Interpretation Of Sacred Scripture

[kafka]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1761704' date='Jan 25 2009, 07:29 PM']Catherine said the same thing the second time as she did the first.
Why do you have such objections to actual church documents?[/quote]
I dont have any objections. Not at all. I could have read Dei Verbum if I wanted to. I'd rather hear someone attempt to explain and express their Faith in their own unique way or perhaps to make a commentary Dei Verbum or Sacred Scripture, etc in their own unique way. I am not under-valuing Church documents, not at all, as a matter of fact I value them so much that I know I must delve into the truth they express and try and express that truth in my own way. Or in other words "make it my own" so to speak.

I like to see peoples thought processes unfold before me. I am taught better in that way, rather than one throwing out a copy and paste before me, and I think most people are that way. This is a very important point to attempt to do this, very important. One will fall into many situations throughout life where one will have to live and express his Faith without the aid of any sort of Church documents, for example when one is raising his children. One day the child (in their surprising way) might ask a truly profound question. Now, what should the parent do? Go pull up the appropriate document and starting reciting it out word for word? No. Besides a child wouldnt be as interested in hearing a recital anyway, for they are more innocent, and sincere and are more moved by a genuine explanation from the core of one's being. Or perhaps a friend at work might seek the Gospel in another. What is he suppose to do? Blow him off until he has access to documents? No. Many millions and millions of Christians never had access to Church documents, yet they still had to live and preach the Gospel, and transmit Sacred Tradition. One could come up with many examples.

The Gospel should be preached in a unique way, by all. Truth should be attempted to be expressed by all. The Deposit of Faith is for everyone, and may and should be taught by everyone in so much as they are able.

Those are some initial thoughts, but generally I am taking the day off.

Edited January 26, 2009 by kafka

[HisChildForever]

The Church has been around for over 2,000 years, and I have been around just for 20. I basically just trust the Church. Sometimes when I read the Bible I [b]do[/b] make connections (how Verse X applies to my life, for example) or once when I was reading the Wedding Feast at Cana I felt swamped with all of these revelations about Mary. Revelations that were not in the text per se but I made connections between what I had learned (like here on Phatmass and in the Catechism) and what I just "knew" as a form of "Catholic intuition" I suppose.

[White Knight]

[quote name='kafka' post='1759774' date='Jan 23 2009, 09:52 PM']Are there rules for interpreting Scripture?

What are the limits for interpreting Scripture?

What are some guides in interpreting Scripture?

Should an average lay person attempt to interpret Scripture?

This debate/discussion is welcome to Catholics and Protestants alike. It does not matter what educational background you were given. I even want to hear from those who never considered these questions, and perhaps why (through no fault of your own) you never considered them. For I once never considered these, and I was wrong not to.

Please share with me your ideas/insights, and I will share mine with you. . .[/quote]


Are there rules for interpreting Scripture?
Three rules must be met for interpreting the Sacred Scriptures.
[color="#FF0000"][b]A) Scriptural References within itself must back up claims reguarding, persons, places, or things.
B) Historical interpretion must be included, how did the earlier generations of Christians/Catholics read and view the Scriptures.
C) Common Sense must play a factor Always. Intellectual honesty must be open to the possibilities that what you read, hear, or say, may be challenging and hard to accept, but must be taken at the value of what it actually says, No distortions, no pretending, but accepting what is actually there.[/b][/color]


What are some guides in interpreting Scripture?
[b][color="#FF0000"]A) Interpreting the Sacred Scriptures must always be open to the understanding of the Catholic Church's Prespective rather its hard to hear, or easy to hear or not. One must always be open to the fact that their own personal beliefs could be wrong, especially if they are contradicting the Church's Teachings We are obligated to accept Truth even if we disagree with it. Our prespectives must be open to cold hard facts of interpreting even if its almost un-bearable to hear, say, ,do, and believe.[/color][/b]

What are some guides in interpreting Scripture?
[color="#FF0000"][b]This is pretty much the same question as the preceeding one, and believe I have given an answer lol.[/b][/color]


