing fact that this miracle actually took place in real life! I wanted to hold fast to the miraculous interpretation because it gave me hope that if I tried hard enough, I could say to a mountain “throw yourself into the sea” and it would literally happen. But as my struggle with sin has become more important to me to overcome than physically moving mountains, I gave more credence to the Catholic interpretation, being careful not to deny the literal interpretation as well, because the metaphorical one was so helpful for me when battling temptations.

Another way the Church so often interprets Scripture is in an “us” kind of way instead of a “me” kind of way. I can’t remember specific examples, but I often found that the emphasis of interpretation of certain verses was much more on the benefit of the community rather than the benefit of the individual. I knew deep down that both interpretations were credible, but being selfish as I am, I desperately wanted those verses to be about me rather than everyone as a collective or whole.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Of course the Church acknowledges the literal miracles of Christ, but if they had no deeper, spiritual significance to them, what would be the point? He would just be a magician!

And while God does sometimes perform miracles through people (the saints come to mind) what would you gain by commanding a mountain into the sea? Pride? Lust for power?

What if by your faith, you could move the mountain of an unbeliever’s heart? Isn’t that worth so much more?

 

[ivebeenshown]

I knew deep down that both interpretations were credible, but being selfish as I am, I desperately wanted those verses to be about me rather than everyone as a collective or whole.

Fellowservant, we have felt the same then. When the Father revealed his Son to me the first thing I did was pick up a KJV bible and for almost a year I gained more and more knowledge of the Scriptures, in awe of the miracles that I knew without doubt must be true. Now I still know they are true, and as the Spirit led me to His Church, my miraculous awe has waned, and I have more of an intellectual faith without much active charity. I am now certain that we must continue our lives as Christians in prayer, sacrificing our lives for the man who sacrificed his for all of mankind. Only then will we grow into a greater miraculous awe than we had ever experienced or imagined.

 

[andremiguel]

The Catholic interpretation of Scripture constantly interprets actual miraculous events as being related to spiritual events. For instance, the calming of the storm is often interpreted as both an actual event with a natural miracle, and as a metaphor for how Jesus can calm the storms of our souls if we call on him during turbulent temptations. Before I was a Catholic I felt like this second interpretation was greatly diminishing the amazing fact that this miracle actually took place in real life! I wanted to hold fast to the miraculous interpretation because it gave me hope that if I tried hard enough, I could say to a mountain “throw yourself into the sea” and it would literally happen. But as my struggle with sin has become more important to me to overcome than physically moving mountains, I gave more credence to the Catholic interpretation, being careful not to deny the literal interpretation as well, because the metaphorical one was so helpful for me when battling temptations.

Another way the Church so often interprets Scripture is in an “us” kind of way instead of a “me” kind of way. I can’t remember specific examples, but I often found that the emphasis of interpretation of certain verses was much more on the benefit of the community rather than the benefit of the individual. I knew deep down that both interpretations were credible, but being selfish as I am, I desperately wanted those verses to be about me rather than everyone as a collective or whole.

You are meaning one interpretation of the Bible.
I do not interpret that way and the priests I hear interpret in many different ways.
Remember, there are no “us” without “mes”.

 

[Gods_Peace]

they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”

 

[edward_george]

The Catholic interpretation of Scripture constantly interprets actual miraculous events as being related to spiritual events. For instance, the calming of the storm is often interpreted as both an actual event with a natural miracle, and as a metaphor for how Jesus can calm the storms of our souls if we call on him during turbulent temptations. Before I was a Catholic I felt like this second interpretation was greatly diminishing the amazing fact that this miracle actually took place in real life! I wanted to hold fast to the miraculous interpretation because it gave me hope that if I tried hard enough, I could say to a mountain “throw yourself into the sea” and it would literally happen. But as my struggle with sin has become more important to me to overcome than physically moving mountains, I gave more credence to the Catholic interpretation, being careful not to deny the literal interpretation as well, because the metaphorical one was so helpful for me when battling temptations.

Another way the Church so often interprets Scripture is in an “us” kind of way instead of a “me” kind of way. I can’t remember specific examples, but I often found that the emphasis of interpretation of certain verses was much more on the benefit of the community rather than the benefit of the individual. I knew deep down that both interpretations were credible, but being selfish as I am, I desperately wanted those verses to be about me rather than everyone as a collective or whole.

