Scripture passages that are definitively interpreted by the Catholic church (a quote--see link below)
“Passages Definitively Interpreted by the Church {there are only about 7-8}
Many people think the Church has an official “party line” about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only a handful of passages have been definitively interpreted. The Church does interpret many passages in Scripture to guide her teaching. Other passages are used as the starting point and support of doctrine or moral teaching, but only these few have been “defined” in the strict sense of the word. Even in these few cases the Church is only defending traditional doctrine and morals.
It is important to realize that the parameters set by the definitions are all negative, that is,they point out what cannot be denied about the meaning of a passage but do not limit how much more the passage can be interpreted to say. In other words, the Church condemns denials of a specific interpretation of the text, without condemning meanings over and above but not contradictory to it.
All of the following passages were definitively interpreted by the Church at the Council of Trent, for each has to do with justification or the sacraments, issues that divided Catholics and Protestants.
1. John 3:5 “Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
The Church condemned the denial that the words of Jesus mean that real (natural) water must be used for a valid baptism. At the time, the Anabaptists contended that water baptism was unnecessary because the mention of water was merely a metaphor. Other symbolic meanings in addition to the literal sense of real water can be found in the text, perhaps, but none are acceptable that deny the need for real water at baptism.
2. Luke 22:19 and
3. I Corinthians 11:24— “Taking the bread, he gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying ‘This is my body given for you: do this in remembrance of me.”
The Church condemned the interpretation of these passages that denied that Jesus, in commanding his apostles to “Do this in memory of me” after instituting the Eucharist, conferred priestly ordination on them and their successors enabling them to offer His body and blood. More could be understood by the command to do this in remembrance, but that much could not be denied or contradicted by other interpretations.
4. John 20:22-23— “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they areforgiven; whose sins you do not forgive, they are not forgiven,” and
5. Matthew 18:18— “Whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The Church condemned the denial that in these two passages Jesus conferred a power exclusively on the apostles authorizing them and their successors in the priestly office to forgive sins in God’s name, and condemned the proposal that everyone could forgive sins in this sense.
6. Romans 5:12— “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…”
The Church condemned the denial of original sin to which all mankind is subject and which baptism remits, citing this passage to be understood in that sense.
7. James 6:14— “Is anyone of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to prayover him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
Definitively interpreting these passages, the Church condemned the denial that the sacrament of the anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ and promulgated by the apostles against those who deemed it a human invention of the later Church.
In addition, the decree of Vatican I about Christ establishing Peter as head of the Church — which cites Mt 16:16 and John 1:42 — is a defined doctrine, even though the phrasing about the use and interpretation of the scripture cited is more implicit than explicit, by comparison with the above Scripture passages. “
Many people think the Church has an official “party line” about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only a handful of passages have been definitively interpreted. The Church does interpret many passages in Scripture to guide her teaching. Other passages are used as the starting point and support of doctrine or moral teaching, but only these few have been “defined” in the strict sense of the word. Even in these few cases the Church is only defending traditional doctrine and morals.
It is important to realize that the parameters set by the definitions are all negative, that is,they point out what cannot be denied about the meaning of a passage but do not limit how much more the passage can be interpreted to say. In other words, the Church condemns denials of a specific interpretation of the text, without condemning meanings over and above but not contradictory to it.
All of the following passages were definitively interpreted by the Church at the Council of Trent, for each has to do with justification or the sacraments, issues that divided Catholics and Protestants.
1. John 3:5 “Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
The Church condemned the denial that the words of Jesus mean that real (natural) water must be used for a valid baptism. At the time, the Anabaptists contended that water baptism was unnecessary because the mention of water was merely a metaphor. Other symbolic meanings in addition to the literal sense of real water can be found in the text, perhaps, but none are acceptable that deny the need for real water at baptism.
2. Luke 22:19 and
3. I Corinthians 11:24— “Taking the bread, he gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying ‘This is my body given for you: do this in remembrance of me.”
The Church condemned the interpretation of these passages that denied that Jesus, in commanding his apostles to “Do this in memory of me” after instituting the Eucharist, conferred priestly ordination on them and their successors enabling them to offer His body and blood. More could be understood by the command to do this in remembrance, but that much could not be denied or contradicted by other interpretations.
4. John 20:22-23— “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they areforgiven; whose sins you do not forgive, they are not forgiven,” and
5. Matthew 18:18— “Whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The Church condemned the denial that in these two passages Jesus conferred a power exclusively on the apostles authorizing them and their successors in the priestly office to forgive sins in God’s name, and condemned the proposal that everyone could forgive sins in this sense.