Should an average lay person attempt to interpret Scripture?
[color="#FF0000"][b]Well the Bible is a book that was discussed by many people throughout time by groups, debating on which ones were inspired, which ones may be inspired, but not for sure, and which ones were flat out forged and fake. I say if Protestants and Catholics are open to the possibility that the Bible WILL present challenges to our faith especially teachings in the Bible that demand OUR Attention AND Belief, if people are honest to themselves, and are willing to accept that they "COULD" have some misunderstandings of the scriptures and its teachings, and are willing to hear the Truth, from a definative authority and change according to the real prespective and not go off believing our own personal interuptions especially if they are bizzare or contradict our faith, then Protestants and Catholics sould read the Bible and consider Scripture, History, and Common Sense, in their interpretion, always, Because we as Christians people belief the Bible is the Word of God and the Truth, and Truth is a Foundation that isn't wishy washing, but stands firm and tall and is Always Truth, Truth doesn't become untruth, Truth always is the same. I say if Catholic Lay people want to intepret Scripture personally, just make sure they are Well informed of what has been believed in the past, and still believed. Protestants who believe the Bible is the Truth, must be open and honest to themselves about the Bible, and be willing to accept facts same goes for Catholics, especially if "there own" personal interpretion is contradicting the History Belief of the Christians of the past and the Sacred Scriptures.[/b] [/color]

Edited January 28, 2009 by White Knight

[MithLuin]

Limitations on interpretation of the Bible, as dilineated by Jimmy Akins of [i]Catholic Answers[/i]:

[quote]Though today the PBC’s disciplinary rulings are no longer in force, the boundaries that mark off impermissible interpretations of Scripture are still known. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that Vatican II enumerated three criteria (CCC 111; cf. [/i]Dei Verbum 12[i]), each of which has a long history in biblical interpretation.

The first of these was that "serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out" (DV 12). This means that no properly understood assertion of Scripture will ever contradict another. If it does so, it must be a false interpretation.

The second criteria was that "the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account" when interpreting Scripture (ibid.). This states in a general way a limit that was more concretely expressed at Vatican I:

"In matters of faith and morals, affecting the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of holy Scripture which holy mother the Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures. Therefore no one is allowed to interpret the same sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers" (De Filius 2).

The "living tradition of the whole Church" referred to by Vatican II includes both of the items mentioned by Vatican II—the judgment of Church and that of the Fathers regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Both of these elements must not be violated when seeking to establish the meaning of Scripture.

In the first regard, the judgment of the Church’s magisterium must not be violated. As when evaluating ecclesiastical statements in general, the strength with which the Church’s judgment has been proposed must be taken into account. The highest form of Church approbation regarding the interpretation of a verse would be for the magisterium to infallibly define the sense of the verse—or a part of its sense. This has been done in a small number of cases.

As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:

[indent](1) The reference being "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.

(2–3) In telling the apostles "Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.

(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community. [/indent]

In the second regard—that the judgment of the Church Fathers must not be violated—again the standard set for violation is rather narrow. Only when the Fathers speak with "unanimous consent" is their interpretation mandated. When they do not speak with unanimity—as is the case in the great majority of verses—then there is liberty of interpretation.

Finally, the third limiting criterion named by Vatican II was that the exegete must also take into account "the harmony which exists between elements of the faith" (DV 12), which the Catechism expresses by stating that the exegete must "be attentive to the analogy of faith. . . . [i.e.,] the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation" (CCC 114). This means that Scripture cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts what is theologically certain.

In addition to these definite boundaries to permissible biblical interpretations, there are also influences that should apply to the process of interpreting Scripture. If other books of Scripture probably—though not certainly—teach something, then that should influence the way a given book is read. If the magisterium leans toward but has not infallibly proposed a particular interpretation, that should have an influence. The same goes for the Church Fathers when they speak with something approaching but not yet at unanimity.

The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp[/url][/quote]

So, obviously, there are bounds you cannot stray beyond. Eric Sammons gives his version of explaining those limitations [url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/misc/eric-scripture.htm"]HERE[/url]

Another useful tool for exegesis is to look at layers of meaning in a passage. The literal meaning is what the text actually says, and you are not allowed to translate the meaning contrary to the literal meaning. So, that's the first (and primary) layer of meaning.

There is also the metaphorical (or allegorical), anagogical, and moral meanings of a passage - these are called the 'spiritual' interpretations of the passage. If we see in the multiplication of the loaves a foreshadowing of the Eucharist, or interpret the passage through the Red Sea as a way of prefiguring baptism, we are engaging in the allegorical level of interpretation. If we identify the Promised Land or Jerusalem with Heaven, that is anagogical. Moral would be if we try to apply the Bible to how we live our lives, so that goes for most passages

A brief summary:
[quote]An old tradition identifies four senses a Scriptural passage might possess: literal; allegorical; moral; and anagogical.

The literal sense is the meaning intended by the human author. Note that this is not necessarily the "literal meaning of the words." The literal sense of the psalmist's "God is my shield" is not that God is a piece of defensive armor carried on the arm, it is that God is a protector.

The allegorical sense is the prophetic meaning, the truth that will be revealed later but is present in a hidden manner in Scripture. This, for obvious reasons, has been stressed by Christians more in the Old Testament than in the New Testament, with the NT recording the fulfillment of the OT.

