Interpreting Scripture

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by JRKH

While I understand and agree with the underlying principle here, I have some trouble with this statement as it stands. The Church is a community and as such ALL the members have input as well as responsibility. Yes we should submit ourselves to the teachings of the Church...but we need to recognize that it is NOT because the Church is some "infallible" monolithic structure where a few impose upon the many like a legislature. We submit because the Church is a storehouse of the accumulated understandings and interpretations of Scripture and Tradition.

"The Church" is not the "only one" who can interpret the bible. The Church herself recognizes this and speaks in the Catechism:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

If elements of truth (including Scripture) exist outside of the "visible confines of the Catholic Church" then so must right interpretation of Scripture...

The problem is not that individuals cannot rightly interpret Scripture - the problem is that they have no authoritative composite body of understanding against which to check their interpretation. This is where "Church" comes in.

"Church" (ekklesia = formal community) acts to bring together the many individual thoughts on some issue or scripture interpretation. By taking council with each other, the individuals learn and grow in understanding, retaining that which is good and discarding that which proves false.
The consensus of all of this deliberation then becomes "teaching", "the fullness of Truth" precisely because it is arrived at, not by "majority vote" but by humble submission, one to the other, in prayerful pursuit of what seems right to the Holy Spirit.

So in short, when the OP says, "My dad says that it's our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church", the error in his thinking is that he is cutting himself off from "Church" as arbiter - the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

Sorry if this rambles a bit....

Peace
James

Excellent, James! Of course, since scripture must speak to each and every soul that has, and ever will exist on earth, there is a degree of latitude within it. It speaks to each of us slightly differently, and differently at different times in our lives. However, there are limits - a fence around the sheepfold, so to speak. Once we are outside of that fence, the wolf attacks. The Church is that fence of safety. The fence is not a restriction, but rather protection against the wolves and prowling lions.

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by po18guy

Excellent, James! Of course, since scripture must speak to each and every soul that has, and ever will exist on earth, there is a degree of latitude within it. It speaks to each of us slightly differently, and differently at different times in our lives. However, there are limits - a fence around the sheepfold, so to speak. Once we are outside of that fence, the wolf attacks. The Church is that fence of safety. The fence is not a restriction, but rather protection against the wolves and prowling lions.

Amen Brother .....Amen

Peace
James

[Phyllo]

Hi
Let me preface this by saying that I am a pre Vatican II traditional Catholic so I am sure that I have a different understanding of the CC .

"The Church" is not the "only one" who can interpret the bible

.

I was taught that the Catholic Church IS the only one who can interpret scripture and I find no reason to change this teaching now. I was taught that the Bible is a Catholic document and can be interpreted only through the Catholic Church. The Protestants started out by using the Catholic interpretations and modifying them to meet their beliefs.

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.

Operative word here is "elements" but not the complete truth to gain salvation.

If elements of truth (including Scripture) exist outside of the "visible confines of the Catholic Church" then so must right interpretation of Scripture..

No, because I think that if anything exists outside the Catholic Church they are of a Protestant bent.and therefore need to be united to the Catholic Church for the full and only truth.. Again, correct interpretation of the scripture can be found only in the CC.

The problem is not that individuals cannot rightly interpret Scripture - the problem is that they have no authoritative composite body of understanding against which to check their interpretation. This is where "Church" comes in.

True.. And for me that Church is the Catholic Church.

"Church" (ekklesia = formal community) acts to bring together the many individual thoughts on some issue or scripture interpretation. By taking council with each other, the individuals learn and grow in understanding, retaining that which is good and discarding that which proves false.
The consensus of all of this deliberation then becomes "teaching", "the fullness of Truth" precisely because it is arrived at, not by "majority vote" but by humble submission, one to the other, in prayerful pursuit of what seems right to the Holy Spirit.

SEEMS right to the Holy Spirit? It is either right or wrong. Seems is some where in the middle.

So in short, when the OP says, [i]"My dad says that it's our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church"

So because of all the individual interpreting of Scripture we have thousands of Protestant denominations. Jesus founded One church of which the visible head is Peter and that church is the One and Only Catholic Church.


