Why do Biblical interpretations by CC take so long?

[Henning]

Why does it take so long for the Magesterium of CC to give interpretations of Biblical verses. As I understand it there are only a handful of verses that are officially interpreted. If this rate of say 5vs/2000yrs stays the same, the NT (with ~8000 verses) might be fully interpreted by ~AD 3.2 million Not that I’m impatient or anything but can’t the Holy Spirit speed things up?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Why does it take so long for the Magesterium of CC to give interpretations of Biblical verses. As I understand it there are only a handful of verses that are officially interpreted. If this rate of say 5vs/2000yrs stays the same, the NT (with ~8000 verses) might be fully interpreted by ~AD 3.2 million Not that I’m impatient or anything but can’t the Holy Spirit speed things up?

I think it’s because the church only really defines doctrine and interpretation when a heresy arises…

We’re encouraged to read and study scripture ourselves We’re encouraged to seek to interpret the scripture, and the holy spirit does in fact guide us! But how do we know whether the interpretation we come to is from the holy spirit or merely from ourselves? It’s not a “feeling” like protestants like to believe…but you will know it’s the holy spirit if your interpretation is alligned with what we know to be TRUE! That’s the beautiful thing about having the Catholic Church!

It isn’t the church’s job to dogmatically define every passage of scripture… The holy spirit can reveal scripture in our hearts! But the Church, rather, is the guardian of truth!

I think people misunderstand the catholic position on reading the Bible… We don’t read it with somebody whispering in our ear how we SHOULD read every.single.thing. We are to read the Bible and pray for the Holy Spirit to help us understand…We are to read the Bible and pray for the Holy Spirit to help us APPLY what we read to our lives.

And when we need help, or when we are unsure of our own interpretations, we have the Church to set us on our feet down the RIGHT path

This is my understanding, and I am by no means a scholar! But I think it would be wrong for the Church to have a 'dogmatically defined" way for us to read every passage of the Bible you know?

 

[Henning]

I think it’s because the church only really defines doctrine and interpretation when a heresy arises…

We’re encouraged to read and study scripture ourselves We’re encouraged to seek to interpret the scripture, and the holy spirit does in fact guide us! But how do we know whether the interpretation we come to is from the holy spirit or merely from ourselves? It’s not a “feeling” like protestants like to believe…but you will know it’s the holy spirit if your interpretation is alligned with what we know to be TRUE! That’s the beautiful thing about having the Catholic Church!

It isn’t the church’s job to dogmatically define every passage of scripture… The holy spirit can reveal scripture in our hearts! But the Church, rather, is the guardian of truth!

I think people misunderstand the catholic position on reading the Bible… We don’t read it with somebody whispering in our ear how we SHOULD read every.single.thing. We are to read the Bible and pray for the Holy Spirit to help us understand…We are to read the Bible and pray for the Holy Spirit to help us APPLY what we read to our lives.

And when we need help, or when we are unsure of our own interpretations, we have the Church to set us on our feet down the RIGHT path

This is my understanding, and I am by no means a scholar! But I think it would be wrong for the Church to have a 'dogmatically defined" way for us to read every passage of the Bible you know?

oh…thanks…
I had the impression (don’t know where from ) that there’s some sort of thinktank at the Vatican full of biblical scholars pouring over and interpreting scriptures, setting interpretations into official theology texts etc…no? H

 

[AshleyBelle]

oh…thanks…
I had the impression (don’t know where from ) that there’s some sort of thinktank at the Vatican full of biblical scholars pouring over and interpreting scriptures, setting interpretations into official theology texts etc…no? H

Well (and I'm not a scholar!) I would agree that there are in fact people who DO pour over the scriptures and interpret them into great theological texts:) Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and many of the saints! St. Therese, and the doctors of the church as well:) And today, there are still great theological texts, contemplative monks who devote their lives to the study of God's word... But all of these are still interpretations. The church doesn't need to "dogmatically define" all passages of Scripture, because it is through the faithful of the church that Scripture continues to be revealed:)

 

[promethius]

i once read somewhere that on the hierarchy of humor, sarcasm forms the lowest level.

 

[dondon]

Interpretation of scriptural verses and books takes a long time because biblical books are not mere ordinary literary pieces. These books have historical significance and embody not only theological truths, but also philosophical as well. The interpretation of scriptures involves philological, archeological and all scientific tools used in order to give accuracy. In effect, interpretation is growing everyday as new discoveries are known on archeological sites, historical incidence, and like which have major bearing on scriptural and theological interpretation.