The moral sense is the moral implication of the passage. There are plenty of passages in which the literal sense has moral implications; properly speaking the moral sense is searched for when the literal sense is not didactic. Books like Tobit, Job, and Jonah are rich in moral senses (and in moral sense, too, in my opinion).

The anagogical sense is the ultimate or final (temporally speaking) sense, as it anticipates life in glory. The anagogical sense of many biblical references to Jerusalem, for example, is taken to be Heaven.

Searching out these senses in Scripture is, of course, part of the fun and drama of being a Christian.

-- by Tom Kreitzberg [url="http://clublet.com/why?FourSensesOfScripture"]http://clublet.com/why?FourSensesOfScripture[/url][/quote]


I went and found people who said what I think, and then copy and pasted their responses rather than typing it all out myself. Hope you don't mind.

[thessalonian]

Please read paragraphs 101-141 in the Catechism. It will authoritively answer your questions.


[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#113"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#113[/url]

It gives much guidance on scripture.

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").

Edited January 28, 2009 by thessalonian

[kafka]

thanks for all the replies. I now see I was harsh on Catherine for copying and pasting. I apologize.

I guess I cant expect everyone to have the time to put in all the effort. I will try and post my own rather lengthy answers/reflections to those questions by the end of tonight. Generally I agree with what has been posted but I hope to add some fresh ideas/perspectives which I have accumulated and practiced over time.

Edited January 31, 2009 by kafka

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='kafka' post='1766930' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:08 PM']thanks for all the replies. I now see I was harsh on Catherine for copying and pasting. I apologize.

I guess I cant expect everyone to have the time to put in all the effort. I will try and post my own rather lengthy answers/reflections to those questions by the end of tonight. Generally I agree with what has been posted but I hope to add some fresh ideas/perspectives which I have accumulated and practiced over time.[/quote]

Kafka, whenever you realize you've done something that you later see as wrong, you have a great ability to be humble and apologize. I admire that. -Katie

[kafka]

What are the limits for interpreting Sacred Scripture?

One limit of interpreting Sacred Scripture is none other than Sacred Scripture. Written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; Sacred Scripture asserts a vast and rich amount of truths. If one's interpretation of Sacred Scripture contradicts that which God is asserting in the literal or spiritual level, that one's interpretation is null and void. If one comes to a conclusion, through any type of scholarly study, or reason, or supposed logic, which contradicts that which God is asserting in Sacred Scripture, his interpretation is null and void.

It is not always clear exactly what truths God is asserting in Scripture, and this brings up another limit. Namely, the limit of men. The minds of men can only delve into Scriptue so far, yes so far. Even reason guided by faith and grace to a high degree will never, I say never be able to fully comprehend all truths expressed in Sacred Scripture, and therefore our interpretations will always be limited, and fall short. I hate to use myself as an example yet this whole post is unique in that it is me who is writing it. I've come accross verses of Scripture in which I have prayed over and thought about for days, and then I finally had to concede that I may never know the true depth of meaning in that particular verse(s), even in light of that which the Magesterium has not yet taught me. And so it is.

Still, any verse of Sacred Scripture never, I repeat never, contradicts another verse, since God is the Author, and it is impossible for God to contradict Himself, therefore if one's interpretation of any verse of Sacred Scripture contradicts another verse, it is and shall be rendered (if not by the Sacred Magisterium) by God Himself: null and void. Now this poses a potential problem: What about interpretations of the spiritual sense of Scripture. How are we to know if they do not contradict that which Sacred Scripture is asserting? How do we know if they may or may not be true? More on this later, yet for now, I truly say to you the Faithful, led by the Spirit, will eventually prune any interpretation of the spiritual sense of Sacred Scripture by Christians in Time, since they are either led by the guidance of the Holy Spirit or are not. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

The Sacred Magisterium does not and will never pronounce a judgment upon every interpretation of every Christian throughout all Time and Place, yet the Sacred Magisterium clearly has the Divine appointed role of setting limits, and that is the next limit I want to mention, and one which has been posted here quite well:

"In the Church, according to Catholic belief, an authentic teaching office plays a special role in the explanation and proclamation of the written word of God." -Unitatis Redintegeratio art 21.

Yes, this authentic teaching office is the Sacred Magisterium, yet what is their special role in the explanation and proclamation? I say to draw from Sacred Scripture, from the written word of God and to teach infallible dogmas and non-infallible doctrines based in the unfathomable word of God. For:

10...But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. Dei Verbum 10:8-9

Still there is another dynamic within the Church, for the Church is not made up of solely Popes and Bishops excersizing Magisterium. There are other members of the Church, namely the clergy (who are not the Pope and Bishops) and the laity, down to the most simple child and they to have the moral obligation to delve into Sacred Scripture and proclaim it, in their own unique way. And led by the Spirit they do succeed. And I say to you that these little ones often spring forth new insights and a deeper understanding of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, which eventually makes its way through time to the mountain of Sacred Magisterium.