Just my thoughts

[johnnyjones]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

Ask for biblical evidence for these two points. Make sure to keep the conversation on track so other extraneous issues are brought in (e.g., "X, Y, or Z doctrine that you believe in is contradicted by A, B, or C passage of Scripture!").



Has he founded his own denomination then? Surely a Christian with all of the truth is duty-bound to save others from their erroneous doctrines.



Point to the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts chapter fifteen, and ask if Timothy could legitimately have interpreted the Old Testament on his own so as to require his flock to maintain the practice of circumcision. (Mention that if Timothy were able to consult the Book of Acts, where the decision against the Judaizers is recorded, there is no scriptural reason for him to have accepted the work as divinely inspired--St. Luke never makes the claim, explicitly or implicitly.)

Solid answer. The "Industrial Strength Catholic" title fits you. Your post was helpful to me as well being a former Protestant . I look forward to seeing you around the forum.

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Phyllo

Hi
Let me preface this by saying that I am a pre Vatican II traditional Catholic so I am sure that I have a different understanding of the CC .

Thanks for clarifying....I'll keep that in mind.

I was taught that the Catholic Church IS the only one who can interpret scripture and I find no reason to change this teaching now. I was taught that the Bible is a Catholic document and can be interpreted only through the Catholic Church. The Protestants started out by using the Catholic interpretations and modifying them to meet their beliefs.

Yes indeed the bible, as we know it, is a Catholic document, part of the "three legged stool" of "Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.
Also - I fully agree that the Bible needs to be interpreted through the Catholic Church.
But remember that "Church" = "Ekklesia" = Community called out and as such is made up of individuals. the difference between the protestant view and the Catholic view is not that individuals cannot get things right, but rather that the group is protected from errors that individuals can easily fall into. This is why Church teaching is never a matter of one person but is the result of the efforts of many persons - the ekklesia - the Church...

Operative word here is "elements" but not the complete truth to gain salvation.

I will simply suggest that you read the appropriate sections of the Catechism for clarifications on these matters.
In this case, look under "The Church is One".

No, because I think that if anything exists outside the Catholic Church they are of a Protestant bent.and therefore need to be united to the Catholic Church for the full and only truth.. Again, correct interpretation of the scripture can be found only in the CC.

"The Church" disagrees with you here as recorded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Do you accept the Church's teaching on the matter - or are you protesting it?

True.. And for me that Church is the Catholic Church.

Me too

SEEMS right to the Holy Spirit? It is either right or wrong. Seems is some where in the middle.

If you have problems with my phrasing here, I suggest that you will have to take it up with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and Scripture itself because that is where I got it from.

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us....(Acts 15:28)

It is a part of the official declaration coming from the very first Church council. If the Apostles felt that such wording was acceptable, and if the Holy Spirit felt that it should be recorded that way and preserved in the Holy Scriptures...Who am I to argue with it?

So because of all the individual interpreting of Scripture we have thousands of Protestant denominations. Jesus founded One church of which the visible head is Peter and that church is the One and Only Catholic Church.

Which is precisely the point that I was making in my post...
The problem is not so much that an individual can't rightly discern Scripture, but that - apart from the "ekklesia" the Authoritative Church - they have no protection against fatal error. The problem you mention above stems from the fact that in the protestant model, private interpretation is permitted to trump "ekklesial" (Church) interpretation.

Just my thoughts

Thanks for sharing them.

Peace
James

[Chuck Finley]

Originally Posted by Gregorian12

My dad says that it's our job (as individual believers) to interpret Scripture, and not the teaching authority of the Church. He also implied that any authority the Church may have had was no longer needed and was taken away when the Bible was completed.

Yes and no.

First, if by "interpret scripture", he means to learn and understand the scriptures, then he's correct. If he means to draw our own doctrines from scripture, then no. We can use the scriptures to hold the Church accontable in its teachings, but it is ultimately the role of the Church to make doctrine.

Second, I'm not sure where he got the idea that the authority of the Church was taken away upon the completion of the canon. If he said that the gifts were finished upon the completion of the canon, then that, I could agree with.

I'm not sure how to respond. He acts like it's a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says "No one has it all right."

It's not heresy, per se, but it is incorrect.

