Clarification on interpretation of Scripture


#1

Are we Catholics guided by the Church when interpreting the Bible, or are we forbidden to do so whatsoever? I’m a bit confused on this issue.


#2

Here’s a test - "And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? (Mat 13:54-56 DRA). Can these “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus be siblings - children of Joseph and Mary? If not, can you find something in Scripture that clearly defines their exact relationship with Jesus (just like the Scriptures tell us exactly how Abraham is related to Lot), or do you rely on something outside of Scripture (like the dogma of perpetual virginity)? The fact is, you cannot interpret Scripture contrary to what the church teaches, which means you HAVE to REJECT the idea that these are children of Joseph and Mary, no questions asked! It’s because of things like this that I say Catholics do not “believe the Bible”, but rather they “believe what the church tells them to believe about the Bible”.


#3

The reason why we say that the “brothers” don’t have to be His mother’s children is because of the Greek language and because of the testimony of the Early Church. Arguing from the fact that no Scripture passage explicitly says they aren’t is an argument from silence.
catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord


#4

If you go to the recent thread on “Perpetual Virginity” on CAF and read the arguments in favor of, I think you will find many Scripture based arguments supporting this Church doctrine.

There have been many arguments about this throughout history and the Church has tried to explain it each time, but through the years, doctrine and teachings have a way of sounding tradition-only based, when in fact, these traditions are rooted in intelligent understanding of the Scriptures. Read more of the Catholic catechism and I’m sure you will discover how much our traditions are sourced from the Bible.


#5

CatholicSoxFan.

Good question.

I answered it in another post here.

I hope this helps.

God bless

Cathoholic


Cachonga. You gave Catholics a little test.

Here’s a test - "And coming into his own country . . . It’s because of things like this that I say Catholics do not “believe the Bible”, but rather they “believe what the church tells them to believe about the Bible”.

Cachonga. Here’s a test.

Why not start a thread on the issue of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary if you want to discuss this topic?

In the meantime Cachonga, here’s another test.

Why assume these “brothers” had the Blessed Virgin Mary for their mother when the Scriptures never say so?

Why assume the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children when the Scriptures never say so?

Why assume Jesus had uterine brothers when Scriptures NEVER allude to this? Especially when you KNOW of the wide Semitic usage of the term “brother” in Scripture?

If these “brothers” are not “brothers" in a Semitic sense (wide usage), WHY would the verses you cited be stated the way they were?

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude

Why don’t the very verses that you cited say what you wished they said (like this) . . .

**
NOT MATTHEW 13:55 (Phantom Cachonga Verse)** 55 Is not this the ONE OF THE carpenter’s SONS? Is not THEIR mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

But the REAL Bible verse reads as . . . .

MATTHEW 13:55 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

The fact is, you cannot interpret Scripture contrary to what the Scriptures say. So why don’t you just believe what the Scriptures say without ADDING your traditions of men to them?

**Why not show us just ONE VERSE where Sacred Scripture talks about . . . . **

[LIST]
*]One of these or any other “brothers” having the Blessed Virgin Mary explicitly identified as their mother.
[/LIST]

[LIST]
*]The Blessed Virgin Mary explicitly having ANY other children than Jesus.
[/LIST]

I know you cannot do it. You know you cannot do it.

It’s because of things like this that I say Bible Only Christians do not really “believe the Bible”, (all 38,000 differing denominations) but rather they “believe what their newfangled ministers of their traditions of men who all believe varying things tells them to believe about the Bible”.


#6

When you open a book and read it you have to interpret it. Even the phone book has to be interpreted.

Anyone who tells you that Catholics are forbidden from interpreting the Bible don’t know what they are talking about. What Catholics do however, is look at individual verses in light of the rest of the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of the entirety of Church teaching. If we come up with something counter to what the rest of the Bible says and counter to what the Church has taught for 2000 years then we have to question our interpretation,

There are also spiritual lessons in the Bible. We meet the person Jesus Christ in the pages of Sacred Scripture. This can only done individually. No one can read scripture for you and meet Jesus there for you. You have to go there and meet him yourself.

-Tim-


#7

=CatholicSoxFan;11647406]Are we Catholics guided by the Church when interpreting the Bible, or are we forbidden to do so whatsoever? I’m a bit confused on this issue.

WELCOME!

Your going to get a lot of different views on this, so let me share the source of truth:

Code of Canon Law:
Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

God Bless you, and again; WELCOME:thumbsup:

Patrick


#8

Thanks, and God bless you too!


#9

[quote=Auntie A] If you go to the recent thread on “Perpetual Virginity” on CAF and read the arguments in favor of, I think you will find many Scripture based arguments supporting this Church doctrine.