I like what Catherine posted:

Various special roles in interpretation belong to clergy, catechists, exegetes and others (III.B.3.i). Church authority is responsible to see that interpretation remains faithful to the Gospel and the Great Tradition, and the Magisterium exercises a role of final authority if occasion requires it (I.C.1.g).

More on this too later yet now, I must answer the second question.

I dont think I will finish my post tonight, but I am trying.

Edited January 31, 2009 by kafka

[kafka]

What are some guides in interpreting Scripture?

1. If a person were to walk up to me in the streets and ask me, "What is one thing you would suggest, that would make me understand Sacred Scripture to a greater degree, and help me plunge into it," I would most certainly tell him something like this:

Sacred Scripture was written under the Inspiration of God, therefore it is truly inerrant and infallible in all that it proclaims, in all that it asserts. If you accept this, and read Scripture in this spirit, God will truly bless you to the nines, and beyond. You will fathom the depths, and you will learn things which will surely enrich you, to the end of your days. Yet if you deny this, God will surely curse you, for you will wander through this life with the stark thought of what might have been.

The above was a bit of a dramatization, yet still I think it lays in relief the radical truth that Jesus Christ is the one Who is talking to us via Sacred Scripture. The encounter of Sacred Scripture is truly sacramental, in a lesser way than Baptism and the Holy Eucharist (and the other official Sacraments), yet still it is a true sacrament. In one sense it is an event. For Jesus Christ is the one unfathomable Word of God summed up in all of Sacred Scripture, and when we encounter Him in Scripture there is an effect of grace in that (if we allow it to) our lives are transformed by the latent grace, and eventually realized, by what we read or hear: If we allow it to.

And in this spirit, I think we must prayerfully read, and figure out, and interpret all of Scripture in the broad sense of the word: interpretation. So read it often, and interpret it well, and defend it, and I promise you, you surely will be blessed by God.

2. Interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. Sacred Scripture indeed has taught us to interpret the Old in light of the New for example the Gospel of Mathew:

{2:16} Then Herod, seeing that he had been fooled by the Magi, was very angry. And so he sent to kill all the boys who were in Bethlehem, and in all its borders, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had learned by questioning the Magi.
{2:17} Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, saying:
{2:18} “A voice has been heard in Ramah, great weeping and wailing: Rachel crying for her sons. And she was not willing to be consoled, because they were no more.”

And again:

{4:13} And leaving behind the city of Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, near the sea, at the borders of Zebulun and of Naphtali,
{4:14} in order to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:
{4:15} “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way of the sea across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles:
{4:16} A people who were sitting in darkness have seen a great light. And unto those sitting in the region of the shadow of death, a light has risen.”

Yet still again in the Gospel of John:

{19:24} Then they said to one another, “Let us not cut it, but instead let us cast lots over it, to see whose it will be.” This was so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, saying: “They have distributed my garments among themselves, and for my vesture they have cast lots.” And indeed, the soldiers did these things.


And still more! These examples in the Gospels are only the beginning.


3. Interpret Sacred Scripture in light of the entire Catholic Christian Faith as the Catechism teaches you:

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"81)
Origen, Hom. in Lev. 5,5:PG 12,454D.


there is more guides I'd like to share but I might not be able to finish it all tonight, so I will take a break here.

[tinytherese]

Don't ask how I thought of this completely silly thought but somehow that one goofy song from that show on the Disney Channel's "Playhouse Disney) about a boy named Stanley who was interested in learning about animals. When he wanted to look up something in his "Great Big Book of Everything" his pet cat and dog would sing this song and it reminded me of the Bible.


"It's the Great Big Book of Everything with everything inside. See the world around us. This book's a perfect guide [i](not entirely accurate, sacred scripture can't explain itself[/i][b][/b].)"

[tinytherese]

It's funny because the thread underneath this one (at the moment at least) reads "Need Some Serious Help." From my last post, I might.

[kafka]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1777325' date='Feb 9 2009, 09:27 PM']"It's the Great Big Book of Everything with everything inside. See the world around us. This book's a perfect guide [i](not entirely accurate, sacred scripture can't explain itself[/i][b][/b].)"[/quote]
nice. I like it. It could work for young people.

Sacred Scripture does though assert truths about itself. And certain verses help bring to light other verses in other books and vice versa. Imagine all of S.S. as Jesus Christ speaking and teaching you many deep truths, yet sometimes He directly speaks truths about Himself.

Edited February 10, 2009 by kafka