What is the different between the way Catholics read the Bible vs. the way Protestants read the Bible?

[TheOpenTheist]

You sure your sources are right? From all the catholics i have bumped into… this definately does not apply

I agree. Most Catholics I talk with really abhor the idear of taking anything in the bible “literally” and scoff at those who do.

 

[grandmother22]

To say there is a “Catholic” and a “Protestant” way of reading the Bible would probably be a stretch. However, thre are some general trends in exegesis:

1. Catholics rely on Scripture and Tradition, holding the oral teaching of the Apostles to be co-equal with the redacted documents of the Canon. Protestants tend to be Sola Scriptura – if it isn’t in the Bible, it isn’t.
2. Catholics tend to a “whole book” aproach, reading scripture more in context. Many Protestant sects are based on readings of specific texts (the “rapture” concept is an example) and emphasize these texts over others.
3. Catholics are guided by the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church. While there is a great deal of lattitude allowed in interpreting the Bible to Catholics, some interpretations are established by the Church (for example, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) as dogmatic.

 

[grandmother22]

God has planted me between 2 protestant friends. It is very difficult NOT to say anything at times. They become silent whenever I speak of what we believe. They try so hard to remember the numerics of Matthew, Luke or John, and even to quote verbatum exactly what was said…They are so happy to be able to memorize Scripture to a “T:”…They know every child born in the book,from Zeb to Jeb to Joshua and they know a ton more than I ever knew about Elisha and Elija…

But when it comes to reading anything else about the historical Church, such as the Four Witnesses, St. Thomas Acquinas…they prefer not reading it because “it’s not biblical”.

And now they’re awaiting the “rapture”. I’m not sure what that means, but I know they’re happy that they’re going where they’re going.

Nothing is arguable, not even discussible unless it’s in the bible. I love these friends dearly.

 

[Zooey]

TheOpenTheist:

Everyone uses the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. This is made up of:

• Scripture
• Tradition
• Reason
• Experience

I only wish “everyone” would use these! Unfortunately, I know any number of people who insist on jettisoning several, even all of them.
My experience of fundamentalists, is that they don’t believe that anything outside Scripture has any value at all. This leads, naturally enough, to utter chaos, since each person is, perforce, interpreting Scripture without anything to guide them as to what other believers throughout history have said about the passage in question.
And then, of course, there are the extreme liberals, who feel perfectly comfortable jettisoning Scripture when it has the audacity to disagree with them…Like, you know, “Oh, that’s not for us today, of course”…

My personal observation, is that the Wesley Quadrilateral is one largish reason that we Methodists tend to be more comfortable with Catholic interpretation of Scripture, than some of our brethren in other non-Catholic groups are…

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree. Most Catholics I talk with really abhor the idear of taking anything in the bible “literally” and scoff at those who do.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It doesn’t matter what “many” Catholics do, or even what “most” Catholics do – because the laity have no power to establish Church dogma.

Where the Church has spoken on the Bible, the faithful are bound to follow that interpretation. Where the Church has prohibited a particular interpretation, the faithful are bound to reject that interpretation.

However, much of the Bible is not the subject to a rigorous interpretation by the Magisterium, and the laity are free to interpret these sections as they please. There is a Catholic methodology, however, and that has been given in previous posts.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In general, I find the Protestant method to involve the “absolutization” of certain passages, not taken in context with the rest of Scripture. Context and typology are often overlooked in favor of a personal, or misunderstood, or 21st century interpretation which does not draw from a passage its intended meaning.

Protestants also read it, of course, with the sense that it is the only source of revelation, i.e. that Tradition has no role in conjunction with Scripture…which makes it awkward to interpret thiings like “Kecharitomene” in Luke 1 and the woman in heaven in Revelation 12…just for example.

 

[DanB]

So, you think that every Catholic interprets the little bit of the bible that they read the same way? I know this is false. Its demonstrably false. Check out the discussion on the death penalty for the evidence.

From that perspective you are correct. I belong to a Catholic Men’s Bible study. Each of us has a slightly different understanding of what a verse might mean.