He says Paul instructed Timothy to study Scripture to determine doctrine, as though it was his job to decide what it meant, not the Church's.

Paul instructed Timothy to know doctrine and to see that his own doctrine was correct, but not to make doctrine.

[Phyllo]

Pinoycat is correct. Only the Catholic Church can interpret Scripture.

If elements of truth (including Scripture) exist outside of the "visible confines of the Catholic Church" then so must right interpretation of Scripture.

Wrong..




[quote]819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."[quote]

I was taught as a child that only the Catholic Church had the right to interpret scripture because the bible was compiled and preserved and is a Catholic document. A lot has changed in the Catholic Church since Vatican II and I believe that this teaching is one of them. I believe that paragraph 819 is a product of what is called the New Theology which is a resurfacing of modernism which was condemned by Pope St. Pius X.

Why have so many Catholic schools and some Churches closed down since Vatican II?

Is it a co-incidence or maybe because so many Catholics are becoming confused by modern teaching. It has been my experience that older (pre VII) Catholics have a different understanding on some teachings.

If it is true(and I was not taught this) that salvation can be had outside the Catholic Church then why would Protestants want to become Catholic? I think we are doing them a disservice. The Catholic Church has the full and complete truth for salvation and no other.

Why would not the HS want the thousands of protestants under the banner of the One and Only True Church which is the Catholic Church?

Just my thoughts

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

A
Point to the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts chapter fifteen, and ask if Timothy could legitimately have interpreted the Old Testament on his own so as to require his flock to maintain the practice of circumcision. (Mention that if Timothy were able to consult the Book of Acts, where the decision against the Judaizers is recorded, there is no scriptural reason for him to have accepted the work as divinely inspired--St. Luke never makes the claim, explicitly or implicitly.)

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

Solid answer. The "Industrial Strength Catholic" title fits you. Your post was helpful to me as well being a former Protestant . I look forward to seeing you around the forum.

I second you view that this is a solid answer to the question.

For me - there are two passages in the NT that clearly point to the RC/EO model of "authoritative" Church interpretation vs the "protestant model" of private interpretation.
These are Mt 18:15-18 and Acts 15 - the council of Jerusalem. One seems to be a set of instructions and the other an example of these instructions enacted. Add to this the many exhortations in the Gospels and letters for the faithful to be "one".

Then challenge the SS "invisible church" protestant to show - from Scripture equally compelling evidence for their position. It just is not there.

Peace
James

[Phyllo]

Originally Posted by JRKH

Thanks for clarifying....I'll keep that in mind.

In the above paragraph when church is mention Catholic Church jumps into my mind..and no other. And the results of many persons to me is the Magisterum.Church Fathers and the like.

I am not protesting it just saying that I was taught differently as a child in the Catholic
School system. Herein lies the confusion. I believe that some teachings have been changed from when I was in school so older Catholics believe differently than younger ones. I also believe that this is what is called the New Theology (modernism) that Pope St. Pius X was fighting against. I believe that some teachings have been redefined and that is misleading younger people and confusing older ones.

Point taken.

Authoritative Church meaning the Catholic Church for me. Wouldn't, say, for instance a protestant denomination lets just say for arguments sake the Lutherans consider their "elders" their authority? (If in fact they have something that might be equal to our Magisterium) And wouldn't they then not have the complete truth?Therefore not having the fullness of the truth to gain salvation? Wouldn't we be remiss if we didn't try to bring them into communion with the Catholic Church?

I think this new teaching is misleading Christians outside the Catholic Church that they too have salvation. Again some confusion between pre and post VII Catholics?

{quote]Thanks for sharing them.

Your are welcome

Sorry I ramble along sign of old age???

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Phyllo

In the above paragraph when church is mention Catholic Church jumps into my mind..and no other.

Me too. That is because - in point of fact - the Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox) is the one that is verifiably traceable to the 1st Century and to the Apostles. They both accept and teach a councilior based authoritative Church model...making the post reformation "protestant" approach quite novel.Now - being fair to our protestant brothers...there is wide variation in how far they have moved from the ancient model. But (IMHO) their great weakness lies in an unspoken, undocumented principle and upon which the whole plethora of the protestant communions are based - the rejection of authority.