There have been many arguments about this throughout history and the Church has tried to explain it each time, but through the years, doctrine and teachings have a way of sounding tradition-only based, when in fact, these traditions are rooted in intelligent understanding of the Scriptures. Read more of the Catholic catechism and I’m sure you will discover how much our traditions are sourced from the Bible.
[/quote]

I am aware of what the catechism has to say on the subject. You are missing my point. The thread is asking about how to interpret Scripture. I pointed out that the church teaches that you cannot interpret Scripture contrary to what the church teaches, then used the EXAMPLE of Matt 13:54-56 and the dogma of perpetual virginity to show how church teaching can affect the interpretation of Scripture. If you want to show my example is inaccurate, then explain how you can accept the possible meaning of “brothers” and “sisters” as children of Joseph and Mary and still be in right standing with the Catholic Church (or show clear Scriptural support for the dogma). Keep in mind, your “infallible” church uses Scripture as “indicators” of the teaching, not proofs.


#10

[quote= Cathoholic] Why not start a thread on the issue of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary if you want to discuss this topic?
[/quote]

Why should I start a thread on something that was only an EXAMPLE?

Why assume these “brothers” had the Blessed Virgin Mary for their mother when the Scriptures never say so?

Well, the Sisters at St. Cyrils taught me how to read things IN CONTEXT! I find nothing in the context to indicate these are anything other than children of Joseph and Mary. But, if you will go back and read what I actually wrote, I ASKED if these “brothers” and “sisters” could be siblings – children of Joseph and Mary. My point was that you, as a good Catholic, cannot accept that possibility, not because of any clear evidence in Scripture, but because of the dogma of perpetual virginity.

Why assume the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children when the Scriptures never say so?

This is not the topic of this thread.

Why assume Jesus had uterine brothers when Scriptures NEVER allude to this? Especially when you KNOW of the wide Semitic usage of the term “brother” in Scripture?

This is not the topic of this thread.

If these “brothers” are not “brothers" in a Semitic sense (wide usage), WHY would the verses you cited be stated the way they were?

This is not the topic of this thread.

Why don’t the very verses that you cited say what you wished they said (like this) . . .

NOT MATTHEW 13:55 (Phantom Cachonga Verse) 55 Is not this the ONE OF THE carpenter’s SONS? Is not THEIR mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

But the REAL Bible verse reads as . . . .
MATTHEW 13:55 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

This is not the topic of this thread.

The fact is, you cannot interpret Scripture contrary to what the Scriptures say. So why don’t you just believe what the Scriptures say without ADDING your traditions of men to them?

This is not the topic of this thread.

Why not show us just ONE VERSE where Sacred Scripture talks about . . . .
• One of these or any other “brothers” having the Blessed Virgin Mary explicitly identified as their mother.
• The Blessed Virgin Mary explicitly having ANY other children than Jesus.

This is not the topic of this thread.

I know you cannot do it. You know you cannot do it.

This is not the topic of this thread. (As an aside, you make very good straw men.)

It’s because of things like this that I say Bible Only Christians do not really “believe the Bible”, (all 38,000 differing denominations) but rather they “believe what their newfangled ministers of their traditions of men who all believe varying things tells them to believe about the Bible”.

You should check your sources before you use them. It’s not the topic of this thread, but if it was, I would ask you why your source for the 38,000 different denominations (the World Christian Encyclopedia by Oxford Press) includes over 1,000 CATHOLIC denominations. I’d be nice and ask if you could tell me which of the 242 Roman Catholic Denominations (as identified by YOUR source) is the “One, True Church”.


#11

The reason why we say that the “brothers” don’t have to be His mother’s children is because of the Greek language and because of the testimony of the Early Church. Arguing from the fact that no Scripture passage explicitly says they aren’t is an argument from silence.
catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord


#12

I love how this whole discussion actually proves the Church’s point; the language in the passage is unclear, and there is no Biblical evidence which says that they are the sons of Mary the Mother of Jesus, nor does it say their relationship with Mary the Mother of Jesus; one needs guidance to interpret it.

Yeah, it wasn’t the topic of the thread, but it was the topic of your post.

The argument from different Protestant denominations isn’t as much about the number of denominations as it is about the differences in doctrine, which are vast (and don’t tell me about how the very requirements of salvation are “nonessential doctrines”.) And what exactly do the “Catholic denominations” disagree upon?


#13

[quote=CatholicSoxFan] The reason why we say that the “brothers” don’t have to be His mother’s children is because of the Greek language and because of the testimony of the Early Church. Arguing from the fact that no Scripture passage explicitly says they aren’t is an argument from silence.
catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord
[/quote]

Interesting that Scott Hahn, in his book, “Hail, Holy Queen”, in chapter 3, under the heading of “Primary Cullers” states “The Greek word for “brother”, adelphos, literally means “from the same womb”.” Keep in mind, I am not saying this is proof that Mary had other children, but I do see it as a strong indication (and, again, you cannot, as a good Catholic, even consider it as a possibility).

I love how this whole discussion actually proves the Church’s point; the language in the passage is unclear, and there is no Biblical evidence which says that they are the sons of Mary the Mother of Jesus, nor does it say their relationship with Mary the Mother of Jesus; one needs guidance to interpret it.

You are clearly a good Catholic!

Yeah, it wasn’t the topic of the thread, but it was the topic of your post.

It was not the topic of my post, it was an EXAMPLE!

