 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
princessleah
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | Adelaide, Australia |
| Posts: | 19 |
| First Name: | Leah | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Adelaide to Rome, I'd say I'm at about Naples!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 02:31 am |
|
As a protestant of 20 years I have grown up beleiveing that I can read the Bible and God can reveal to me what it means.
One of the most suprising things I have discovered on my journey so far is that the Catholic Church teaches against private interpretation of the Bible.
One scripture that was quoted to me was 2 Peter 1:20 which in my protestant Bible (NIV) reads "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation".
Now I may be about to shoot myself in the foot by explaining perhaps my own "mis"-interpretation and in doing so I may be proving that one cannot exercise Private Judgement, or perhaps my translation is not close to the original, but here goes:
To me that scripture says that the prophet's prophecy was inspired by God. To me this seems to confirm that God can reveal things to the individual!
Am I reading this the wrong way? Is my translation (NIV) shonky?! (I mean, I know NIV isnt the best!!)
I guess I struggle with the thought that I cant read the Bible and allow God to speak to me! For me the Bible has been a source of great comfort and help - it is a hard thing to swallow that I cannot do that!
I have also come across the Scripture 2 Peter 3:16 - regarding the private interpretation and distortion of St Paul's letters. I cannot ignore this Scripture.
Are there any other Scriptures which point to teachings against private judgement?
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 840 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 02:47 am |
|
princessleah wrote:
To me that scripture says that the prophet's prophecy was inspired by God. To me this seems to confirm that God can reveal things to the individual!
It seems to me that the first thing to do when evaluating a prophet is to see if any of their prophecies came to be in the manner in which the prophecy was stated. For me, that has weeded out a lot of "wanna-be" but false prophets. 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 02:54 am |
|
princessleah wrote: One scripture that was quoted to me was 2 Peter 1:20 which in my protestant Bible (NIV) reads "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation".
NAB 2 Peter 1.20-21: "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."
RSV 2 Peter 1.20-21: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
The Church teaches us that our private interpretation is only valid if it is guided by the Magisterium of the Church. All of scripture must be understood in the light of the entire Deposit of Faith.
From the Catechism:
III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
To me that scripture says that the prophet's prophecy was inspired by God. To me this seems to confirm that God can reveal things to the individual!
God certainly does reveal things to the individual, as long as the individual puts the scripture in the context of all of Divine Revelation, along with an understanding of the historical and cultural context in which it was written. You cannot accurately interpret words written millennia ago without an understanding of the culture to which it was written. Without this full knowledge, private interpretations can't be trusted.
Am I reading this the wrong way? Is my translation (NIV) shonky?!
I don't know. What's a shonky? 
I guess I struggle with the thought that I cant read the Bible and allow God to speak to me! For me the Bible has been a source of great comfort and help - it is a hard thing to swallow that I cannot do that!
Of course you can read scripture and let it speak to you. But know that your own private interpretations of the meaning must be guided by the Church to be definitive.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 10:42 am |
|
Hello, Leah. Let’s analyze the verse you are considering, for it is possible to take it two ways.
The first way is that a prophet cannot speak his own words, but must speak the words he is given, for he is designated a prophet to deliver the word of God to others. This does not mean that whatever a so-called prophet speaks is inspired (as if people’s opinions were definitive). It does mean that if any prophecy, properly so called, has been proved true (and BodRod’s criterion in this regard is scriptural, so it is correct), it is from God. In this way, the reader is warned not to be gullible and accept a prophet on his own say-so, but on the proven truth of the word he speaks.
In like manner, one can ask: Why believe the Bible? How do we know it is the word of God? Who says it is so? And Protestants have no answer for this. Not even history is certain here, for these things happened so long ago and in the retelling can easily be biased. But Catholics have the living witness of the Church founded by Christ, of which he said that the powers of evil would never prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). It was her bishops who, beginning in the fourth century, set the canon of Scripture and officially declared those books inspired by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, Protestants would not have the Bible they rely on.
The second way is that a person should not consider his own interpretation definitive, because reality comes from God, not from himself. In other words, the passage is warning the reader against subjectivism. And if you look at the Protestant principle of private interpretation, it is founded precisely on a subjectivist approach to reality. This is one of the primary reasons why I personally rejected Protestantism: I saw the subjectivism upon which it is based, and I knew that from this one could never arrive at anything better than opinion. True certainty is impossible.
Now you ask, “Are there any other Scriptures which point to teachings against private judgement?” Indeed there are. One is Acts 8:30–31. Another is Luke 24:13–27. A third, often taken out of context and misinterpreted by Protestants and so twisted to say the opposite of what Jesus clearly intended, is John 5:37b–40.
So Leah, does this help you to understand the Catholic view of Scripture? We do accept and believe the Bible with all our hearts, and we do believe that one can read it and gain great inspiration and wisdom from it.
But there are some requisites, which appear in the passage from the Catechism quoted by Rick, to guide us to greater understanding and appreciation of the word of God. We believe that the Church’s doctrine and tradition, as well as common sense, should come to bear on our understanding of scripture. Protestants by and large accept this, too, but in their own way. For instance, they come to the reading of Scripture from the doctrinal point of view of their denomination, pastor and congregation, so they do have a certain tradition of interpretation, even if they do not recognize the term “tradition” as legitimate. You can see, then, that there is really less difference between the Protestant and Catholic approaches to the Bible than is commonly assumed.