6. Romans 5:12— “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…”
The Church condemned the denial of original sin to which all mankind is subject and which baptism remits, citing this passage to be understood in that sense.
7. James 6:14— “Is anyone of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to prayover him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
Definitively interpreting these passages, the Church condemned the denial that the sacrament of the anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ and promulgated by the apostles against those who deemed it a human invention of the later Church.
In addition, the decree of Vatican I about Christ establishing Peter as head of the Church — which cites Mt 16:16 and John 1:42 — is a defined doctrine, even though the phrasing about the use and interpretation of the scripture cited is more implicit than explicit, by comparison with the above Scripture passages. “
see also :
The online Catholic Encyclopedia article on BIBLICAL EXEGESIS states (emphasis added):
(a) Defined Texts
The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle. The Council of Trent teaches that Rom., v, 12, refers to original sin (Sess. V, cc. ii, iv), that John, iii, 5, teaches the absolute necessity of the baptism of water (Sess. V, c. iv; Sess. VII, De bapt., c. ii), that Matt., xxvi, 26 sq. is to be understood in the proper sense (Sess. XIII, cap. i); the Vatican Council gives a direct definition of the texts, Matt., xvi, 16 sqq. and John, xxi, 15 sqq. Many more Scripture texts are indirectly defined by the definition of certain doctrines and the condemnation of certain errors. The Council of Nicæa, e.g., showed how those passages ought to be interpreted on which the Arians relied in their contention that the Word was a creature; the Fifth Ecumenical Council (II Constantinople) teaches the right meaning of many prophecies by condemning the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia.”
As quoted here:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/dialogue-on-clearness-and-formal.html
from C. Lake here comment 120 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-61132
Having been a happy “Reformed Baptist” for years, before I returned to the Catholic Church, I understand the view that Catholicism has unnecessarily complicated the “simple Gospel” preached by Christ and the first apostles. However, could it be that the “simple Gospel” which is preached in many Protestant congregations only seems to be simple, because it has become familiar over time, and because certain things in it have become assumed to be all but self-evident?
Consider this statement of Jesus in John 14:28: “You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.” (Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A28&version=RSV) I know a person who staunchly claims to believe in “early, true Christianity.” Based on this verse and many others similar to it in the Bible, he firmly rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. He sees the Trinity as a pagan add-on to Christianity, which was incorrectly accepted by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and which Protestants have, unfortunately, also wrongly accepted.
As a Catholic, does it bother me that the Pope makes statements which sometimes need to be expounded upon and/or clarified by successive statements from him and other members of the Magisterium? Sometimes, yes, I do become annoyed. I don’t claim that this reaction is right, on my part, but it is there at times.
As a Trinitarian Protestant, does it ever bother you that Jesus made such statements as “The Father is greater than I”? If the Trinity is an essential part of orthodox Christianity, such statements would seem to need clarification– and believe me, with the “non-Trinitarian” person mentioned above, I have tried and tried to clarify them with other Biblical passages and verses which seem to clearly teach the Trinity. The problem is, he can always take me back to other passages and verses, similar to John 14:28, which seem to clearly deny the Trinity.
There is a need here, it seems, for someone to step in and *authoritatively* clarify the issue– is the Trinity taught in the Bible or not? Is it part of orthodox Christianity (as I believe, and as I would assume you believe), or is it a “pagan/Catholic/Orthodox add-on,” as my friend believes? He and I can compare Biblical passages and verses for hours, days, weeks, months, years… but who can step into our discussion and make a finally authoritative declaration about what is and is not orthodox Christianity?
Of course, I know that Catholics and Protestants both hold that the Bible teaches the Trinity. However, in my experience, Catholics tend to be more willing to admit that a Magisterium was needed, historically, to “settle the issue” in the 4th-century Arian controversy. Most committed Protestants whom I have known simply say something like this: “If you compare Scripture with Scripture, the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity, and, as such, the Reformed confessions of faith affirm it, with no need for a Magisterium”– and they (aforementioned Protestants) are done with the issue.
Is it really that simple though? What about the people who seriously study the Bible and *don’t* see the Trinity there? Are they just being rebellious? Are they, by definition, unregenerate? If they hear a Protestant preacher exegeting “Trinitarian passages,” but they still sincerely think that the passages which appear to deny the Trinity are more clear, what are we to say?
To many Protestants, it may seem that the Catholic Church has unnecessarily complicated the “simple Gospel” of the Bible. Again, as one who was a serious Protestant myself, I understand that view. However, as a Catholic “revert,” I am now very thankful that there exists, in the Pope and Magisterium, a living, teaching voice, which can make clarifying and authoritative statements, when they are needed, on what the Bible teaches.