The argument from different Protestant denominations isn’t as much about the number of denominations as it is about the differences in doctrine, which are vast (and don’t tell me about how the very requirements of salvation are “nonessential doctrines”.) And what exactly do the “Catholic denominations” disagree upon?

You should consult World Christian Encyclopedia to see what the Catholic denominations disagree on. While you’re at it, why not read what it actually says about denominations, and how they are being counted.


#14

=CatholicSoxFan;11649890]Thanks, and God bless you too!

Your very welcome.:slight_smile:

Please let me know if I can assist you again.

God Bless you,
patrick


#15

“Television” means literally “vision at a distance”, but that doesn’t mean we don’t use it for other reasons.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Well, there are a lot of Catholics out there, and I’ve seen they don’t really disagree on that much; if they do disagree on stuff, they aren’t as important as what must you do to be saved (baptismal regeneration.)


#16

[quote=CatholicSoxFan] “Television” means literally “vision at a distance”, but that doesn’t mean we don’t use it for other reasons.
[/quote]

Does it have a primary meaning? What comes to mind when you hear it? Why couldn’t this also apply to adelphos?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Two what?

Well, there are a lot of Catholics out there, and I’ve seen they don’t really disagree on that much; if they do disagree on stuff, they aren’t as important as what must you do to be saved (baptismal regeneration.)

Reformed? Sedevacantists? Traditional? Conservative? Liberal? Which of these (or any others not named) is the “one, true church”, and how do you know? (Not the topic, but since you’re the OP, I’ll go ahead and ask.)


#17

Yeah, it has a primary meaning… that isn’t the etymology. My point being that etymology isn’t the be-all-end-all of defining a term.

An example being the point (or a point) of a post.

Sedevacantists and Reformed “Catholics” have broken off from the Church, and liberal “Catholics” also deny Church teaching, so no, I don’t believe they are the one true church. As for traditionalism, it is a Catholic movement related to religious practice, which is not the same as dogma.

But I do think we are hijacking this thread a bit, which I don’t think is kosher here. Mind if we continued this discussion somewhere else?


#18

CatholicSoxFan,
I think I’ve gone about as far with this as I care to go. You miss my point and give excuses that you would not accept from a Protestant to defend a source that contradicts the claim of 38,000 denominations (have you even looked at the source? If not, how can you possibly defend it?). I’m beginning to feel like I’m casting pearls before swine, and see no point in continuing here. Sorry to have troubled you.


#19

Cachonga

You stated:

"The Greek word for “brother”, adelphos, literally means “from the same womb”.

That is merely ONE meaning OF MANY MEANINGS for “adelphos” and I think we all know that here. There are 8 or 9 other Biblical usages of adelphos. And non-Biblical usage as well.

For example, Philadelphia the city of “Brotherly” love, does NOT mean everyone in “Phil-adelphos” is “from the same womb” Cachonga.

You said:

You should check your sources before you use them. It’s not the topic of this thread, but if it was, I would ask you why your source for the 38,000 different denominations . . . .

I did check my sources Cachonga.

38,000 denominations in 2006 according to the International Bulletin of Missionary Research. But we both know there is MORE Bible-ONLY denominations than 38,000 now.

Go to look at the 2006 statistics here. Go down to line 44—statistics for 2006. It says . . . . 38,000.

I’d be nice and ask if you could tell me which of the 242 Roman Catholic Denominations (as identified by YOUR source) is the “One, True Church”.

Cachonga, this is the fallacy of equivocation to get around the points I raised–none of which you adequately answered.

This is a classic bait and switch technique so as to not have to deal with the issues I already brought up. There is an obvious answer to your objection but I’m not going to give it here because it de-emphasizes the points already brought up. That is a clever debating fallacy of yours Cachonga when you get caught with no answer, but I am not going to fall for it.

The original question was “Are we Catholics . . . .”.

You as a non-Catholic are welcome here even though the question is for “we Catholics”. But so far you have NOT contributed one thing concerning the original post question except scorn and contentiousness (“here’s a test”) against the fullness of Christianity, the Catholic faith.

The original question was “Are we Catholics guided by the Church when interpreting the Bible, or are we forbidden to do so whatsoever?

I want to challenge you to try contributing to the issue or begin your own thread. If you want to begin a thread on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary issue, I would be happy to participate.

I’ll keep you in my prayers Cachonga in hopes you have the humility and graces to one day come back home (I see you list yourself as “former roman catholic”). We’d like to have you back if you are ever so inclined.

God bless

Cathoholic


#20

one, is always alowed to interpret the scriptures in the light of God’s love with the Truth.

here are some readings on this 1. Pope Leo XIII,
Encyclical Letter On the Study of Sacred Scripture,
Providentissimus Deus, 1893
2. Pope Benedict XV,
Encyclical Letter Commemorating the Fifteenth Centenary of the Death of St. Jerome,
Spiritus Paraclitus, 1920
3. Pope Pius XII,
Encyclical Letter Promoting Biblical Studies,
Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943

source summ.

God bless


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.