A Summary of 2 Peter

Answering Protestants ^ | 25 September 2013 | Matthew Olson

[driftdiver]

“Exact post where I say I questioned the source of the Bible?”

Post #10.

I mentioned building because that’s all any church is without the people.

You keep charging me with not understanding. Perhaps you could try some facts instead of making judgements.

[verga]

Each time a verse is referenced in a section of the Catechism, it provides the Churches interpretation of that passage.

Nice try but I said Definitive.

[dartuser]

Definitive? You teach the catechism to new Catholics ... and you are going to try to defend the position that it doesn't contain official church interpretation of scripture?

If its not in the catechism ... where would you go to get the official RCC interpretation of a passage?

Are you really going to play semantic games and try to argue ... "nowhere" ?

[dartuser]

So where would I go to get the definitive interpretation of say John 6:54?

54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

[driftdiver]

Verga I’d also be interested in your answer here. If the catechism isn’t considered definitive then what would be?

Are you saying new Catholics all over the world are being taught a false doctrine?

[verga]

Are you really going to play semantic games and try to argue ... "nowhere" ?

Just so I am clear is your position that the Catholic Church has definitively interpreted EVERY SINGLE verse in the Bible?

[verga]

See post #26

[driftdiver]

What’s the definition of is?

[dartuser]

Not being Catholic ... if you tell me the RCC hasn't interpreted EVERY verse then that is good enough for me ... I believe you.

Having said that ... where is the databank of official verses they HAVE interpreted?

And personally, if you are going to claim authority over the interpretation of scripture ... why WOULDN'T that include all of it.

[driftdiver]

So you’re saying the Catholic Church does not have an opinion on every single verse in the Bible?

What does “definitively interpreted” mean? If I asked a Priest what John 3:16 means would he have to check his magic book to see if that verse is one the Catholic Church has interpreted?

Or would he be able to tell you the Church’s stance on the verse? I bet this is the answer.

[verga]

Not being Catholic ... if you tell me the RCC hasn't interpreted EVERY verse then that is good enough for me ... I believe you.

Having said that ... where is the databank of official verses they HAVE interpreted?

And personally, if you are going to claim authority over the interpretation of scripture ... why WOULDN'T that include all of it.

The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's.

The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning. And different people can take different things from the Bible on a given day. I know myself that there have been days when I will read a verse and see something a week later I might take something else from it. This site has a list of the verses that have been definitively interpreted: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-verses-defined-by-catholic-church.html

[Rashputin]

Actually the thirty volume commentary of Cornelius a'Lapide comments on each and every verse in the Bible and has the Impimatur of the Church.

So there is in effect an authoritative interpretation of each verse in the Bible.

Now, that doesn't include the single verse taken out of context as if it's a stand alone doctrine in and of itself approach that I've seen and heard from non-Catholic authors and speakers who ignore context whenever it suits their agenda, but it is complete.

So thedre is indeed an authoritative interpretation of each verse, in context, as the verse relates to the context it's in as well as to other Scripture when there is an important connection to other Scripture as well as to the immediate context.

[Alex Murphy]

The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's. The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning.

Cherry, anyone?

[verga]

Cherry, anyone?

Shhhhh the adults are having a converstation.

[verga]

They are authoritative, but are not definitive. I chose my words very carefully.

[Alex Murphy]

...the thirty volume commentary of Cornelius a'Lapide comments on each and every verse in the Bible and has the Impimatur of the Church. So there is in effect an authoritative interpretation of each verse in the Bible....So thedre is indeed an authoritative interpretation of each verse, in context, as the verse relates to the context it's in as well as to other Scripture when there is an important connection to other Scripture as well as to the immediate context.

Interesting. In my thirteen+ years on FR, this is the first time that I've ever heard of this.

[dartuser]

So Cornelius a'Lapide writes a massive volume ... including his commentary on most of scripture ... which by default must certainly contain his own interpretation of scripture ... but when I comment on why such-and-such a verse is being misused under the normal rules of the grammatical historical approach ... I am using my own private interpretation of scripture?

What made his interpretation ... not private?

[dartuser]

The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's. A dozen? And you consider that sufficient?

The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning. And different people can take different things from the Bible on a given day.

Multiple applications ... fine. Multiple interpretations? I don't think so ... unless you believe each verse has multiple interpretations.

[driftdiver]

This definition of IS is?

[Rashputin]

"What made his interpretation ... not private?"

The Pope asked him to do it and assigned people to ensure known references, connections, and usage were taken to account.

Chapters were reviewed as they were completed looking for problems, and making sure past Hebrew past usage in earlier approved writings were taken into account in the Latin commentary. a'Lapide was the Hebrew scholar of his day and prior Jewish interpretation was very important to him.

Everything was reviewed and approved by proper Church authorities which in and of itself makes sure it's not "his private interpretation".