Sometimes, yes, the Pope even has to clarify his own statements, but he has the office and the ability to do so– and successive Popes can even clarify the statements which this Pope may not live long enough to be able to clarify, though I wish him many more years. The teaching authority of the Magisterium brings light and clarity, even to its own statements, because it is a *living, teaching voice* which can always clarify itself when needed. The Bible is living and active, of course, by but it, too, must be interpreted. However, being a book– even the inspired, inerrant written word of God!–, the Bible itself cannot step into *our own interpretation of it* and tell me or you, finally, in a way to which we *must* submit, “You are misunderstanding me (the Bible) on this doctrine/issue.” For that, a Magisterium is needed.
from C. Lake here comment 120 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-61132
Having been a happy “Reformed Baptist” for years, before I returned to the Catholic Church, I understand the view that Catholicism has unnecessarily complicated the “simple Gospel” preached by Christ and the first apostles. However, could it be that the “simple Gospel” which is preached in many Protestant congregations only seems to be simple, because it has become familiar over time, and because certain things in it have become assumed to be all but self-evident?
Consider this statement of Jesus in John 14:28: “You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.” (Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A28&version=RSV) I know a person who staunchly claims to believe in “early, true Christianity.” Based on this verse and many others similar to it in the Bible, he firmly rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. He sees the Trinity as a pagan add-on to Christianity, which was incorrectly accepted by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and which Protestants have, unfortunately, also wrongly accepted.
As a Catholic, does it bother me that the Pope makes statements which sometimes need to be expounded upon and/or clarified by successive statements from him and other members of the Magisterium? Sometimes, yes, I do become annoyed. I don’t claim that this reaction is right, on my part, but it is there at times.
As a Trinitarian Protestant, does it ever bother you that Jesus made such statements as “The Father is greater than I”? If the Trinity is an essential part of orthodox Christianity, such statements would seem to need clarification– and believe me, with the “non-Trinitarian” person mentioned above, I have tried and tried to clarify them with other Biblical passages and verses which seem to clearly teach the Trinity. The problem is, he can always take me back to other passages and verses, similar to John 14:28, which seem to clearly deny the Trinity.
There is a need here, it seems, for someone to step in and *authoritatively* clarify the issue– is the Trinity taught in the Bible or not? Is it part of orthodox Christianity (as I believe, and as I would assume you believe), or is it a “pagan/Catholic/Orthodox add-on,” as my friend believes? He and I can compare Biblical passages and verses for hours, days, weeks, months, years… but who can step into our discussion and make a finally authoritative declaration about what is and is not orthodox Christianity?
Of course, I know that Catholics and Protestants both hold that the Bible teaches the Trinity. However, in my experience, Catholics tend to be more willing to admit that a Magisterium was needed, historically, to “settle the issue” in the 4th-century Arian controversy. Most committed Protestants whom I have known simply say something like this: “If you compare Scripture with Scripture, the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity, and, as such, the Reformed confessions of faith affirm it, with no need for a Magisterium”– and they (aforementioned Protestants) are done with the issue.
Is it really that simple though? What about the people who seriously study the Bible and *don’t* see the Trinity there? Are they just being rebellious? Are they, by definition, unregenerate? If they hear a Protestant preacher exegeting “Trinitarian passages,” but they still sincerely think that the passages which appear to deny the Trinity are more clear, what are we to say?
To many Protestants, it may seem that the Catholic Church has unnecessarily complicated the “simple Gospel” of the Bible. Again, as one who was a serious Protestant myself, I understand that view. However, as a Catholic “revert,” I am now very thankful that there exists, in the Pope and Magisterium, a living, teaching voice, which can make clarifying and authoritative statements, when they are needed, on what the Bible teaches.
Sometimes, yes, the Pope even has to clarify his own statements, but he has the office and the ability to do so– and successive Popes can even clarify the statements which this Pope may not live long enough to be able to clarify, though I wish him many more years. The teaching authority of the Magisterium brings light and clarity, even to its own statements, because it is a *living, teaching voice* which can always clarify itself when needed. The Bible is living and active, of course, by but it, too, must be interpreted. However, being a book– even the inspired, inerrant written word of God!–, the Bible itself cannot step into *our own interpretation of it* and tell me or you, finally, in a way to which we *must* submit, “You are misunderstanding me (the Bible) on this doctrine/issue.” For that, a Magisterium is needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment