Are Jesus words to be taken literally or symbolically?

[Rbt_Southwell]

Rightlydivide;

Our priests are teachers, they study the languages of the oldest Scriptural manuscripts for years and take graduate courses where primary sources are the textbooks (St Augustine’s Sermons for example).

When the parable of the Prodigal Son was read for the Gospel Reading, our parish vicar spoke at length on the Church’s teaching of salvation.

Although salvation is a gift, a grace freely given by God, it has never been PRIOR TO LUTHER AND CALVIN viewed as OSAS.
He used the reading to expound on this.

He further referenced St Matthew 3:8 - “Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.”

“because you brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.” (St Luke 15:31)

Catholic teachings are infallible because they are based upon Tradition which was handed down by Christ to the Apostles who handed them down who handed them down…Even Jesus is quoted as saying that He taught His Apostles many more things which were not recorded.

Not everything a Pope says or a Priest says or an Apologist writes is infallible.

Infallibility is a dogma for the Pope, as Bishop of Rome in communion with all the Church, speaking on matters of Faith and Morals.

To assert that we, as individual Catholics, are infallible is a red herring. To assert (as I do) that non-Catholics believe things that are NOT Scriptural (such as OSAS) as if they were infallible in their interpretation is a matter of fact.

This is demonstrated daily on this site by non-Catholics “interpreting” Catholic doctrine and Scriptural passages.

Robert

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;

Our priests are teachers, they study the languages of the oldest Scriptural manuscripts for years and take graduate courses where primary sources are the textbooks (St Augustine’s Sermons for example).

When the parable of the Prodigal Son was read for the Gospel Reading, our parish vicar spoke at length on the Church’s teaching of salvation.

Robert

For those still reading, the central question is what verses are symbolic (and if so what do they symbolize) and what verses are literal.
Robert said to me the following:

Then, you do not have a clue on when to take something literally or figuratively.

He said this as well;

Look at the Prodigal Son parable. It is figurative, it teaches a lesson. And that lesson? You can be saved and die and be saved again. (Those ain’t MY ideas!).

He then says the source of this is his priest. There are lots of possible meanings of the prodigal son
Robert has asserted it is addressing salvation and then confirms this by attaching it to OSAS.
I do not believe that it is official Catholic teaching that this particular verse means this. I do believe that Robert and his priest are giving an opinion based upon their faith.
It is not an infallible interpretation of this verse as he admits.
So once again, what verses are literal and what verses are symbolic? Of course he does not have an answer. He knows that. Everyone reading this knows this.
His “priest” interpreted it for him.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

rightlydivide;

Quit being so disingenuous.

You are proof-texting my posts.

Have the charity to quote everything or the intellectual honesty to admit you are selectively pulling quotes out of context to bolster your argument.

Tsk tsk

Robert

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

And your point is, what? To decry the teaching of the homilist?

I’ve read plenty of your posts, here and on other threads. You have no interest in becoming closer to Christ through our faith.

You are simply engaging in typical Protestant, Anti-Catholic nonsense. Why are you wasting our time? Why not go post with your seperated bretheren?

Your screen name is so apt…rightlyDIVIDE…the specialty of the Protestant religions.

 

[2ndGen]

I do not understand what you are saying.

Some believe that it’s ok to decipher what Jesus is saying to our own beliefs instead of just taking what He says and learning from it.

In other words, if Jesus says something that Catholics practice, then it (to them) was meant to be symbolic and “not” to be taken literally.

It’s “work your way back” theology.

When in doubt, don’t believe the Catholic interpretation.

For example, how many beliefs or theories do Catholics and Protestants believe in 100% without disambiguation needed?

I mean doctrines that are literally interchangable between faiths.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

It is not an infallible interpretation of this verse as he admits.
So once again, what verses are literal and what verses are symbolic? Of course he does not have an answer. He knows that. Everyone reading this knows this.
His “priest” interpreted it for him.

Again, my protestant eunuch (didn’t he need someone to intrepret Scripture for him, too?):

Infallibility has nothing to do with what is taught from Scripture.

Infallibility has a very specific meaning in the Church. It is not the same meaning (as is evident from your ranging all other the posts) as you WISH it were. Sorry.