The point of my first comment however, was as a member of the Church, I lean on them for understanding. I am not so cavalier as to interpret scripture in disagreement with a collective group to run off and start my own Church.

 

[DanB]

So, you think that every Catholic interprets the little bit of the bible that they read the same way? I know this is false. Its demonstrably false. Check out the discussion on the death penalty for the evidence.

From that perspective you are correct. I belong to a Catholic Men’s Bible study. Each of us has a slightly different understanding of what a verse might mean.

The point of my first comment however, was as a member of the Church, I lean on them for understanding. I am not so cavalier as to interpret scripture in disagreement with a collective group to run off and start my own Church.

 

[Cranch]

We must first read the Bible in a literal sense. All the senses of Scripture;—typological, moral, and analogical–are based upon the literal. See CCC 115-118.

The four senses of scripture are so important to a fuller understanding of the bible. I prefer the word “allegorical”, used in your CCC reference, to “typological” when referring to that particular sense. Because “analog” is a word and might cause confusion, allow me to correct your spelling of the last sense: should be “anagogical”.

 

[lak611]

I only wish “everyone” would use these! Unfortunately, I know any number of people who insist on jettisoning several, even all of them.
My experience of fundamentalists, is that they don’t believe that anything outside Scripture has any value at all. This leads, naturally enough, to utter chaos, since each person is, perforce, interpreting Scripture without anything to guide them as to what other believers throughout history have said about the passage in question.
And then, of course, there are the extreme liberals, who feel perfectly comfortable jettisoning Scripture when it has the audacity to disagree with them…Like, you know, “Oh, that’s not for us today, of course”…

My personal observation, is that the Wesley Quadrilateral is one largish reason that we Methodists tend to be more comfortable with Catholic interpretation of Scripture, than some of our brethren in other non-Catholic groups are…

I agree. I have several Methodist friends, including a Methodist pastor who is married to a practicing Catholic (he never tried to convert his wife). I have never encountered any difficulties in the interpretation of the Bible with him (or with my Methodist friend who is a layman, either). We agree on the interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Melo]

HOWEVER, Fundamentalists such as: Pentecostals, Baptists, etc (who I have trouble calling Protestant since they are so extreme and don’t even hold most of the beliefs that would characterize Luther’s followers) seem to read only to memorize the parts they’ll use to tear you to shreads if you do something they consider “wrong”. I see very little spiritual struggle and search there, only a belief that every, single word is absolutely literal… oh, except passages that mention the eucharist, holy orders, the Petrine Ministry, etc…

I really think these comments are really unnecessary. I’m a Convert and I came from a Pentecostal background (which my family still follows). My family has never attempted to ‘tear anyone to shreds’ as they believe that it’s not their place to judge. They were also very supportive of me when I announced that I was going to become Catholic.

My point is, there is no need to bash other religions and make overarching judgements based on a few individuals that you’ve had bad experiences with.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree. I have several Methodist friends, including a Methodist pastor who is married to a practicing Catholic (he never tried to convert his wife). I have never encountered any difficulties in the interpretation of the Bible with him (or with my Methodist friend who is a layman, either). We agree on the interpretation of the Bible.

Does that include the interpretation of the Petrine text?

 

[savedsinner]

I believe everyone reads and interprets the bible trough the filter of their own faiths traditions. I think this affects how they interpret scripture.

I remember listening to Dr. Wayne Dryer telling about when the ACT or the SAT (I can’t remember which) wanted to use his book “Your Erroneous Zones” in their test. They sent him a sample test, he took it and sent it in. When he received the results, Dr. Dryer said he did very well, the only questions he got wrong were the ones which asked what the author of “Your Erroneous Zones” meant in his book.

Obviously the people who wrote the test thought they knew what Dr. Dryer meant, but they were incorrect in that conclusion. I feel they were interpreting that book through the filter of their own beliefs.

