Attending an Anglican bible study

[Greg27]

I think you always need to be careful of ‘theological agendas’ people read into the Bible. A key part of critical reading of any text (a skill taught to first year theology students) is you need to avoid ‘reading into’ a text what may not be there. Properly interpreting a text means understanding its historical and cultural context, rather than seeing it as a letter or newspaper of which God is the Writer or Editor.

Both Protestant and Catholic polemics in my view sometimes ‘read into’ a text rather than try to read what it means. There are elements of truth in the Catholic claim that the writers of the Gospels and the NT intended to establish a community with certain leadership roles and responsibilities, focused on the figure of Peter. The Protestants were right in that Paul focused on faith rather than works being the way we are saved.

But, I prefer to read good critical commentaries on the Bible from decent Catholic and Protestant scholars. I like NT Wright, and Raymond Brown, who try to give a scientific and rational exegesis of the meaning of the NT taking into account its historical and cultural context, while both might be classified as fairly ‘conservative’ (Brown was praised for being faithful to church teaching). I think it may be better to engage in these sometimes than just listen to what might be uninformed opinion which misunderstands the nuances and subtleties of Catholic and Protestant teaching.

 

[doughnut]

Bolded above -
never would I say something like that.
Probably wouldn’t even think it -
but yes, definitely I do get very tired of repeating myself.

Thanks for the apology.
Having lies shoved at me over and over -
it’s a wonder that I didn’t get truly insulting.
He didn’t “get” it? Yes, I noticed that - when, at long last, he made it obvious.

I know you didn’t say it, but alot of emotions are inferred beyond the actual words typed.

The words are from me, because it feels like that to me, and very likely, he felt that way too, and hence the mannerism of his response.

 

[catharina]

I know you didn’t say it, but alot of emotions are inferred beyond the actual words typed.

The words are from me, because it feels like that to me, and very likely, he felt that way too, and hence the mannerism of his response.

Again, when one mocks the Catholic Faith, then I will respond as needed.
If at times I show personal frustration, then that is regretable.

For your own frame of reference, you might want to scan GH’s posts to me if you want
to appreciate the scope of his out-of-control, ugly, vicious, personal attacks on me.
If not, then let’s drop this exchange. It’s an exercise in futility.

Many of his posts leave nothing to be “inferred” about his attitude. It’s blatantly there.

 

[ajcstr]

From a purely Biblical study stand point it would not be wise for you to join another denominational group simply because the interpretation is more often than not tend to follow the doctrinal line. If however you are sufficiently established in the knowledge of Catholic doctrine then by all mean have fun joining them. You can always contribute from a Catholic perspective or at least you can get the Anglican understanding from the same scripture.

But I suppose you go for this study because you like and perhaps enjoy the fellowship. It’s a good thing you ask question here about your participation there. If you must join this group, I can only say, please be aware that they interpret some Biblical verses somewhat different from us and it should not be taken as the correct one.

I have read the Navarre and the Ignatius study bibles on Romans before doing this, so I feel like I am grounded in Catholic understanding. I really expected a total “faith alone” mentality and I was wondering how in the world they could support this from the bible. I was thrown a curve when this guy started out by saying he felt Luther was off the mark with his interpretation of Paul. Now I want to hear from his mouth why he thinks the Catholic interpretation is wrong. I would bet that he has the wrong idea of what the Catholic interpretation is.

I have to say though I am very taken back by a lot of the discouraging comments here.

 

[ajcstr]

But, I prefer to read good critical commentaries on the Bible from decent Catholic and Protestant scholars. I like NT Wright, and Raymond Brown, who try to give a scientific and rational exegesis of the meaning of the NT taking into account its historical and cultural context, while both might be classified as fairly ‘conservative’ (Brown was praised for being faithful to church teaching). I think it may be better to engage in these sometimes than just listen to what might be uninformed opinion which misunderstands the nuances and subtleties of Catholic and Protestant teaching.

And I am trying to determine what is left between out interpretation and NT Wright’s. I’m sure he is not becoming Catholic, so (only with relation to justification) what still seperates us ???