Say for example, the doctrine of original sin which was taught by Augustine, and which was based on the creation story and the fall of adam and eve. philological and historical studies found out that the creation story is not historical, but rather a story taken from the babylonian epic or myth which was adopted and transformed by the Israelites during their babylonian exile in order to preserve their faith. Now, if a dogma is based merely on the scripture without further historical and scientific discoveries and exploration of biblical truths, then substantive questions on the veracity of faith will be difficult to address. Thus, it is better that biblical text should be made an open for studies and interpretation in order to give room to better and accurate studies and interpretation.

 

[Mailman]

Why does it take so long for the Magesterium of CC to give interpretations of Biblical verses. As I understand it there are only a handful of verses that are officially interpreted. If this rate of say 5vs/2000yrs stays the same, the NT (with ~8000 verses) might be fully interpreted by ~AD 3.2 million Not that I’m impatient or anything but can’t the Holy Spirit speed things up?

The answer is simple. The CC does not have the Holy Spirit that’s why it lacks understanding of most of what is revealed in Scripture.

 

[thistle]

The answer is simple. The CC does not have the Holy Spirit that’s why it lacks understanding of most of what is revealed in Scripture.

So you are saying the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to compile the Bible (remember it was the CC that gave you the Bible) but then said to the Church I’ll let someone else do the interpreting?? Give us a break!

 

[Canto]

The answer is simple. The CC does not have the Holy Spirit that’s why it lacks understanding of most of what is revealed in Scripture.

And I supose your church does?

And who decided which books should make up your New Testament. It wasn’t by chance the Pope at the Council of Rome in 382 AD?

Let’s see no Holy Spirit hey

Jesus said “this is my body”

John 6:56-57 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

Those who did not believe his word walked not with him (John 6:66)

Saint Ignatius of Antioch said “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ.” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 – 100 AD)

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (St. Augustine, Sermons 227 AD 411)

Catholic Church 2008 exactly the same.

 

[Scottgun]

So you are saying the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to compile the Bible (remember it was the CC that gave you the Bible) but then said to the Church I’ll let someone else do the interpreting?? Give us a break!

The conspiracy is even sillier. Atheists are always trying to date the writing of the NT later and later because they think it is subject to the problems of the Telephone Game. Fundamentalists want to date it earlier and earlier because you can’t have Christians running around very long without an NT because they might start resembling Catholics. So the Holy Spirit shows up for the apostles and NT writers, leaves, comes back just long enough to get the Church to settle on the canon in council, promptly skeedadles again until the 1500’s at which point it seems God dropped a compiled KJV into the hands of the Reformers.

After I put down the bong, I stopped throwing my lot in with things based on conspiracy theory.

 

[Nita]

Say for example, the doctrine of original sin which was taught by Augustine, and which was based on the creation story and the fall of adam and eve. philological and historical studies found out that the creation story is not historical, but rather a story taken from the babylonian epic or myth which was adopted and transformed by the Israelites during their babylonian exile in order to preserve their faith. .

You’ve been reading the wrong Scripture scholars.

 

[Mailman]

So you are saying the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to compile the Bible (remember it was the CC that gave you the Bible) but then said to the Church I’ll let someone else do the interpreting?? Give us a break!

Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said the CC was guided by the Holy Spirit to compile the Bible. I did not even say that the CC compiled the Bible. The CC compiled the wrong writings to make up their Bible. Remember, the CC’s Bible include the Apocryphal writings? The CC was the only VISIBLE church [visible to the general public] that canonized the NT.
Do you mean to tell me that the church guided by the Holy Spirit has no understanding of the Scriptures? Give me a break!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why does it take so long for the Magesterium of CC to give interpretations of Biblical verses. As I understand it there are only a handful of verses that are officially interpreted. If this rate of say 5vs/2000yrs stays the same, the NT (with ~8000 verses) might be fully interpreted by ~AD 3.2 million Not that I’m impatient or anything but can’t the Holy Spirit speed things up?

I’m in a master’s degree theology program and here’s the reasons I have gathered.

First, the Church has only defined by specific statement one single meaning to a particular passage a few times in specific language. However, if you look at the Catechism index, you will see tons of Scriptural reference and their use in other magisterial documents, indicating a consistent interpretation by way of the Ordinary Magisterium (see Vatican I and “ordinary and universal magisterium” Chapter 3: On Faith, paragraph 8).

Additionally, the Catholic Church also has not put out an official commentary because doing so gives a sense that the passages have attained their final meaning. Of course, Scripture is constantly coming into new light in new generations and in re-readings and contexts of different cultures, revealing the profound depth of many passages. In this light you can see why the Church has only defined a passage when the Spirit revealed it necessary. The other interpretations remain alive in living Tradition, just as the written Word is living and inexhaustible.

