Which verses are Catholics supposed to interpret the "Catholic" way

[RedDawgMCM]

Since this is a common objection leveled by our separated brethren, does anyone have the definitive list of verses that we are supposed to interpret in one and only one way. Or does anyone know where I can find them?

I see the argument all the time in SS threads and I know good sources who have said that there are very very few verses that are supposed to be interpreted in a certain way.

 

[xformer7]

There is great latitude to interpret any verse of scripture as it speaks to you, so long as you don’t interpret it in a way that conflicts with what the Church has defined as dogma.

I don’t think you will find a list as requested.

 

[estesbob]

Since this is a common objection leveled by our separated brethren, does anyone have the definitive list of verses that we are supposed to interpret in one and only one way. Or does anyone know where I can find them?

I see the argument all the time in SS threads and I know good sources who have said that there are very very few verses that are supposed to be interpreted in a certain way.

John 6 is the only one that comes immediately to mind. I believe there are less than a half dozen the Church has definitive interpreations of. Unlike the thousands Protestant denominations the Church is not concerned about engageing in constant verse wars to see what new and clever ways we can come up with to “prove” what they believe in

 

[Scoobyshme]

Hey, RedDawg!

Well, I think the first thing we need to do is get out of the Protestant mind-set.

The Word of God is not a book (Bible). It is a Person (Jesus Christ!).

The Word of God has been transmitted to us in two ways: Orally (Sacred Tradition) and in written form (Holy Scripture).

Jesus never wrote a book. He preached and taught orally during his three year ministry. And, He commanded the Apostles to do likewise, which they did. This oral teaching has been handed down through 2000 years of Christianity in the Catholic Church. SOME of what was taught orally, was written down. Notice, I said SOME of what was orally taught. But not all.

The Bible itself says that not all Jesus did and taught are IN the Bible. See John 21:25. Yet, He commanded His Apostles to go forth and teach ALL that He had taught them. (Matt. 25:20). Therefore, there is a “gap,” if you will. Sacred Tradition contains everything that is in the Bible, but not vice versa. See 2 Thes 2:15.

And, still, even these two are insufficient, in and of themselves. Every book and every communication must be authentically and authoritatively interpreted. That’s where the Church’s Magisterium (Pope & bishops united to him) come in.

That’s why the Church outlines a particular methodology to be used in interpreting ALL of Scripture.

In brief, this methodology follows these three principles:

1. We must always view Scripture as a whole, in the context of the whole. There is a unity that exists in all of Scripture to the point that any part of Scripture contains all of Scripture, even if we don’t see it ourselves.
2. We must always interpret Scripture in light of Holy Tradition. There is never anything in either that is contradictory to the other. If you find something you think is a contradiction, you are in error.
3. We must always interpret Scripture through the analysis of the faith as taught by the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope & the bishops united to him).

God has a Trinitarian nature, and through the mystery of unity, we know that wherever we find one Person of the Trinity, we necessarily and always find the other Two.

Similarly, the Word of God has a trinitarian nature. Wherever we find Holy Tradition, we find Holy Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. Wherever we find the Magisterium of the Church, we find Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture. And wherever we find Holy Scripture, we find Holy Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. The three are inseparable.

This is based on the Church’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum. It’s not a long document, and can probably be read in one sitting, the first time through.

You can also listen to Fr. John Corapi’s six talks on this topic, which are very well done:

Word of God - Part 1 - Divine Revelation Itself
alabamacatholicresources…n%20Itself.mp3

Word of God - Part 2 - Transmission of Divine Revelation
alabamacatholicresources…Revelation.mp3

Word of God - Part 3 - Scripture Inspiration & Interpretation
alabamacatholicresources…rpretation.mp3

Word of God - Part 4 - The Old Testament
alabamacatholicresources…0Testament.mp3

Word of God - Part 5 - The New Testament
alabamacatholicresources…0Testament.mp3

Word of God - Part 6 - The Life of the Church
alabamacatholicresources…e%20Church.mp3

These are MP3 audio files that you can download to your PC and play with Windows Media Player or RealPlayer, etc. Or you can put them on your iPod/iPad, MP3 player, etc. Or simply burn them to CD’s and listen to them in a CD player in your car or wherever. Good to listen to if you commute to work.

God bless!

 

[NoelFitz]

This is a great post. Most of the contributions I agree with, but not with Scooby…, who wrote:
Every book and every communication must be authentically and authoritatively interpreted.

This is not so. We are free to interpret the Bible any way we like, provided we do not stray outside Catholic teaching.

I also read:
the Word of God has a trinitarian nature.