Rick, I’ve only heard the word “shonky” a few times myself. According to my recollection, it means “strange, weird.”
David
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 840 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 01:31 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Rick, I’ve only heard the word “shonky” a few times myself. According to my recollection, it means “strange, weird.”
And the personification of that word is "dork" (1956)
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 04:34 pm |
|
Hi Leah,
I would encourage you to keep reading scripture and letting it say to you what it will. It does have the ability to say unique things to us individually depending on what we are going through. What I would warn against is trusting your own opinion about what a verse means historically or theologically as fact without double checking to see it squares with orthodoxy.
I mean, certain pasages stand out to me all the time. You can read a verse and get several different spins on it. But guard against any that contradict what has been revealed in the church as truth. I think this frees us to read the bible even moreso in a personal way because there is less for us to worry about regarding what a pasage means, and we can meditate on it more and find ways the meaning given to us by the church applies personally to our lives.
So I think there is room for you to get all kinds of meaning out of scripture. Just not to go and start your own theology or church based on what you personally think a passage of scripture really means that the church has been missing all this time.
As an evangelical I spent so much time just laboring about what I persoanlly believed a passage meant. This was good for my formation up to a point, because we all should learn to search and ask tough questions. But it eventually became like spending hours wondering what the proper usage of water might be, but never allowing yourself to drink the water.
There are times I am sure I get something out of a passage that maybe it was not originally intended for. The important thing is that what I receive from it is somehow true, and does not contradict the intended meaning of the passage, and that I do not take it to be the primary intended meaning.
I know it is a blow to our freedom that as Catholics can no longer pick and choose our interpretations and beliefs, but this allows a greater freedom to safely dwell beside still peaceful waters and in green pastures and to taste and see that the Lord is good.
See those references are probably not what the passages were explicitly written for, but I think they did not harm the intended meaning, and seemed to speak "personally" to me, without leading me to falsehood.
I think there are layers here. And it is important not to confuse meaning with application or personalization and to let all the different layers keep us safe. For instance, it is good to know that the Lord is speaking to believers in Revelation 3 when He asks us to open the door he is knocking on and let Him come in and dine with us. In fact I wonder if this may be a Eucharistic reference as well. But if a preacher used that verse to appeal to a non-believer I would find little problem with that, so long as he never implies that this is the definite meaning at some sort of seminary class or bible study.
Long story short, I would think you could keep at your approach to and love of being in scripture, so long as you are willing to surrender any meanings you persoanlly feel led to that contradict what the church teaches, or double check the meanings you feel led to when they seem questionable.
The word of God is living and active. It will speak to all of us differently, and we will all notice unique things, but we must not allow what we consider the actual "meanings" of passages to be whatever we persoanlly think they are.
If I am wrong I hope someone will correct me.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 04:55 pm |
|
brian wrote: If I am wrong I hope someone will correct me.
Actually, Brian, that was excellent advice. It's been fun to watch your faith grow and develop, even if you have challenged us sometimes!
As Catholics we don't give up freedom, we become even more free. It's like being in a good marriage. We willingly give up the "freedom" to date and exchange it for the "freedom" to love. Most of us never regret it because our gain is so much better than our loss.
When we read scripture in harmony with the Church, we're not "reinventing the wheel," we're participating in the studies of some of the most brilliant people who ever lived, such as Thomas Aquinas.
The Church does not cloud our vision of scripture, it becomes the lens that magnifies and clarifies our own experiences. It also gives us the security of knowing that we are not alone in our search for Truth, but we are joined with our brothers and sisters in faith through 2000 years of history going back to Jesus and even beyond to Moses, Abraham, and Noah. Our "personal relationship" with God becomes united to the full relationship of our Creator, with the Savior, through the Spirit, in an eternal love relationship.
And that is so much more awesome than any pretense at freedom we might give up. After all, I may be free if I am alone on a desert island, completely dependent on myself for food, shelter, and clothing, but most of us have so much more freedom when we are not spending our time worrying about our next meal. The Banquet is already there waiting for us; all we need to do is "take and eat, for this is my Body; take and drink, for this is my Blood."
And that's what it means to be a Catholic.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 7th, 2007 05:00 pm |
|
Are there any other Scriptures which point to teachings against private judgement?
The Church does not forbid private interpretation. The Church teaches that She is the infallible interpreter of God's Word and that we must be aware that we may misunderstand Scripture without Her help.
Perhaps this will help:
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/38.htm
The one I like is:
"And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readiest? And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."� Acts 8:30-31
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
princessleah
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | Adelaide, Australia |
| Posts: | 19 |
| First Name: | Leah | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Adelaide to Rome, I'd say I'm at about Naples!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 10:01 am |
|
Thanks to all those that posted their thoughts on this topic. Ive been doing a lot of thinking and some more reading, and seem to be a lot more peaceful in my spirit about it. One point a friend made to me that really stuck out as this:
Who was it that gave us the Bible eg. who said that what we now have as the Bible would be 'the Bible'..... THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!! So of course we should turn to the Church for interpretation! I think something that struck me about this was that as a protestant I never thought on this, I took the Bible for granted, and although I guess I knew 'the Bible' wasnt actually being physically written as Jesus spoke and someone had to make the decision what books would form the Bible, I'd probably tried to ignore these facts in the back of my mind!!
|
|
|
Current time is 08:43 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