 

[Mailman]

Additionally, the Catholic Church also has not put out an official commentary because doing so gives a sense that the passages have attained their final meaning. Of course, Scripture is constantly coming into new light in new generations and in re-readings and contexts of different cultures, revealing the profound depth of many passages. In this light you can see why the Church has only defined a passage when the Spirit revealed it necessary. The other interpretations remain alive in living Tradition, just as the written Word is living and inexhaustible.

I beg to disagree. There is only one truth. And it is unchanging. What is true today could not be false tomorrow, otherwise God is not consistent. That is why the Scriptures say, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today and tomorrow.” His Truth never changes.

If, for example, it is true that man came into being through “theistic evolution” as what the CC seems to believe, then this was true thousands of years ago, still true today, and will be true for all time. The same applies to all the truth revealed in God’s written Word.

 

[thistle]

Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said the CC was guided by the Holy Spirit to compile the Bible. I did not even say that the CC compiled the Bible. The CC compiled the wrong writings to make up their Bible. Remember, the CC’s Bible include the Apocryphal writings? The CC was the only VISIBLE church [visible to the general public] that canonized the NT.
Do you mean to tell me that the church guided by the Holy Spirit has no understanding of the Scriptures? Give me a break!

The Catholic Church gave the world the Bible which includes the deuterocanonical books in the OT. Luther took them out because they contradicted his own doctrines.
If you think the CC was wrong and not guided by the Holy Spirit why do you and all Protestants accept the New Testament as given to you by the Catholic Church.
Only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth as Christ himself established the Catholic Church and gave it authority. The first Protestant churches were only established a mere few hundred years ago by men and there are now so many all claiming the Holy Spirit interprets scripture for them yet they all have different interpretations. Are you saying the Holy Spirit lies to some of them?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I beg to disagree. There is only one truth. And it is unchanging. What is true today could not be false tomorrow, otherwise God is not consistent.

This is not in reference to changing truths. It is in reference to the Church hesitating to give the appearance that if a meaning of Scripture verse is attained, that that passage’s meaning is exhausted. But the reality is, Scripture is dynamic enough to possess several meanings at once, and thus our understanding of revelation develops.

 

[Mailman]

The Catholic Church gave the world the Bible which includes the deuterocanonical books in the OT. Luther took them out because they contradicted his own doctrines.
If you think the CC was wrong and not guided by the Holy Spirit why do you and all Protestants accept the New Testament as given to you by the Catholic Church.
Only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth as Christ himself established the Catholic Church and gave it authority. The first Protestant churches were only established a mere few hundred years ago by men and there are now so many all claiming the Holy Spirit interprets scripture for them yet they all have different interpretations. Are you saying the Holy Spirit lies to some of them?

The CC did not give the world the Bible. The Bible, as we all know, comprises the OT and NT. The OT [w/out the Apocrypha] was canonized long before the CC came into being. It was canonized at the time of Ezra, the prophet.

God used the Jews to preserve the OT (Rom. 3:1-2). By reading of the Jews’ Scriptures (Luke 4:16), Jesus in a way acknowledged that the Jews were able to preserve God’s written Word intact.

In Luke 24:44-45, Jesus confirmed that the Jewish Scripture [the OT, without the Apocrypha] is not only valid, but complete:

“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45). Here, Christ clearly shows the three major divisions of the OT – the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (referred to as Psalms).

“The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this fact by saying: “The Jews at the time of Jesus Christ acknowledged as canonical, or included in their collection of sacred writings, all the so-called proto-canonical books of the O.T. Christ and the apostles endorsed this faith of the Jews, so that we have divine authority for their Scriptural character.”

The completeness of the Jewish Scriptures and its 3 divisions as stated by Christ is also confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, & wa-Kethubim, i.e., the Law, the prophets, and the writings.”

As for the NT, the CC indeed made a canonization of these books. But it is highly possible that it was not the only church to have done so. It was the only VISIBLE church to have canonized it – visible in the sense that it was the church that the general public saw as having done the canonization because of its prominence at the time.

I think it is providential that the CC was the one known to have canonized the Scripture because now the RCC would not be able to say its teachings contradict the Bible because the Bible is erroneous. Now, anyone can see its error from the teachings of the book it claims to have canonized.

 

[Canto]

God used the Jews to preserve the OT

In Luke 24:44-45, Jesus confirmed that the Jewish Scripture

But it is highly possible that it was not the only church to have done so.

Now, anyone can see its error from the teachings of the book it claims to have canonized.