The priest does not ‘interpret’ anything. He teaches what he has been taught and his teacher has been taught ad regressum back to the Apostles who learned it from Jesus.

In your ‘little church led by the bible’, infallibility may be the shibboleth. After all, your pastor (is it you?) knows SO much of Christian history and teachings, there is obviously no reason to depend on what Christians have always believed and practiced.

Robert

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am saying there are several interpretations of symbolic passages and literal passages. I still contend the vast majority of the words of Christ are pretty well agreed on between Catholics and Protestants but that is anecdotal.
Robert gave an interpretation of the prodigal son.
He said it related to salvation.
I seems to assure me that his view is correct because it is the Catholic view.
Well…

This Catholic priest says this:

In this Parable, also, we can interpret from the various often-heard lines: the younger son who would “go away from the farm”: this can stand possibly for the Jews “who had it all” and still wandered off from Yahweh; and it can mean us, when we leave the Father’s House-His Providence, and leave His Church-the Extension of Jesus Christ on Earth…“Eating with pigs”: may mean hitting rock bottom. “Coming to his senses” (the prodigal son): awakening, realization, enlightenment into God’s Love and one’s sinful ways….

emmitsburg.net/grotto/father_jack/2007/mercy.htm

Fulton Sheen says this:

Sheen’s extraordinarily insightful, if unique, interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son in this work, is historical rather than moral. The younger son in the parable is Western Civilization. After many long centuries in union with the Father’s house, the Church, Western Civilization took its inheritance

What about Pope John Paul

In his 1980 encyclical letter on God’s mercy, Dives in Misericordia, Pope John Paul II takes the parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:14-32) as a starting point for reflection on the relationship among sin, dignity, and mercy. When the son in the parable comes to his senses, he realizes what he has lost; and his lament over lost goods conceals a deeper loss: “the tragedy of lost dignity, the awareness of squandered sonship.”

 

[Rightlydivide]

Again, my protestant eunuch (didn’t he need someone to intrepret Scripture for him, too?):

Robert

I just got called a eunuch. That…is a first…

 

[bengal_fan]

Rightlydivide;

Our priests are teachers, they study the languages of the oldest Scriptural manuscripts for years and take graduate courses where primary sources are the textbooks (St Augustine’s Sermons for example).

individual priests are not infallible. the pope isn’t even infallible unless declaring a position on faith and/or morals (according to catholic teaching).

and st. augustine’s sermons would not be considered a primary source unless you are studying st. augustine or his contemporaries. he would be a secondary source when studying the apostles or very early Christian teaching.

 

[Rightlydivide]

And your point is, what? To decry the teaching of the homilist?

I’ve read plenty of your posts, here and on other threads. You have no interest in becoming closer to Christ through our faith.

You are simply engaging in typical Protestant, Anti-Catholic nonsense. Why are you wasting our time? Why not go post with your seperated bretheren?

Your screen name is so apt…rightlyDIVIDE…the specialty of the Protestant religions.

I will continue to post here thanks. I will follow the rules. Those times I have not I have corrected my behavior. I am not going anywhere. I am a “rule follower”.

 

[abucs]

It seems to me that the question of ‘what to take literally’ is definitely a problem that has beleaguered Christians.

It perhaps points to the inadequacies of basing theology on ancient texts written in a different language and culture, especially one that is prone to be symbolic in it’s very nature.

Every church seems to have its interpretations, whether it is the heirachy of the CC or some other. And of course the splitting of churches are usually based around interpretations of those texts and often the question is - what to emphasise, what is meant, to whom it is meant for, how it relates to other text and events and what to take literally.

I would like though to hear from people who might disagree and believe we can know, without any heirachy what is literal and what is not. For example, someone said above that Jesus tends to be more symbolic in front of a different audience. Could someone please expand on that and perhaps give other clues on how we may divide the literal from the symbolic ?

 

[Randb]

What about people saying when Jesus said, 'This is My Body & this is My Blood" It is symbolic?? What about when Jesus says “Go ye all And Preach & forgive sins”? How come forgiving sins are symbolic but not the Preaching?

Catholic take these literally. Protestants say He didn’t really mean it & the forgiving of sins stopped with the death of the last apostle.!!! My friend is a Baptist & keeps me well informed of the different passages & there meanings!—

 

[2ndGen]

It seems to me that the question of ‘what to take literally’ is definitely a problem that has beleaguered Christians.

