Roman Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible and history correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible.
It doesn't take all that long to find material for these entries. Since Rome doesn't do all that much in actually infallibly interpreting Bible verses, the material is plentiful. The irony of course is that Rome's apologists actually chastise non-Romanists for interpreting the Bible.
Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised…” [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.60, first column (as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 223].
The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59, second column ((as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 224].
...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack [PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].
But very few indeed are the Scripture texts of which the Church authorities have defined the meaning, and even there, their intervention has generally been to say what Scripture does not mean, otherwise leaving open what it does [Maurice Bévenot, S.J. See his chapter 'Scripture and Tradition in Catholic Theology' in F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, eds., Holy Book and Holy Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 181. He repeats himself on p. 183.]
To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible. [Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist, 1981), p. 40.]
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #1: Romans 5:12
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #2: Genesis 22
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #3: Romans 8:35-39
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #4: Luke 10:16
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #5: 1 John 5:16-17
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #6: Luke 16:19-31
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #7: 1 Peter 3:18-20
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #8: Romans 3:28
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #9: Revelation 12:1-2
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #10: Romans 3:28 (TurretinFan)
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #11: James 5:16
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #12: John 6:53
The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #13: Galatians 2:11-16
The Unofficial Roman Catholic Apologist Guide to Church History #1: The Apocrypha
Posts
