J
Javl
Guest
I don’t know where you get that translation from. Jesus spoke literaly, not symbolicly. That’s the trouble with “sola scriptura”, everyone has their own interpretation and translation.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
- Status
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
T
Todd520
Guest
Angelican Gal, I think you misread the question
It asked ‘what do non-catholics think of this…’
It did not ask ’ what do the Angelicans think Mormons and Protestants really believe about this …’
It asked ‘what do non-catholics think of this…’
It did not ask ’ what do the Angelicans think Mormons and Protestants really believe about this …’
T
Todd520
Guest
well, getting back to your original arugment
- It’s impossible for the Holy Spirit to have ‘boffed it’ and caused such mass confusion.
- It’s immensley more probable your interpretation of Rock is wrong.
I don’t know where you get that translation from. Jesus spoke literaly, not symbolicly. That’s the trouble with “sola scriptura”, everyone has their own interpretation and translation.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
T
Tuno
Guest
Not only do we dare, we insist! E.g., in Fresno California, two men in the All Nations Barber Shop shot each other dead claiming that their own interpretation of a passage from the Bible was the only possible true interpretation. (San Jose News, May 5, 1969.) Each, of course, was guided by the Holy Spirit. And the propensity to schism and denominations is only proof that we are more invested in feeling right than in critical thinking or inquiry. And let’s not forget that statistically more that half of nominal Catholics themselves either don’t practice or are at odds with a tenet or dogma of the Church.
But I have to ask why you restricted your search, as sincere as it seems, to within Christianity, or the Abrahamic faiths, when so much more is available? I’m particularly speaking about those traditions that are more esoteric and, imho, penetrate what I consider to be the very veiled teaching of the Church. Even Mark 4:33,34 supports this. What I mean, for instance, is that we know that the parables have at least three levels of meaning, and that this method of interpretation can be applied to all of the Bible. Why did you settle then on a main line, albeit small, tradition that has dubious origins and applications?
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Correction to your sentence: Each, of course, was CLAIMED TO BE guided by the Holy Spirit.
Your theology of the Holy Spirit is terrible. But, so is mine so I will stop right there.
I can see you are agnostic despite what your “religion” title may say. Your little story has no relevance to the OP. Dudes killing each other over thinking they are right has not an inkling of relevance to the truth. Anybody can agree with that. Your recurring statements throughout your posts about nominal Catholics not practicing has no relevance either. Secular society invokes an almost hedonistic ideology on everybody, including Catholics. Most people (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) submit because it is “the thing everybody does.” So to speak… People (Catholics and non-Catholics alike again) are not impervious to temptation. It is quite a mistake to assume that a person with a religious belief WILL act accordingly to their religion. I have known people of many religions are who are not practicing. I have known atheists who do not believe because they do not care. Does that mean atheism is wrong? Not at all. Neither does non-practicing Catholics, or any other religion for that matter, say that respective religion is wrong. It is also a mistake to assume that Christians are supposed to be better people when a tenet of Christianity specifically says that we are all fallen, from the pope to the lowest Christian, from the rich to the poor, from the president to the beggar. Nobody has to believe in a religion to believe that. We see it everywhere. Do not get me wrong though. That statement is probably true about non-practicing Catholics. It is terribly unfortunate. That has no relevance to whether or not it is true though. That just means that secular society can be overwhelming and teaches that pleasure, entertainment, etc… and the materials are the only way to attain happiness. Albert Camus was not too far off with what society would do. It also instills an almost nihilistic ideology also. When people say, “Get the most out of life” or “You only live once”, they are almost giving a subliminal message that adds, “because there is no ultimate meaning. You will not exist anymore.” I am not saying they are right, but it can be intellectually overwhelming for people who do not make the search for themselves.
About your statement to the OP, it only mentioned the Abrahamic faiths because the Apostles were clearly of the Abrahamic faiths. Not Buddhists, Hindu, Atheists, etc… That was the whole point of the OP; that is to ask which part of Christianity were the first Christians. I would say Catholic with good reason by the way if the OP poster is reading.