No! the Word of God, Jesus Christ, has two natures, human and divine. The Word, Jesus, is not the Father. In the Trinity the three persons are really distinct.

 

[Scoobyshme]

This is a great post. Most of the contributions I agree with, but not with Scooby…, who wrote:
Every book and every communication must be authentically and authoritatively interpreted.

This is not so. We are free to interpret the Bible any way we like, provided we do not stray outside Catholic teaching.

I also read:
the Word of God has a trinitarian nature.

No! the Word of God, Jesus Christ, has two natures, human and divine. The Word, Jesus, is not the Father. In the Trinity the three persons are really distinct.

Noel, me boy!

If we do not have an authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture, then we will stray from Catholic teaching, for sure. Just look at what Protestantism has done in 500 years with its thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing, disunified doctrines, all based on personal interpretation without any authoritative and authentic interpreter. They feel quite free to interpret any part of Scripture in any way they choose, and claim to be “led by the Holy Spirit” in their interpretation thereof. Sad, and erroneous, sorry to say.

And this applies to any book. That’s why we have teachers in the universities rather than just handing out text books and telling the students, “Here you go! Good luck!”

Would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was taught simply by reading text books? Or one that was taught by teachers, with the help of text books? Why? Would you rather drive over a bridge designed by an engineer who learned his trade by only reading text books? Or by one who was taught by someone who was qualified to teach engineering, with the help of text books? Why?

With regard to the Word of God having a trinitarian nature, I’m not referring to the Holy Trinity, but to the fact that there are three main parts to it. Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Magisterium. Three distinct, but unified parts, making up the whole.

Anyway, feel free to disgree, but I would ask you to listen to Fr. Corapi’s talks on this first. Then, let me know what you think. He has a Doctorate in all this from the University of Navarre in Spain. And he’s not self-taught.

God bless!

 

[TimothyH]

Every book and every communication must be authentically and authoritatively interpreted.

This is not so. We are free to interpret the Bible any way we like, provided we do not stray outside Catholic teaching.

If, as Scooby stated, it is in Dei Verbum, it is infallible teaching of the Magisterium and we are not free to disagree. The phrase “Free to interpet the Bible any way we like” puts me ill at ease. It just gives me a kinda creepy feeling…

I also read:
the Word of God has a trinitarian nature.

No! the Word of God, Jesus Christ, has two natures, human and divine. The Word, Jesus, is not the Father. In the Trinity the three persons are really distinct.

I think Scooby may have meant to say “word of God” with a lower case “W” meaning scripture, rather than “Word of God” as in the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ himself. The phrase “word of God” appears 19 times in Dei Verbum and I don’t think “Word” is captialized in any one of those instances.

-Tim-

 

[melchesidechpio]

Since this is a common objection leveled by our separated brethren, does anyone have the definitive list of verses that we are supposed to interpret in one and only one way. Or does anyone know where I can find them?

I see the argument all the time in SS threads and I know good sources who have said that there are very very few verses that are supposed to be interpreted in a certain way.

As Catholics we need to let the Holy Spirit interpret the scriptures for us as the Holy Spirit is the official interpreter of the Church

 

[GraceSofia]

Very few verses are singled out and interpreted; Catholicism is very big picture, and so Scripture is interpreted through that big picture held by the Magisterium, Scripture, and Tradition.
You may have heard people say that only seven verses have been defined by the Church; these two links look at those.

cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-verses-defined-by-catholic-church.html

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/854/Scripture_Texts_Interpreted_by_the_Church.html

You might also find this helpful:

“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”

Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission
to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993

 

[NoelFitz]

Scooby…

I may have misunderstood you. Thanks for the clarification.

You wrote:
*If we do not have an authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture, then we will stray from Catholic teaching, for sure. *

Consider 2 Peter 3:15b, where can I find the authoritative Catholic interpretation of this verse.

The greatest Catholic biblical scholars in recent times were Frs Raymond Brown, John Meier and Joseph Fitzmyer. Many devout Catholics disagree with these scholars.

Similarly many Catholics have problems with the New American Bible, in spite of its support by the USCCB.

Please do not put me down, by referring to me as* Noel, me boy.*

 

[Scoobyshme]

Scooby…

I may have misunderstood you. Thanks for the clarification.

You wrote:
*If we do not have an authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture, then we will stray from Catholic teaching, for sure. *

Consider 2 Peter 3:15b, where can I find the authoritative Catholic interpretation of this verse.

The greatest Catholic biblical scholars in recent times were Frs Raymond Brown, John Meier and Joseph Fitzmyer. Many devout Catholics disagree with these scholars.

Similarly many Catholics have problems with the New American Bible, in spite of its support by the USCCB.