And the results of many persons to me is the Magisterium.Church Fathers and the like.

Amen Brother Amen....But let us not exclude the laity in this. While we certainly rely most heavily on the more educated and those called to magisterial and pastoral service...clergy, bishops, members of the curia and the like. We - members of the laity are truly in the "front lines" where "the rubber meets the road" and where the Church's teachings, and understandings must be applied, shared, understood and even debated (within sound parameters). It isn't as though we should just sit back and vegetate. letting others "spoon feed" us. Growing in Holiness, growing in Love and being able to share our faith fairly requires that we talk about things...
PLUS....
When "new" things come up, the input of the many laity and clergy alike is really the first "court" of debate if you will...Like in Mt 18:15-18 where many will come together and start discussions that - eventually - move "up the ladder" to be more and more deeply discussed, investigated and defined.
Yup - the many persons involve ALL of us...

I am not protesting it just saying that I was taught differently as a child in the Catholic
School system. Herein lies the confusion. I believe that some teachings have been changed from when I was in school so older Catholics believe differently than younger ones. I also believe that this is what is called the New Theology (modernism) that Pope St. Pius X was fighting against. I believe that some teachings have been redefined and that is misleading younger people and confusing older ones.

Well - There is certainly debate in these areas. To me - because I trust my King and His promises of protection, I leave such things to the Church in council. What some believe as "changing teaching" others prefer to see as "development of doctrine".
One thing I know is that Jesus gave His Church the authority to "Bind and Loose" - WHATEVER ! ! So I figure so long as I stick with the Holy Father and the teachings emanating from the Vatican I can't really go too far wrong.

Point taken.

Authoritative Church meaning the Catholic Church for me

Me too!!!

Wouldn't, say, for instance a protestant denomination lets just say for arguments sake the Lutherans consider their "elders" their authority? (If in fact they have something that might be equal to our Magisterium) And wouldn't they then not have the complete truth? Therefore not having the fullness of the truth to gain salvation?

What you say here hints well at my point above about the foundation that underlies the protestant model. The fundamental principle of the rejection of universal church authority - that is - a single communion to settle doctrinal issues that are bound to come up.
Because the "protestant model" not only rejects the authority of Rome, but basically rejects the authoritative councilior model among themselves in favor of private interpretation - or "local ekklesia" interpretation...they simply cannot cannot adequately discern among themselves what is true and what is not. This does not mean that truth does not exist among protestant communions...but simply that there is no way for them to separate truth from error.
It is for this purpose that Christ established His Spirit guided Church.

Wouldn't we be remiss if we didn't try to bring them into communion with the Catholic Church?
I think this new teaching is misleading Christians outside the Catholic Church that they too have salvation. Again some confusion between pre and post VII Catholics?

Well - Yes we should try to bring them into communion with the Church. In fact the Church has been already set up a way for Anglicans to "come home", has been in some pretty good talks with at least one of the Lutheran communions and also has periodic talks with the EO. So she is definitely reaching out.

As for the confusion you are concerned about...I think that just after Vatican II there was indeed a lot of confusion. To me it had less to do with the actual decisions and documents of the council than with what is sometimes referred to as "The spirit of Vatican II"...where people did things that went way beyond what the council intended.
These abuses likewise helped to create the highly "conservative" movements in some quarters.
Thankfully - now that some 40 odd years have passed and we are able to see more clearly the good and bad things that have occurred, the Church, in her wisdom is working hard to sort through everything and, as always - keep the good and toss the error...

Sorry I ramble along sign of old age???

No problem - I ain't no spring chicken either and I tend to ramble too.

Peace
James

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

Solid answer. The "Industrial Strength Catholic" title fits you. Your post was helpful to me as well being a former Protestant . I look forward to seeing you around the forum.

Haha, thanks, I'm glad it helped... Just for the record, though, I'm still discerning whether to be Orthodox or Catholic. I participate in such threads as these because I strongly wish to help others steer clear of/respond to the unbiblical, ahistorical, and unworkable doctrines of solo scriptura, private judgment, invisible church, and the like.