Contrary to what you may think, Mark 4:33,34 actually points toward Catholicism. I will let you ponder that one. Theological arguments do not work too well with people who are skeptics. I am certainly not trained in theology but the agnostic (and the atheist) is certainly the last person who should be using the Bible to define theology. Leave that for the theists. Non-theists will get it wrong. I have not seen one right in using their own interpretation because it is influenced by a godless ideology. In your defense though, you did say IMHO (I had to look it up). Also, know that I do not think you are dumb, stupid or what not, even if it may seem so.
Everybody is so gunhoe on proving themselves right that nobody searches for what IS right anymore… Yes… Misnomer… I know. I do not know the exact statistics.That was probably your only point that I am in agreement with, more or less; I would add every other religion and non-religion and a few other points but it was close to my opinion on that. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Sorry if it seems I am attacking you. I am merely defending is all. I apologize.
Gregg
B
brakelite
Guest
There is an aspect to all of this that everyone is overlooking. While Catholics claim the church as their final authority in scriptural interpretation, and protestants thus far on this thread claim the Holy Spirit as their final authority, I would suggest that you are both wrong.
While I agree that the Holy Spirit is sent to all who need His guidance and counsel, it must be remembered that whatever understanding you claim the Holy Spirit has given you, it will never, never contradict other passages in the Bible.
Which means that it is really the Bible itself that is the final authority on all things spiritual. Not me, not the church, no ecclesiastical body or council nor any of their representatives, but the Bible alone. That is the true meaning of sola scriptura.
So how do you find the truth? By taking every text or passage that deals with a particular subject, and comparing scripture with scripture, then coming to a satisfactory conclusion without doing damage to any of the texts nor contradicting any.
And contrary to the opinions of so many it seems who claim to be Christian and most who don’t, this is entirely possible.
**Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
**
**Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
**
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
It is so dangerous to leave your eternal destiny in the hands of mortal man. We each will be held accountable before God, and stand alone before Him in judgement. Our pastors, priests, counsellors etc will not be there beside us defending our decisions on doctrine. We are each responsible, and must each make our own choices.
While I agree that the Holy Spirit is sent to all who need His guidance and counsel, it must be remembered that whatever understanding you claim the Holy Spirit has given you, it will never, never contradict other passages in the Bible.
Which means that it is really the Bible itself that is the final authority on all things spiritual. Not me, not the church, no ecclesiastical body or council nor any of their representatives, but the Bible alone. That is the true meaning of sola scriptura.
So how do you find the truth? By taking every text or passage that deals with a particular subject, and comparing scripture with scripture, then coming to a satisfactory conclusion without doing damage to any of the texts nor contradicting any.
And contrary to the opinions of so many it seems who claim to be Christian and most who don’t, this is entirely possible.
**Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
**
**Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
**
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
It is so dangerous to leave your eternal destiny in the hands of mortal man. We each will be held accountable before God, and stand alone before Him in judgement. Our pastors, priests, counsellors etc will not be there beside us defending our decisions on doctrine. We are each responsible, and must each make our own choices.
M
mark_a
Guest
I sure didn’t mean to give that impression.
F
freerf
Guest
I second that. This is a very protestant way of thinking about it. Although it dodges the OP question of the “true interpretation”, or infallibility. You’ll probably not find many here who claim to be Christian that disagree with this.
Now, you’ll probably find this offensive, but the idea we can all just “com[e] to a satisfactory conclusion without doing damage to any of the texts nor contradicting any” is nieve. It hasn’t happened in 2000 years. The holy spirit must be involved to inform us which is the most “satisfactory” for in some cases there is room for interpretation. For example, post vs. pre tribulation theory, the “this is my blood” dilemma, the roll of Mary, etc., etc. There is much room for interpretation here. if one cannot see that, i don’t think one is being honest with themselves. And thus, the need for the holy spirit, and (as the Catholics would say) Tradition with a capital “T”.
J
joe370
Guest
Protestants defer to the teaching authority of their church Pastors too, don’t they? I did as a former protestant.
