Lost in Translation

Catholics read the Bible differently from other Christians. Protestants often claim that the plain meaning of scripture is clear to the Christian who reads the Bible aided by the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that the Bible must be read in conjunction with Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Church (the Magesterium). The teachings of the Magesterium are contained primarily in the Catechism, which sets down the doctrines and dogmas of the Church. These doctrines and dogmas are, in effect, the Church's interpretation of Scripture set out by the Pope and Bishops. Magesterial teaching, Sacred Tradition and Scripture are part of one seamless whole: the gift of Apostolic faith inherited from the first Apostles.

It seems pretty obvious that the Bible is not clear in its meaning on its face. If it were, there would not be in excess of 30,000 Protestant denominations, all teaching something slightly different from each other and sometimes very different from Catholic teaching. It's hard to find agreement even on essentials.

Some Protestants believe that acceptance of Christ as Savior is all that is essential for salvation and that Baptism is merely a recognition of that statement of faith. Others teach that Baptism is itself regenerative, not merely symbolic. Some baptize infants, others do not. Most--but not all-- hold that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, and does not in itself convey grace to the recipient. Some--not all-- hold that salvation, once gained cannot be lost. And in the Episcopal denomination, one branch holds that the Eucharist is symbolic (a position taken by the 39 Articles of Faith) while another contends that Christ is truly present in a way that is much like the Catholic position. And they all base their positions on Scripture. It raises the question of how the Holy Spirit could lead different groups to such different--and totally incompatible--conclusions.

It is not difficult to find passages in Scripture that are susceptible to different interpretations. Consider the Last Supper, where Christ tells the Apostles "This is my body...this is my blood." Is that to be taken literally? Most Protestants say no, arguing that Christ also called Himself a door when He is a man, clearly using a metaphor. How then, does the Catholic Church come to the conclusion that Christ is truly present, body and blood, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist? More on that later--but the answer is, at least in part, Apostolic Tradition. It's clear from Church history and from reading early Church fathers that this was a belief universally accepted by the Apostles and in the early Church. For the record, two early Reformers, Luther and Zwingli, squared off on this topic--Luther believed in in the Real Presence and Zwingli did not, both men shoring up their arguments from Scripture.

Take a look at Mark 9:40,where Jesus says that whoever is not against Him is for Him. Then look at Matthew 12:30, where He states that whoever is not for Him is against Him. The two passages can be reconciled, but not on their face. An appeal to something outside Scripture is required. There are many examples of this kind of apparent contradiction, especially in verses that refer to the things necessary for salvation. To make things even more complicated on that front, depending on what verse you read, one is saved, is being saved or will be saved---raising some real issues of interpretation on the subject of what salvation itself exactly means. If this is confusing, remember that Jesus very often had to instruct His disciples in the meaning of Old Testament Scripture, with which they were very familiar, because the meaning (then and now) is not obvious.

Remember that Christians were first described as followers of The Way (Acts 22:4), and that Paul exhorts his readers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." (2Thess 2:15) Remember, too that John said that Jesus taught a great deal that was not written down--but which clearly lived in the memory of His followers. People for many, many years learned their Christian faith not from a book, but from other Christians who were reliable teachers. And the Catholic Church preserved this oral teaching in its Sacred Tradition, and continued it in the Magesterial teaching. It taught Scripture to the faithful through its extensive use in the liturgy, at a time when most people could not read and books were too expensive for any but the most extravagantly wealthy to own.

It was more than 300 years before the Church affirmed the contents of a canon of the New Testament (and this itself was a result of Sacred Tradition operating within the Teaching Authority of the Church). Christians followed the ways taught them by their bishops, who learned them from their bishops, who learned them from the Apostles. The Epistles and Gospels were written in this context--not as an exhaustive constitution and bylaws for the Church, but as a reflection of a Way that was already well established in the Church. And we still rely on this, for our priests and Bishops can trace their ordination all the way back to St. Peter (Apostolic Succession).

So--how do Catholics read the Bible? Ideally, often and thoroughly. But Catholics have the assistance of the Church in understanding what the Bible teaches about the Christian faith. Christ gave the Church the task of teaching the Faith to the faithful, and promised the Holy Spirit to guide and direct the Church as she does so. And so Catholics read the Bible in concert with what Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium teach. One cannot contradict another, but any one without the other two is incomplete. Catholics have the advantage of authoritative teaching and interpretation of Scripture to guide them even as they are free to dig deeply into the Written Word and find they ways in which it applies to their own lives.