It perhaps points to the inadequacies of basing theology on ancient texts written in a different language and culture, especially one that is prone to be symbolic in it’s very nature.

Every church seems to have its interpretations, whether it is the heirachy of the CC or some other. And of course the splitting of churches are usually based around interpretations of those texts and often the question is - what to emphasise, what is meant, to whom it is meant for, how it relates to other text and events and what to take literally.

I would like though to hear from people who might disagree and believe we can know, without any heirachy what is literal and what is not. For example, someone said above that Jesus tends to be more symbolic in front of a different audience. Could someone please expand on that and perhaps give other clues on how we may divide the literal from the symbolic ?

:clapping:

 

[2ndGen]

What about people saying when Jesus said, 'This is My Body & this is My Blood" It is symbolic?? What about when Jesus says “Go ye all And Preach & forgive sins”? How come forgiving sins are symbolic but not the Preaching?

Catholic take these literally. Protestants say He didn’t really mean it & the forgiving of sins stopped with the death of the last apostle.!!! My friend is a Baptist & keeps me well informed of the different passages & there meanings!—

 

[2ndGen]

Besides the most recent two posts,
so much text has been wasted here on the hows and whys
instead of just ANSWERING the question!



For the pseudo-scholars on the board,
I don’t care about historical lessons or ancestories,
“Are Jesus words to be taken literally or symbolically?”

Could we please stop dancing around the question?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Besides the most recent two posts,
so much text has been wasted here on the hows and whys
instead of just ANSWERING the question!



For the pseudo-scholars on the board,
I don’t care about historical lessons or ancestories,
“Are Jesus words to be taken literally or symbolically?”

Could we please stop dancing around the question?

Both. No one(Catholic or not) cuts their hands off or plucks out their eyes for goodness sakes.
The real question is which is which.

 

[sandusky]

Rbt Southwell:

The Church is not infallible: it is made up of fallible people. Sinful people like me.

The teachings, vis-a-vis Jesus, are infallible.

We have had more (we’ve been one Church longer, bud) bad clerics and ‘believers’ than all the 33,000 + Protestant denominations. but not one, NOT ONE of them has changed the teachings of the Gospel.

That is something you can never disprove.

Robert

In Ineffabilis Deus, Pius XI states:”…that the most Blessed Virgin Mary,…was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful…”

***The Bull continues: ***

”Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that **he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.”**The belief in the IC of Mary is not a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and His apostles.

The insistence of your 2,000-year-old teaching magisterium, that this must be believed,
in order to maintain proper faith, and unity with the Church, changes the Gospel of Jesus,
and His apostles.

 

[abucs]

‘Changes’ in the sense of ‘adding to’, ‘clarifying’ and ‘developing’ rather than ‘contradicting’ the gospels.

And we are defining the gospels as written gospels there but the ‘good news’ to be preached by the apostles was mainly verbal as they set out from Jerusalem.

As John says, there are many other things not written down which are part of tradition, and as Jesus said to his Church - ‘the spirit will lead you into all truth’, but yes, you are still valid in asking ‘where the teaching came from’.

And your point is well made.

Next time.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Well there are only a few verses people really argue about…those referring to hell and John 6…there are not that many people disagree about
But in those cases I look at the whole chapters and other verses in scripture

Rightlydivide,
Despite all the discussion, you obviously are aware that there are only a few verses that spark real disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. Many of Jesus words and parables can be taken on many levels. As you know, even someone who is very familiar with the gospels will be blessed with new insights all through his life and perceive new and valid ways to interpret verses. The Church mostly officially interpreted verses that might be misunderstood as they refer to doctrine.

What happens when people who look at the whole chapters and other verses still disagree and those disagreements are profound? Catholics trust the interpretation and teaching that has come down from the apostles. The infallibility of Tradition or the Pope(when acting as official definer of doctrine) derive from Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth. That this promise was not primarily to individuals in their interpretation of scripture is evident by the disagreements among individuals resulting in heresies.

God bless you.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Maybe it would be useful to take the advice of Augustine.

Some of Augustine’s writings tended toward some heresies common in his time. That statement is one of them.