So my catholic understanding of the Eucharist does not contradict other passages in the bible, and my sisters protestant (not all protestants) - understanding of the Eucharist does not contradict other passages in the bible??? So were both right even though we have polar opposite interpretations?
Then clearly the bible as the Christians final authority, is leading people in different directions, doctrinally speaking. If the word of God is not to blame for this division, and it isn’t for the simple fact that it is the word of God , then who is to blame?
I did just that and my sister did just that, and we come to different conclusions. I ask with humility:
How can I know who is right and who is wrong?
But when we leave our destiny in the hands of the word of God via the interpretation of each and every mortal man, division ensues. When I interpret scripture and my sister interprets scripture differently, are we not our own authority regarding the word of God, sharing with others what we believe to be the authoritative truth? How is that any different then any other church, regardless of denomination?
But our decisions vis-a-vis doctrine are clearly impacted by the teachings of our Pastors - right? Which begs the question: why are we even listening to our Pastors considering the fact that you said:
I am trying to follow your reasoning but it seems so contradictory. Our final authority is the bible alone via our own unique interpretation of our bible, as we are moved by the HS, and no one, not me, or you or any one church, or ecclesiastical body or council has any authority regarding all things spiritual, yet we all, regardless of denomination defer to the teachings of others regarding all things spiritual. Very confusing…
J
joe370
Guest
;7173302]I second that. This is a very protestant way of thinking about it. Although it dodges the OP question of the “true interpretation”, or infallibility. You’ll probably not find many here who claim to be Christian that disagree with this.
What is your answer to the OP which is my post.
Nothing offensive about that statement. If the word of God was so cut and dried, doctrinally speaking, everyone would share the same truths.
I agree to a degree. There can be only one correct interpretation regarding, this is my blood vs this is a symbol of my blood - correct? Protestants tell Catholics that they are wrong and Catholics tell Protestants that they are wrong. When I ask my Protestant friends: Who was entrusted with the authority to settle this matter once and for all, I am told: the bibl is the Christians final authority as each and every Christian is moved by the holy spirit, which has moved Protestants in one direction (this is a symbol of my blood…) - and Catholics in the opposite direction (this is my blood).
It seems, if the Protestant perspective is correct, that Jesus did not mean what He said when He said that He would be with His church forever, and then said to His created fledgling church leaders, in His stead:
The Catholic perspective is just as questionable if the CC is not the church founded by Jesus Christ, forever guided by the HS, into all truth, but, from a historical perspective, the CC is the church of Matthew 16, John 14 and 16, from what I can gather.
J
Javl
Guest
These two men, then, were more interested in their political aspects of interpretation than in the true interpretation of the passage. If they truly believed as Christians, they would not have done so, or out of Christian charity, one would have defered to the other. I do not believe, nor can I accept that the Holy Spirit would be responsible for two such divergent interpretations.
I did not limit my search to Judaism and Christianity. I did investigate Shinto, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. None of these contained the truths I was looking for. All lacked one thing or another.
As far as settling “on a main line, albeit small, tradition that has dubious origins”, It is the only one that truly makes sense. I find its logic is just about beyond reproach, of which it can not be said of the others. Judaism was/is the first to recognize a Supreme Being that does not have human origins, as these other religions do. And this Supreme Being has been manifested down through the ages, with Jesus as definite proof. And then, Christianity is the fullfillment of Judaism. These other religions cannot make equal or similar claims.
Also the traditions that you mention are strictly man made and are of no consequence. And the so called “veiled teaching” of the Church is so only in your eyes for neither I nor many others find it so. Nothing is hidden, nor restricted, nor banned.
I may be wrong, but I do detect an undercurrent of Gnosis in your posts.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
F
freerf
Guest
My answer was posted priviously. . .