 

[catharina]

I have read the Navarre and the Ignatius study bibles on Romans before doing this, so I feel like I am grounded in Catholic understanding. I really expected a total “faith alone” mentality and I was wondering how in the world they could support this from the bible. I was thrown a curve when this guy started out by saying he felt Luther was off the mark with his interpretation of Paul. Now I want to hear from his mouth why he thinks the Catholic interpretation is wrong. I would bet that he has the wrong idea of what the Catholic interpretation is.

I have to say though I am very taken back by a lot of the discouraging comments here.

So glad you’ve checked back in to this thread.

My view is that as a very mature Catholic woman who has a degree in Theology and years of graduate work too, I’d never attend a Protestant study group for any reason. The point is that even as well-educated as I am in the field of Theology, I would never put myself at risk for confusion.

Granted I grew up before Vatican II and while I totally support ecumenism, I know enough to know that I should not expose my Faith to the influence of errors. Ever. In terms of your scheduling needs, you might want to check the availability of Bible Study at any and all local Catholic parishes - or maybe study Fr. John Hardon on-line as I suggested in a previous post.

For now, God bless you - and guard your faith, the pearl of great price.

 

[ajcstr]

And I am trying to determine what is left between out interpretation and NT Wright’s. This sounds like the shift in thought that Scott Hahn mentions about DR Shepherd in his tape. I’m sure Bishop Wright is not ready to sit down to the bingo table just yet, but (only in relation to justification) what still seperates us ???

 

[Contarini]

And I am trying to determine what is left between out interpretation and NT Wright’s. I’m sure he is not becoming Catholic, so (only with relation to justification) what still seperates us ???

What makes you assume that Wright’s reasons for not “becoming Catholic” (not how he’d put it) have anything to do with justification?

From what I’ve read of him–and I’ve read quite a bit–I think he has a lot of problems with the theology of your Communion that don’t have anything to do with justification. I’m not sure he would even agree that not much separates him from you with regard to justification, but I agree with you that this is in fact the case. I think his big differences from Catholicism come with regard to ecclesiology and the communion of saints. He has spoken very dismissively of Catholic Mariology, for instance.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The discussion here has demonstrated why Catholics should not go to another denomination’s Bible study if it is purely from a stand point of academic understanding of the Bible. Different denominations have different understanding of the Biblical verses; some of these may be in contrast to Catholic teachings. If it is mainly for faith and Bible sharing, then I suppose it may be beneficial but then again there is always limitation to the freedom that we can express ourselves in such group without peeving the others and vice versa.

Some of us are not “peeved” by people disagreeing with us.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think if a Catholic wishes to find out about other denominations then it make sense to go into their groups for understanding from their point of view - but if one is seeking understanding of their own catholic faith, going to other denominations might risked the state of one’s faith, due to differing intepretations.

Not to mention I have bad experiences of protestants who harrassed, coerced me into agreeing with them the moment I declared myself Catholic. I don’t go in there to start debates even, purely from a wanting to understand point of view. I met people who before I even say anything they were starting to ‘correct’ me by preaching against what they perceived Catholicism is about. With that said, I don’t mean I have something against protestants, or that all of them behave like that. I have met many wonderful understanding protestants as well; but just to note that one is putting oneself at risk if one opt for such a bible-study arrangement. There are some very ‘stubborn’ catholics who too had very strong views about their faith - but they are less likely to hammer you into ‘converting’ by virtue that you’re ‘of a same kind’…

As you (rather inconsistently) note, not all Protestants are the same. You are committing an injustice when you judge a group of Anglicans you do not know by the standards of whatever Protestants you’ve had bad experiences with in the past.

Since you admit that not all Protestants are like this, what’s the point of your comments? How can you legitimately generalize from your experience to give advice to the OP?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As a side note. I have seen posters here who started from one denomination but ended up converting to another. And it is all right here in CAF.

I don’t mean to say Gurney is and I am not referring anything about him.

Then I can’t see the point of this remark at all.

I have had plenty of disagreements (even quarrels) with Gurney in the past, but I have no doubts whatever of his sincerity.

Those of you who are happy in the certainty that you have found the One True Path could give the rest of us a break now and then, don’t you think? To some of us reality just doesn’t seem that simple.

Disagree with us, rebuke us even, but don’t question that we really are as confused as we sound. It’s not some kind of cynical game we are playing.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

And you continue to not understand my answer, Nicea. I never said that the early church taught the pope had to elect bishops!! Go back and read it??!! I said that many Catholics NOWDAYS think that the pope has ALWAYS HAD the power to install and defrock bishops anywhere and everywhere at will. That is the essence of papal supremacy, correct? I stated that the early church shows us that he DIDN’T have that power. We never see such power or jurisdiction in the early church. That’s the point. I’m not side-stepping anything.