[Phyllo]

Originally Posted by JRKH

Me too. That is because - in point of fact - the Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox) is the one that is verifiably traceable to the 1st Century and to the Apostles. They both accept and teach a councilior based authoritative Church model...making the post reformation "protestant" approach quite novel.Now - being fair to our protestant brothers...there is wide variation in how far they have moved from the ancient model. But (IMHO) their great weakness lies in an unspoken, undocumented principle and upon which the whole plethora of the protestant communions are based - the rejection of authority.


Amen Brother Amen....But let us not exclude the laity in this. While we certainly rely most heavily on the more educated and those called to magisterial and pastoral service...clergy, bishops, members of the curia and the like. We - members of the laity are truly in the "front lines" where "the rubber meets the road" and where the Church's teachings, and understandings must be applied, shared, understood and even debated (within sound parameters). It isn't as though we should just sit back and vegetate. letting others "spoon feed" us. Growing in Holiness, growing in Love and being able to share our faith fairly requires that we talk about things...
PLUS....
When "new" things come up, the input of the many laity and clergy alike is really the first "court" of debate if you will...Like in Mt 18:15-18 where many will come together and start discussions that - eventually - move "up the ladder" to be more and more deeply discussed, investigated and defined.
Yup - the many persons involve ALL of us...


Well - There is certainly debate in these areas. To me - because I trust my King and His promises of protection, I leave such things to the Church in council. What some believe as "changing teaching" others prefer to see as "development of doctrine".
One thing I know is that Jesus gave His Church the authority to "Bind and Loose" - WHATEVER ! ! So I figure so long as I stick with the Holy Father and the teachings emanating from the Vatican I can't really go too far wrong.




Me too!!!

What you say here hints well at my point above about the foundation that underlies the protestant model. The fundamental principle of the rejection of universal church authority - that is - a single communion to settle doctrinal issues that are bound to come up.
Because the "protestant model" not only rejects the authority of Rome, but basically rejects the authoritative councilior model among themselves in favor of private interpretation - or "local ekklesia" interpretation...they simply cannot cannot adequately discern among themselves what is true and what is not. This does not mean that truth does not exist among protestant communions...but simply that there is no way for them to separate truth from error.
It is for this purpose that Christ established His Spirit guided Church.

Well - Yes we should try to bring them into communion with the Church. In fact the Church has been already set up a way for Anglicans to "come home", has been in some pretty good talks with at least one of the Lutheran communions and also has periodic talks with the EO. So she is definitely reaching out.

As for the confusion you are concerned about...I think that just after Vatican II there was indeed a lot of confusion. To me it had less to do with the actual decisions and documents of the council than with what is sometimes referred to as "The spirit of Vatican II"...where people did things that went way beyond what the council intended.
These abuses likewise helped to create the highly "conservative" movements in some quarters.
Thankfully - now that some 40 odd years have passed and we are able to see more clearly the good and bad things that have occurred, the Church, in her wisdom is working hard to sort through everything and, as always - keep the good and toss the error...


No problem - I ain't no spring chicken either and I tend to ramble too.

Peace
James

Hey James,

Well put. I agree with all of the above. I think the laity is extremely important if they are well educated in their faith and willing to defend it.

You make some points that I have in my mind but do not express plainly. WHEN my mind is working it is working faster than I can type so I tend to leave a few thoughts out.

It is a pleasure chatting with you, I am always learning.

God Bless

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by Gregorian12

He acts like it's a heresy to claim The Catholic Church has infallible doctrines because he says "No one has it all right."

This in particular directly contradicts scripture.

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

"teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you"

Your father's position goes against Jesus' own words.

[Phyllo]

Originally Posted by snarflemike

This in particular directly contradicts scripture.

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

"teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you"

Your father's position goes against Jesus' own words.

Wow! Good catch and great point.

What a great scripture to remember.

[Hamlet123]

I think the most profound thing that one discovers as he studies this issue is: Protestantism is based on traditions. One of those traditions is that the bible is the source and solution to all matters regarding faith and morals. This proposition can not be verified anywhere, including the bible, except through a long history of handed down beliefs.

My opinion concludes that if there were never a revolt the idea that the bible is the ONLY source of faith and morals would never have risen.

Pleae pray for the Marlins