Regarding the blood vs symbol. I don’t see why there can only be one correct interpretation. Every point any Catholic has put forth I can respond to satisfactorily (at least to myself). For example, you state “Jesus did not mean what He said when He said that He would be with His church forever” to which I reply His church, His Catholic (universal) Church is not exclusive to any house or any one Christian Religion, but is comprised of true believers, whom He and He alone can identify truly. And He indeed is with them forever.
whereas, you as a Catholic have to believe He was there during the worst of CC history, during the depravity, etc., and still giving the CC authority regardless. It begs the question, was He there during Judas Iscariot’s fall? I think not. I think Judas was ultimately alone, except for perhaps Satan. And you have to wonder, did Christ turn His back on Catholic believer’s during the leadership’s depravity? I don’t think so. But I think it likely He turned His back on the leaders themselves.
J
joe370
Guest
;7173797]My answer was posted priviously. . .
Regarding the blood vs symbol. I don’t see why there can only be one correct interpretation.
So the correct interpretation and application is irrelevant to you. I understand.
I never questioned whether or not God is with each and every respective church. So, Jesus is guiding the universal church (which is comprised of all believers regardless of denomination) - into all truth, as per John 16:13?
Well, the bible clearly says that the holy spirit would not come until Jesus was glorified, and what happened to Judas occurred prior to that event. Regarding corruption of certain folks in the CC, Jesus predicted that this would happen.
Not at all, if the CC is the church that Jesus founded. At the same time that certain leaders were acting against Gods will, (this has been happening in every century, in His church) - other members and leaders of His church were doing incredibly kind, altruistic, charitable and sacrificial things as well. Did God turn His back on them too, or do you think that he should have? Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Jesus gave to His church the HS to preserve truth through every generation, and He predicted that there would be wolves masquerading in sheep’s clothing, in His church. How is God suppose to make someone in His established church do His will without affecting their free will? He can’t, or should I say, he chooses not to, and that is why there will always be bad and good people in His church. The true miracle is the fact that God could sustain truth for 2000 years in His church, and will continue to do so, in spite of certain recalcitrant leaders, and their free will to undermine God’s will. Don’t you think? 
F
freerf
Guest
Thanks for the response.So the correct interpretation and application is irrelevant to you. I understand.
I never questioned whether or not God is with each and every respective church. So, Jesus is guiding the universal church (which is comprised of all believers regardless of denomination) - into all truth, as per John 16:13?
Well, the bible clearly says that the holy spirit would not come until Jesus was glorified, and what happened to Judas occurred prior to that event. Regarding corruption of certain folks in the CC, Jesus predicted that this would happen.
Not at all, if the CC is the church that Jesus founded. At the same time that certain leaders were acting against Gods will, (this has been happening in every century, in His church) - other members and leaders of His church were doing incredibly kind, altruistic, charitable and sacrificial things as well. Did God turn His back on them too, or do you think that he should have? Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
T
Tuno
Guest
Yes, in the spirit of General Semantics, that would be a more accurate statement.
Sorry to hear about yours, but can you say what mine is?
Not at all. I know god IS.
Hmmm… I thought that the “guidance” of the Holy Spirit was pertinent to the alleged infallibility of the Pope speaking ex cathedra.
No; I agree. It is simply an instance of people believing, as you do, even if by extension of identifying with our Church, that the Holy Spirit guides them
So the point of practicing is…? Observation seems to indicate that “goodness” is a dimension of behavior only accidentally associated with religion.
Cool. I know atheist who do not believe because they think. Yet in my book they are equal to religionists and faithers.
OK; not sure what the “it” in the last sentence refers to.
Maybe so. On the other hand, not all secular society teaches those ideas. But I can see how you would pick those out to support your point.
That is a good point. I guess I just can’t help seeing such questions in a much larger context and hope to provoke more critical thinking.
Of course it can. As a former Catholic I can completely see that. I’m just saying that since the parables and the Bible have levels of meaning relevant to one’s perception and understanding, it can mean something else, as well. That is up to you.
Wrong, or do they simply understand it from a different standpoint? Didn’t you say above “Does that mean atheism is wrong? Not at all.”? I gather from that then that a different viewpoint is not according to you per se wrong. No?