I would say that the first example you cite actually shows one of the benefits of what is typical with Catholic interpretation, namely that we do not take an either/or stance on any part of Scripture, but view it at different levels. I would also say I find it very interesting that your first paragraph, unless I am reading you wrong, contradicts the second–that you at first do not like that Catholic interpretation oftentimes will give you a more personal reading, while in the second you would prefer that it did more often. I mean no disrespect, and maybe I’m reading you wrong. I am sorry if this is the case.

Perhaps you should check out these resources which give a little more insight into what the Church thinks about Sacred Scripture and how to interpret it.

ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm
ewtn.com/library/councils/v2revel.htm

-ACEGC

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Of course the Church acknowledges the literal miracles of Christ, but if they had no deeper, spiritual significance to them, what would be the point? He would just be a magician!

And while God does sometimes perform miracles through people (the saints come to mind) what would you gain by commanding a mountain into the sea? Pride? Lust for power?

What if by your faith, you could move the mountain of an unbeliever’s heart? Isn’t that worth so much more?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Catholic interpretation of Scripture constantly interprets actual miraculous events as being related to spiritual events. For instance, the calming of the storm is often interpreted as both an actual event with a natural miracle, and as a metaphor for how Jesus can calm the storms of our souls if we call on him during turbulent temptations. Before I was a Catholic I felt like this second interpretation was greatly diminishing the amazing fact that this miracle actually took place in real life! I wanted to hold fast to the miraculous interpretation because it gave me hope that if I tried hard enough, I could say to a mountain “throw yourself into the sea” and it would literally happen. But as my struggle with sin has become more important to me to overcome than physically moving mountains, I gave more credence to the Catholic interpretation, being careful not to deny the literal interpretation as well, because the metaphorical one was so helpful for me when battling temptations.

Another way the Church so often interprets Scripture is in an “us” kind of way instead of a “me” kind of way. I can’t remember specific examples, but I often found that the emphasis of interpretation of certain verses was much more on the benefit of the community rather than the benefit of the individual. I knew deep down that both interpretations were credible, but being selfish as I am, I desperately wanted those verses to be about me rather than everyone as a collective or whole.

If there are no deeper spiritual realities underneath all these miracles, then to what purpose did Jesus do them? To impress us with a magic trick?

 

[sdegutis]

If there are no deeper spiritual realities underneath all these miracles, then to what purpose did Jesus do them? To impress us with a magic trick?

Originally I figured it was only to prove to us that he is God.

 

[onemangang]

Of course the Church acknowledges the literal miracles of Christ, but if they had no deeper, spiritual significance to them, what would be the point? He would just be a magician!

great quote

 

[ConstantineTG]

Originally I figured it was only to prove to us that he is God.

If Jesus flew around today like Superman, do you think everyone will fall on their faces and worship him? A believer does not need a miracle to believe. A skeptic will remain a skeptic no matter what miracle is presented to him. Besides, what greater miracle is there than rising from the dead? Every miracle points to something greater, something important. It proves God’s power not only over the forces of nature, but also over the spiritual realities.

 

[tabycat]

If Jesus flew around today like Superman, do you think everyone will fall on their faces and worship him? A believer does not need a miracle to believe. A skeptic will remain a skeptic no matter what miracle is presented to him. Besides, what greater miracle is there than rising from the dead? Every miracle points to something greater, something important. It proves God’s power not only over the forces of nature, but also over the spiritual realities.

A believer does not need any miracles to believe and a skeptic will not believe no matter how many miracles they witmess. :sad_yes:

 

[kkollwitz]

Visible miracles such as multiplying food, calming a storm, healing lepers, the blind, the lame, the possessed, etc. provide a useful foundation for human beings to believe in invisible miracles such as this is my body, and your sins are forgiven.

 

[Qoeleth]

I had the opposite experience growing up as a Catholic. I didn’t really care about miracles, and only wanted the spiritual meaning behind them. Even today, I cannot get excited about ‘miracles’.

 

[Mintaka]

Miracles (Jesus always called them “signs”) and parables and Jesus’ actions (they used to call His actions also “words”) are interesting in themselves, and as oblique ways of talking about other stuff. But it’s perfectly okay to read the Gospels on more of a historical narrative level.

Do you know about the “four senses of Scripture”?

The examples you’re giving seem to be the “moral interpretation.” Sounds like you may have had a priest who liked that one more than the rest.