You are welcome to question whatever you wish, Nicea. I am not in the Catholic Church right now. And according to the catechism of the Catholic Church anyone baptized a Catholic, especially confirmed as one has an indelible mark of being a Catholic that cannot be removed. But in any case, I am not in the Catholic Church right now. This entire thread and the thin, skanty, poorly-reasoned arguments therein have only served to show me I am right at this point. But my personal life, yours, Catharina’s, etc. are not the subject of the debate. The issues are. But thanks for asking…or rather speculating

Well you should know that there are many Catholics who are ignorant of their faith. Second, papal primacy does not revolve soley on adding or removing bishops.Third, if you truly believe the Bishop of Rome never displayed jurisdiction at all over distant lands it is not entirely true either.

You are right? About what? Your OPINIONS? I could careless about your opinions. Just because you disagree with the RCC does not make you right.

 

[GKC]

Some of us are not “peeved” by people disagreeing with us.

Edwin

True.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Nicea325]

Reuben, not quite. gurney had mentioned in one of his posts that some of the fathers interpreted Matt. 16:18 to mean Peter’s confession of faith. Nicea asked gurney to post the sources of that, indicating he/she didn’t believe what gurney was saying and/or wanted proof of gurney’s statement. I posted those quotes from the fathers mentioning their view of the passage due to Nicea’s request.

Yes and I stated it was ‘proof-texting’ and it is,whether you care to admit or not. It still did not prove an iota that St.Augustine DENIED Peter as the Rock. And why? Because not one ECF ever said such a thing. And if you read the entire passage you quoted what are Augustine’s first words:In my book against Donatus.…

Who was Donatus? A heretic. The Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of saints, not sinners, and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by traditores (Christians who surrendered the Scriptures to the authorities who outlawed possession of them) were invalid.

St. Augustine of Hippo campaigned against this heterodox belief throughout his tenure as Bishop of Hippo. Augustine’s view, which was also the majority view within the Church, was that it was the office of priest, not the personal character of the incumbent, that gave validity to the celebration of the sacraments.

Finally, if Augustine did not believe Peter was the Rock or rejected the belief,then why he bother to write the following hymn as an antidote to the Donatists:

“Number the bishops from the See
of Peter itself.
And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom.
That is **the rock **against which the
gates of hell do not prevail.”

Likewise,

“These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter, and to believe that the Church has received the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their hands.”

It is clear to acknowledge where Augustine stood.

 

[mark_a]

Standing by for anyone to request the story of how Henry got the Defensor Fidei title. The whole story, that is. Again. It’s more than just the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum.

GKC

I always enjoy you (name removed by moderator)ut. Let 'er rip!!

 

[mark_a]

But mark, the issue here is not our interpretation of Matthew 16:18. I didn’t even give my interpretation of it. We are discussing the father’s interpretation of it.

This respose was to the other guy.

Still though, an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation is pretty dangerous as you guys like to point out.

 

[mark_a]

Protestant martyrs of the Reformation and Inquisitions pray for us, too!

Wait a minute!?!?! Are you Catholic, otherwise. . . . .

 

[blazerdave]

Ugh…I take a couple days off from the forum and I miss all the good stuff!

My suggestion is to steer clear of Anglican Bible studies. I cannot imagine something as harmful and utterly destructive as that.

/sarcasm

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ugh…I take a couple days off from the forum and I miss all the good stuff!

My suggestion is to steer clear of Anglican Bible studies. I cannot imagine something as harmful and utterly destructive as that.

/sarcasm

LOL!

 

[doughnut]

Again, when one mocks the Catholic Faith, then I will respond as needed.
If at times I show personal frustration, then that is regretable.

For your own frame of reference, you might want to scan GH’s posts to me if you want
to appreciate the scope of his out-of-control, ugly, vicious, personal attacks on me.
If not, then let’s drop this exchange. It’s an exercise in futility.

Many of his posts leave nothing to be “inferred” about his attitude. It’s blatantly there.

I had read them; and he was pretty much incensed about what I posted, on his conduct as well.