Don't misunderstand Raymond Brown Big Brother. He's not saying what I believe highrigger is implying. He is not suggesting that Catholics are encouraged to go out and make their own brand of Truth with the Bible as the Protetsants do. He is stating that the Church encourages individual and group Bible studies to grow in understanding.
This is not the same as setting yourself up as the authoritative interpreter of the Bible equal or higher than the College of the Magisterium as I think highrigger may be trying to present. Bible study by its nature does mean interpreting Sacred Scripture (as it does with reading anything). However the Churh teaches that study and growing in understanding within the scholarship and fidleity of the Church is encouraged.
In my Bible there is a citation that says an indulgence is awarded for every thirty minutes spent in Bible study.
Good try but that is not what he says. Here it is with some more to help you get it.
He plainly says you should "discover with all scholarly means available to them what individual passages meant when they were written.."
"The Roman Catholic church has rarely, if ever, defined what a text meant to the person who wrote it.
The church encourages interpreters of Scripture to discover with all the sholarly means available to them
what individual passages meant when they were written and encourages all its members to read the Bible
for spiritual nourishment. Church interpretation for Catholics deals primarily, not with what the biblical
text meant when it was written, but with what it means for the life of the Christian community in
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers To The Bible. page 120 Imprimatur
"In terms of what we might call the literal sense of Scripture, ie, what a verse meant when it was first
written, it is doubtful that the Roman Catholic Church has ever defined the meaning of any passage. The
church has defined that some ot its doctrines are related to scriptural passages, but not necessarily that
those doctrines were in the minds of the poeple who wrote the passages. Thus, a conflict between private
interpretation and church doctrine based on scripture is really not relevant to the type of commentary help
That I have been describing.
I remember with sad amusement the observation made by a reviewer in a popular evaluation of a long
commentary I had done. He stated he was grateful that he did not have to bother with my opinions or
those of others since he preached only what the Catholic Church taught about this particular book.
Since the church had never interpreted the literal meaning of any passage in that book, I wondered
exactly what he found to preach. What he really meant, I am sure, is that he preached the opinions
about the book that he had been taught when he was in the seminary, and he did not want to bother
seeing whether those opinions still represented where most scholars stood today."
Raymond Brown, Q15 - 101 Questions and Answers to the Bible. Page 25. Imprimatur
He clearly points out here that scholars are determining what is taught about scriptural intent of the apostles.
Why do you deny his plain words? You may disagree but you should not contort his words to mean something that plainly is not intended.
It is a disappointment you want to turn his words upside down. If you dont agree why not just say so?
(or tell me he is a dissident like most Catholics like to do)