Certainly an atheists interpretation might be different from yours or mine, and I’ve not seen many I agree with regarding God being, because theists and atheists are generally plowing the wrong field in this regard. But there are some commentaries about Biblical matters made by atheists that are congruent with theistic scholarship in other regards. And I have no qualms about appearing to be dumb, stupid, or anything else. If someone doesn’t follow what I’m saying, how could I appear otherwise to them?
(continued)
T
Tuno
Guest
(continued, to GA)
Blessings and Best.
Yes, it is inbred as a survival tool to perceive oneself as right. But as we mature, we do have the opportunity for recapitulating and reevaluating our assumptions about our lives and ourselves. It may not be easy, and it may even require study and help, and it may involve shock, pain or discomfort, but it can be done. That is why it has been said from time immemorial “Know Thyself.” The method of self inquiry is a time tested way of “peeling the onion” of awareness. We all go through the stages as far as we can. But few, like St Thomas Aquinas and some others, really transcend the shenanigans of their mind. But there is hope for everyone, and great reward in the effort.
Blessings and Best.
P
PLeeD
Guest
Right. The Holy Spirit leads us to understand the word. Not sure if I left that up to question - this is exactly what I meant.
For the most part, of course. But in no way do I consider him to be infallible. If he ever claimed to be infallible (which he doesn’t, BTW) then I would dismiss anything else he has to say.
The bottom line is that “infallibility” is not a claim that protestant denominations tend to make. I’d consider any protestant denomination that claims to have an infallible leader to be a cult.
So in that sense, IMO there is no answer to the OP’s question. Any group outside the CC that claims to be infallible would be rejected by the vast majority of protestants.
P
Publisher
Guest
Originally Posted by joe370
Protestants defer to the teaching authority of their church Pastors too, don’t they? I did as a former protestant.
For Friends…no Friend would “defer” his or her understanding concerning a passage of scripture to the “pastor”…each Friend is minister and priest…each Friend must wrestle with the answers for themselves…and live accordingly to the guidence of the Light AND weighed by the common experience of the Meeting should they seek “clearness” on.
We do have “Meetings for clearness”…and “clearness committees” which usually consist of one or two Friends to “wait upon the Lord” for His guidence on any given subject or action if not apparant.
Protestants defer to the teaching authority of their church Pastors too, don’t they? I did as a former protestant.
For Friends…no Friend would “defer” his or her understanding concerning a passage of scripture to the “pastor”…each Friend is minister and priest…each Friend must wrestle with the answers for themselves…and live accordingly to the guidence of the Light AND weighed by the common experience of the Meeting should they seek “clearness” on.
We do have “Meetings for clearness”…and “clearness committees” which usually consist of one or two Friends to “wait upon the Lord” for His guidence on any given subject or action if not apparant.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I just heard a very interesting talk by Fr. Corapi on the subject of biblical interpretation.
There is a principal concerning the Trinity that applies equally to scriptural interpretation. Where the Father is, there also must be the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also must be the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there also must be the Father and the Son. This is all based upon the principal of the mystical unity between the Persons of the Holy Trinity.
When speaking of Sacred Scripture, we cannot speak of it without placing it in the context of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium or teaching office of the Church. Where Sacred Scripture is, there also must be Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Where Sacred Tradition is, there must be Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Where the Magisterium is, there must Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There is a necessary unity between the three.
To say that Sacred Scripture can stand on its own and impart true understanding is the same as saying that God consists of the Holy Spirit, only.
There is a principal concerning the Trinity that applies equally to scriptural interpretation. Where the Father is, there also must be the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also must be the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there also must be the Father and the Son. This is all based upon the principal of the mystical unity between the Persons of the Holy Trinity.
When speaking of Sacred Scripture, we cannot speak of it without placing it in the context of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium or teaching office of the Church. Where Sacred Scripture is, there also must be Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Where Sacred Tradition is, there must be Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Where the Magisterium is, there must Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There is a necessary unity between the three.
To say that Sacred Scripture can stand on its own and impart true understanding is the same as saying that God consists of the Holy Spirit, only.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Which Patriarch is the final authority? What if two Patriarchs disagree? Which one is the authority?The Orthodox Church.
- Status