1. the same Pharisses who ignored the commandmants of God?
   The same Jews who rejected Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour?
   1tim3:15 isn’t the Church the pillar and foundation of truth?
2. Jesus says the psalms but no mention of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes etc
3. which church then? I’ve never seen a list exactly the same as that of Pope Damascus at the Council of Rome in 382
4. You mean sola scriptura
   2Thes:2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
   Jn:21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Or Sola Fide
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone?
1Cor 13:2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
1cor 13:13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.
Eph:3:17 That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that, being rooted and founded in charity,
Gal:5:6 faith that worketh by Charity

CATHOLIC OT

**THE LAW **
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
THE WRITINGS
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles)
2 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles)
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit (Tobias)
Judith
Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
THE PROPHETS
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zachariah
Malachi

JEWISH OT - though some including Ethiopian Jews use the Deuterocanon

THE LAW

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
   THE PROPHETS
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Samuel
9. Kings
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets
    THE WRITINGS
14. Psalms
15. Proverbs
16. Job
17. Song of Songs
18. Ruth
19. Lamentations
20. Ecclesiastes
21. Esther
22. Daniel
23. Ezra-Nehemiah
24. Chronicles

Does your OT look like the Jewish one, or is it the Catholic/Septuagint one, with a few books given the chop?

 

[guanophore]

The CC did not give the world the Bible. The Bible, as we all know, comprises the OT and NT. The OT [w/out the Apocrypha] was canonized long before the CC came into being. It was canonized at the time of Ezra, the prophet.

If you give this some serious historical study, Mailman, I think you will find that this is not the case. Ezra had a collection of writings, but even at the time of Christ, there was no agreement on the canon. For example, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, which is why Paul could always get an arguement started by bringing up angels or appearances of a “dead” person.

Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint, which contains the Deuteros, that is why this collection was canonized by the Church, instead of any of the others.

God used the Jews to preserve the OT (Rom. 3:1-2). By reading of the Jews’ Scriptures (Luke 4:16), Jesus in a way acknowledged that the Jews were able to preserve God’s written Word intact.

I agree, and it is His testimony that led the Church to select the Septuagint.

In Luke 24:44-45, Jesus confirmed that the Jewish Scripture [the OT, without the Apocrypha] is not only valid, but complete:

“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45). Here, Christ clearly shows the three major divisions of the OT – the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (referred to as Psalms).

There are several collections that did not include all of the parts that Jesus recognized as scripture. I suspect that you are misusing the word “Apocrypha” here to refer to the Deuteros.

 Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, & wa-Kethubim, i.e., the Law, the prophets, and the writings.”

When the Jews formalized a canon after Christ, they deliberately left out books that made reference to Christ, such as Wisdom.

As for the NT, the CC indeed made a canonization of these books. But it is highly possible that it was not the only church to have done so. It was the only VISIBLE church to have canonized it – visible in the sense that it was the church that the general public saw as having done the canonization because of its prominence at the time.

Well, since there WERE no others, I guess we are in agreement on that point. How did you get so hostile to the Catholic church, that you cannot bring yourself to receive the NT from her?

I think it is providential that the CC was the one known to have canonized the Scripture because now the RCC would not be able to say its teachings contradict the Bible because the Bible is erroneous. Now, anyone can see its error from the teachings of the book it claims to have canonized.

Such a statement indicates that the writer does not understand the scripture, or the Teachings, or possibly both. they cannot contradict, since they emanate from the same Source. God does not contradict Himself!

Are you here on CAF to point out our “errors”?

 

[Mailman]

Well, since there WERE no others, I guess we are in agreement on that point. How did you get so hostile to the Catholic church, that you cannot bring yourself to receive the NT from her?

I did not receive the NT from the CC but from the early true Christian church. It is good we have the same NT because now you cannot say the NT is erroneous and so give you the license to formulate your own doctrines in contradiction to the NT. Now, you would have to explain your doctrines based on the teachings of the Bible that you claim to be authoritative and anyone who has been called by God would easily know whether the CC teaches the truth or not.

From Wikipedia:

The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that the apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.

Thus, McDonald states: [3]

Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

Similarly, from Patzia: [4]

It appears that the books that finally were canonized are those that enjoyed a special status and were utilized both frequently and universally by the church.

However, this is not to say that no councils touched the issue of the canon. Some of these include the Council of Trent (also called the Tridentine Council) of 1546 for Roman Catholicism (by vote: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain),[5] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Eastern Orthodoxy. Although these councils did include statements about the canon, they were only reaffirming the existing canon which was reached by mutual agreement over many centuries–they were just making it official.