Please do not put me down, by referring to me as* Noel, me boy.*

Noel, I wasn’t trying to put you down by referring to you as “Noel, me boy.” I was trying to sound Irish. Maybe it only sounds Irish to me? LOL

When we approach Scripture on a snippet basis (one line out of Scripture), we invite trouble. Scripture is to be read, if we are to do it as faithful Catholics, in light of the whole, in light of Sacred Tradition, and in light of the analogy of the faith (existing teaching, i.e., the Catechism would be a nice start). ALL these, united as one, should form our approach to Scripture. If we get mired down in a single line of Scripture, without consideration of all these other things, then we can expect problems. I’m not saying don’t read the Bible. What I’m saying is when you do, use the three Catholic principles that I’ve outlined, to make sure that your interpretation of what you’re reading stays on the straight and narrow.

God bless!

 

[NoelFitz]

Scooby
thanks for your email and I am sorry if I over-reacted.
You wrote:

…faithful Catholics, in light of the whole, in light of Sacred Tradition, and in light of the analogy of the faith (existing teaching, i.e., the Catechism would be a nice start). ALL these, united as one, should form our approach to Scripture.

That is impossible. No one can know the whole of sacred tradition - semper, ubique et ab omnibus. Even Google cannot know what was taught always, everywhere and by all, since scholars disagree on everything.

The Pope gives us freedom to interpret Scripture.

In his book Jesus of Nazareth he wrote:

It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord” (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for the initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding (xxiii, xxiv)

 

[davidv]

Scooby
thanks for your email and I am sorry if I over-reacted.
You wrote:

That is impossible. No one can know the whole of sacred tradition - semper, ubique et ab omnibus. Even Google cannot know what was taught always, everywhere and by all, since scholars disagree on everything.

Precisely. However the “Church” does know the whole of this knowledge, and consequently is the only authentic interpreter of scripture.

The Pope gives us freedom to interpret Scripture.

Absolutely, as long as the individual limitations as indicated above are kept in mind.

In his book Jesus of Nazareth he wrote:

I have read this book twice. It is quite rich in insights.

 

[Hiskid1973]

I think we have variance on the whole “born anew” experience…I actually have been made fun of by Catholics by sharing my born anew experience…That was a powerful life changing experience I had that Aug. evening of 1973…My faith is still aflame…Another difference is interpretation is this:
John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

I read that as a new christian and understood the concept of being born of water(womb) and have to be re-born anew in my spiritual life…We aren’t “born” christain…We make a choice to follow Christ…We can be muslim and chose to follow Christ and be born anew…

You guys use this as a water baptism verse from what I have been told…

 

[Evan]

I
I read that as a new christian and understood the concept of being born of water(womb) and have to be re-born anew in my spiritual life…We aren’t “born” christain…We make a choice to follow Christ…We can be muslim and chose to follow Christ and be born anew…

You guys use this as a water baptism verse from what I have been told…

That born of the womb concept is rather new. See catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0809btb.asp

The bible used water as a reference to baptism. And water baptism is the only baptism so far as I know.

 

[Hiskid1973]

That born of the womb concept is rather new. See catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0809btb.asp

The bible used water as a reference to baptism. And water baptism is the only baptism so far as I know.

Hey Bro…I didn’t really think about a concept…I just knew when I read it I understood we were born once i the flesh but have to be re-born in the Spirit…That short prayer of repentance
and desire to be His follower radically changed my life almost 40 yrs ago…I was water baptized about a year later and about a year after that I had another powerful experience with
the Holy Spirit which set my faith on fire…

 

[rdscheirer]

Born anew

Follow the Ten Commandments

Adhere to the teaching of Jesus-Love God with all your soul, heart and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Then you will honor the Ten Commandments and also have a life dedicated to God.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Born anew

Follow the Ten Commandments

Adhere to the teaching of Jesus-Love God with all your soul, heart and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Then you will honor the Ten Commandments and also have a life dedicated to God.

So not all catholics believe in a heart conversion experience? repentance then baptism ?
So that’s why there have been some catholics making fun of my "born anew " experience.
Like the Philippian jailer ect…

 

[rdscheirer]

Whenever you are confronted with a "how do you justify that verse"by a Baptist or a fundamentalist just ask them to pull out their bible-its not the Catholic Bible - but in most cases if you tell them to read the 5 vreses befoe and the 5 veses after their diatribe they will see where they are in error- won’t say so for they are the chosen.

 

[NoelFitz]

Evan
You wrote:

And water baptism is the only baptism so far as I know.

In school, years ago, I learned there is also baptism by blood (martyrdom) and of desire (living a good life).

Regards,

Noelfitz.