Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to [interpret] the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
[Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books"]. The priests (mother church) [are] necessary for interpretation according to [Rome] and the laity is not allowed to interpret on their own.
We must not be reading the same passage. The passage you gave states that it is in matters "of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine" that are "contrary to that sense which holy mother Church... [holds]."
The Council of Trent thereby gives us only ONE instance when a person cannot interpret Scripture on his or her own. The above passage does not say when one can interpret Scripture; it only says when one cannot. All other instances that do not fall within the cannot criteria are instances when one can interpret Scripture on his or her own. When is the one time, according to the cited passage, when one cannot interpret Scripture? When it deals with a matter of faith and morals AND when that interpretation goes against Church held doctrines.
So, one cannot say that they have interpreted Scripture accurately on his or her own when it goes against Church doctrine in matters of faith and morals. Here are some examples:
Can: Interpret that the world was created in 7 days.
Cannot: Interpret that the homosexual act is not a sin.
Can: Interpret that Jesus was speaking about his Body and Blood literally AND interpret that there are many MORE meanings behind it.
Cannot: Interpret that Jesus was only speaking symbolically.
So, one can interpret beyond what the Church has already interpreted, one can interpret that which has yet to be interpreted by the Church (we'll get to that in a sec.), and one can interpret differently from the Church when it does not relate to matters of faith and morals.
A second problem that arises with the Commenter's answer, after one realizes that the Council of Trent's statement is not a blanket 'Cannot Interpret', is that the Church has only defined (from what I can find) 8 Scripture verses (one of those 8 follows another of those 8. So one could say 7 Scripture passages). That's 8 verses out of 35,526 verses (Old Testament and New Testament). The rest of Scripture, then, can be interpreted by an individual without worry of going against the Council of Trent. Remember that even with those 8, one can interpret beyond what the Church has already interpreted.
Finally, the Commenter is obviously not aware of who the Holy Spirit has do the interpreting of Scripture within the Catholic Church. It's not the priests, contrary to what the Commenter states. Instead, it is the bishops! And the bishops don't just wake up one morning and interpret Scripture for the rest of us. They have to go through a Council to do that.
I hope that the post cleared up some misunderstandings that the Commenter had, as well as some that some of you might have.
This is an interesting post, and I wanted to thank you for it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not Catholic, but had recently been reading the cannons and decrees from the Council of Trent and the "Decree concerning..sacred books" stood out as more confusing and abused than most.
Protestants do cite this as evidence of the Church's magesterial role. However, when you read this infamous sentance in the context of its surrounding paragraphs, the statement hardly seems so clearly a 'gotcha'. In fact, it seems more like a cautioning to over-enthusiastic and even charlatan translators/printers against translating the Bible from the Vulgate without guidance, rather than an edict against Sola Scriptura and the ability of 'regulars' or individuals to interpret scripture on their own. Pretty boring when read as a glorified copyright claim. ;D
That said, while I appreciated your viewpoint, I wasn't that taken with your chain of thought limiting the scope down to seven or eight verses. It seems you admit the substance of the protestant critique but constrain it to such a very narrow scope as to be of negligable impact. I think I understand your supporting point about citations where the Church as specifically called out verses of the Bible, and forbidding individuals from interpetting these few verses in ways that contradict the existing inpretation.
However I don't think you can exclude the doctrinal positions that are linked back to scripture and tradition. For instance, in Chapter 1 of the 21st session of the CoT, scripture is cited as justification for the propriety of of the Eucharist in light of transubstantiation. So I think it follows then that if one is to read the 4th session verbiage as forbidding one from interpretting scripture in a way that contradicts established Church interpretation, it's a very wide body of interpretation rather than a narrow one. If one uses scripture to support a doctrinal position, one has necessarily interpreted scripture, no?
I freely acknowledge I'm no authority on this stuff, but thought I'd share my thinking and would be interested in your take. Thanks again!