Interpreting the Word of God Catechism 100

balshan

Well-known member
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

This bold claim is found in the catechism, but, it raises so many questions. Who gave them the authority? I they interpreting the Word of God authentically then why do they have false doctrines? Also, who is the him they communicate with? Examples of this communion, where it happens, when it happens etc? These are some of the questions it raises.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

This bold claim is found in the catechism, but, it raises so many questions. Who gave them the authority? I they interpreting the Word of God authentically then why do they have false doctrines? Also, who is the him they communicate with? Examples of this communion, where it happens, when it happens etc? These are some of the questions it raises.
As far as I see it, an authentic (that is to say, consistently correct and not in error) interpretation of the scriptures belongs to either:
(a) one individual
(b) several individuals
(c) one group
(d) several groups
(e) several/one individual and one/several groups.

When it comes to (a), I think we'd all reject it as there is no single person that claims to interpret scripture authentically outside of others doing so as well. (B) is also problematic since what would mark out these "several individuals" as different from those "several individuals". It can't be on matters of interpretation, as that's the point in question. It could be behaviour, I suppose, but there doesn't seem to be a necessary causal link between right knowledge and right behaviour. C-E are the best bet but then, as you note, where does the group's/groups' authority come from.

I think that's the most important question and why it is was so important in the early Church. Apostolic authority was a key aspect of legitimacy for a church and continue to be in many Churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, Anglican).
 

balshan

Well-known member
As far as I see it, an authentic (that is to say, consistently correct and not in error) interpretation of the scriptures belongs to either:
(a) one individual
(b) several individuals
(c) one group
(d) several groups
(e) several/one individual and one/several groups.

When it comes to (a), I think we'd all reject it as there is no single person that claims to interpret scripture authentically outside of others doing so as well. (B) is also problematic since what would mark out these "several individuals" as different from those "several individuals". It can't be on matters of interpretation, as that's the point in question. It could be behaviour, I suppose, but there doesn't seem to be a necessary causal link between right knowledge and right behaviour. C-E are the best bet but then, as you note, where does the group's/groups' authority come from.

I think that's the most important question and why it is was so important in the early Church. Apostolic authority was a key aspect of legitimacy for a church and continue to be in many Churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, Anglican).
So no answers.
 

mica

Well-known member
As far as I see it, an authentic (that is to say, consistently correct and not in error) interpretation of the scriptures belongs to either:
(a) one individual
(b) several individuals
(c) one group
(d) several groups
(e) several/one individual and one/several groups.

When it comes to (a), I think we'd all reject it as there is no single person that claims to interpret scripture authentically outside of others doing so as well. (B) is also problematic since what would mark out these "several individuals" as different from those "several individuals". It can't be on matters of interpretation, as that's the point in question. It could be behaviour, I suppose, but there doesn't seem to be a necessary causal link between right knowledge and right behaviour. C-E are the best bet but then, as you note, where does the group's/groups' authority come from.

I think that's the most important question and why it is was so important in the early Church. Apostolic authority was a key aspect of legitimacy for a church and continue to be in many Churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, Anglican).
the RCC doesn't have apostolic authority. it doesn't teach what the apostles taught. It doesn't believe what the apostles taught. It believes and teaches what IT has made up.

It is just one of many man made religions.
 

balshan

Well-known member
the RCC doesn't have apostolic authority. it doesn't teach what the apostles taught. It doesn't believe what the apostles taught. It believes and teaches what IT has made up.

It is just one of many man made religions.
True
 

ding

Member
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

This bold claim is found in the catechism, but, it raises so many questions. Who gave them the authority?
Jesus gave them the authority.

I they interpreting the Word of God authentically then why do they have false doctrines?
There are no false doctrines.
 

ding

Member
the RCC doesn't have apostolic authority. it doesn't teach what the apostles taught. It doesn't believe what the apostles taught. It believes and teaches what IT has made up.

It is just one of many man made religions.
So who has the authority for interpreting scripture been given to?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
So who has the authority for interpreting scripture been given to?
interpreting Scriptures for who?

next: who has the responsibility for interpreting scripture been given to?
Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
 

ding

Member
interpreting Scriptures for who?

next: who has the responsibility for interpreting scripture been given to?
Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
Let's us an example. Jesus said, "...this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..." Christians disagree on the meaning of these words and have different interpretations of the passage. As a Christian how do I know who is correct?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Let's us an example. Jesus said, "...this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..." Christians disagree on the meaning of these words and have different interpretations of the passage. As a Christian how do I know who is correct?
there were questions in my post:

interpreting Scriptures for who?
next: who has the responsibility for interpreting scripture been given to?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Let's us an example. Jesus said, "...this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..." Christians disagree on the meaning of these words and have different interpretations of the passage. As a Christian how do I know who is correct?
Are you aware of differences between...?
correctly interpreted
authoritatively interpreted
infallibly interpreted

You can be authoritative: and still be wrong
you can be correct: but not be infallible
you can be correct: and not be authoritative

was
"...this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..."
correctly interpreted, or authoritatively interpreted, or infallibly interpreted?

do you Ding, have any responsibility in interpreting Scripture?
 

ding

Member
Are you aware of differences between...?
correctly interpreted
authoritatively interpreted
infallibly interpreted

You can be authoritative: and still be wrong
you can be correct: but not be infallible
you can be correct: and not be authoritative

was
"...this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..."
correctly interpreted, or authoritatively interpreted, or infallibly interpreted?

do you Ding, have any responsibility in interpreting Scripture?
I just want to know what to believe. Is it his body and blood or is it not?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
I just want to know what to believe. Is it his body and blood or is it not?
irrelevant to the topic of this thread:

Two more questions you didn't answer:
was
"...this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..."
correctly interpreted, or authoritatively interpreted, or infallibly interpreted?

do you Ding, have any responsibility in interpreting Scripture?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
All of the above.



Yes.
obviously the Catholic Church has not infallibly interpreted EVERY verse

Show us where that verse is in the Catholic list of infallibly interpreted verses

thank you

if you can't find the list: we can say it may be authoritatively interpreted (still don't know for who), however it may or may not be correct
 
Last edited:

Nondenom40

Active member
As far as I see it, an authentic (that is to say, consistently correct and not in error) interpretation of the scriptures belongs to either:
(a) one individual
(b) several individuals
(c) one group
(d) several groups
(e) several/one individual and one/several groups.

When it comes to (a), I think we'd all reject it as there is no single person that claims to interpret scripture authentically outside of others doing so as well. (B) is also problematic since what would mark out these "several individuals" as different from those "several individuals". It can't be on matters of interpretation, as that's the point in question. It could be behaviour, I suppose, but there doesn't seem to be a necessary causal link between right knowledge and right behaviour. C-E are the best bet but then, as you note, where does the group's/groups' authority come from.

I think that's the most important question and why it is was so important in the early Church. Apostolic authority was a key aspect of legitimacy for a church and continue to be in many Churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, Anglican).
You forgot F

F: Those whose teaching is consistent with the apostles i.e scripture.

That would leave your church out. As there are zero roman catholic teachings in the bible. And i always have to clarify this. No distinctly rc teachings. Otherwise someone will throw in the virgin birth or the trinity. Those are biblical, not roman.
 
Top