With this said, I think that when we read the bible, and come to something that doesn’t make sense, or that someone else contradicts, we need to read it in context with the chapter, book and the entire bible, and we need to find out what that writer intended for his audience at that time.
Even this can create conflict, because it seems that Christians can’t agree even on that issue. I would say to solve that issue, we need to see the other early Christian writings to see how they interpreted it, and then go from there.

As a Catholic, I will listen to Romans or Galatians on CD, several times in a row, trying to open my mind, to what is said, then go through and try to listen to it as I think a Protestant would, and then as a Catholic would.

 

[scottm]

Now a little bit further down we read God created man before the plants and the animals. God created Adam from the dust of the earth in verse 7, and after Adam is created God creates the plants & tress in verse 9, the animals in verse 19, then in verses 21 & 22 God creates women. Now just wait a minute in chapter one God created man on the sixth day, in chapter two God creates man before the plants & animals. Which is it? Is the Bible the Word of God? Is God contradicting Himself?
[snip]

You’re trying too hard. The text is as plain as the nose on my face. Chap 2 is a spotlight on Chap 1. Writers of movies do this all the time – they begin the story with an overview, then zoom in to one particular part of the story and focus on it. That method of writing stories is everywhere. Here Chap 1 is the overview. Chap 2 narrows the focus of the story. It’s as plain as the nose on my face. You don’t have to particularly be a Catholic or a Protestant to see that.

In my experience with sincere people on both sides, Protestants don’t read the Bible in any one way, and neither do Catholics either. In my experience an individual will read the Bible the way his chosen leader reads it. The leader might be the local pastor, or a favorite author, or a favorite radio preacher, or a teacher at school, or grandma. It’s somebody. Everybody follows a leader.

 

[geauxtigers]

This is another way we differ:
Typology
The Old Testament (OT) prepared the way for the New Testament (NT). Persons and events in the OT prefigured, foreshadowed, anticipated, and symbolized persons and events in the NT. According to an ancient Christian saying: “the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New” CCC 129.
The OT persons and events are called “Types” of the NT persons and events they prefigure. A type is a prophetic foreshadowing of its NT counterpart. To fully understand the OT we must read in terms of types.

Here are some examples:
The NT requires that we read the OT in a typological sense. Consider:
(1) In Matthew 12:40, Jesus teaches that Jonah’s three days in the belly of the great fish foreshadowed Jesus’ three days in the tomb.
(2) In John 3:14, Jesus says that the bronze serpent of Numbers 21:9 symbolized His crucifixion.
(3) In 1 Peter 3:19-21, St Peter points out that the flood in the time of Noah prefigured Christian baptism.
(4) In Colossians, 2:11-12 St. Paul explains that circumcision foreshadowed Christian baptism.
(5) In 1 Corinthians 5:7 the Passover Lamb prefigures the sacrifice of Christ.
(6) In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul calls the rock that followed the Israelites in the desert “Christ.” Notice he does not say the rock was like Christ; St. Paul says the rock was Christ. He used this language to stress that the relationship between a type and its NT fulfillment is more than a similarity.
(7) In Romans 5:14, St. Paul specifically calls Adam a type of Christ.
These examples show how the NT teaches that in the OT persons and events, we are to see doctrines that are made more explicit in the gospel. Thus to be faithful to the NT, we must appreciate the rich typology found in the OT.

We must first read the Bible in a literal sense. All the senses of Scripture;—typological, moral, and analogical–are based upon the literal. See CCC 115-118.

I will stop here but if you want to know about the Women in Gen 3:15 and Our Blessed Lady and show where Catholics can show that our Marian devotions are Biblical, let me know?

CCC= Catholic of the Catholic Church

Actually, this is not so different from what I have been taught. I would say this belief is a similarity in the way that Catholics and Protestants (okay Baptists) read the Bible.

 

[geauxtigers]

In my experience with sincere people on both sides, Protestants don’t read the Bible in any one way, and neither do Catholics either. In my experience an individual will read the Bible the way his chosen leader reads it. The leader might be the local pastor, or a favorite author, or a favorite radio preacher, or a teacher at school, or grandma. It’s somebody. Everybody follows a leader.

I totally agree.