P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, you are mistaken, JJ. Bishops do not have “sole right to interpretation”.
- Status
T
Todd520
Guest
PR, do I have this right?
- Church has final authority on proper interpretation of scriputre
- However, practically speaking there are very few scriptures where the magisterium has provided guidance
- Ergo, personal interpretation by Catholics is acceptable except for these few specific versus.
How does one identify these ‘special’ scripture verses?
J
joe370
Guest
Sure, but first answer the following:
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. John 6:63
**to others I speak in parables, so that,
”‘though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand. **Luke 8:10
Understanding seems to be the key!
Could you explain exactly where I was wrong, even though you do not have the authority to tell me? This would really help me to understand!
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
;7188498]**Jesus said that For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. **John 6:55
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. John 6:63
**to others I speak in parables, so that,
”‘though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand. **Luke 8:10
Understanding seems to be the key!
Could you explain exactly where I was wrong, even though you do not have the authority to tell me? This would really help me to understand!
J
Jolly_Jumbuck
Guest
**Jesus in the word of God tells me that understanding is the key.
Could you apply understanding to your idea of the Eucharist, whatever that maybe? **
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
It’s a good idea to read the Bible, for sure. If you were to read the Bible, you would see this:
[BIBLEDRB]Eph 4:11[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Tit 1:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Lk 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
And also this:
[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]
J
joe370
Guest
I could and I will but it won’t mean anything to you in the end. I use to share your belief vis-a-vis the Eucharist, as a former protestant but not anymore. Why don’t you start another thread and we can engage that question there, and not derail the OP of this thread. I was really hoping to stay on topic. However, I will answer your question in a few minutes, but first could you answer the following. While you are answering my question I will apply my understanding to my idea of the Eucharist. Thanks Jolly…
Jolly_Jumbuck:
**Jesus in the word of God tells me that understanding is the key.
Could you apply understanding to your idea of the Eucharist, whatever that maybe? **
Sure, but first answer the following:
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
**Jesus in the word of God tells me that understanding is the key.
Could you apply understanding to your idea of the Eucharist, whatever that maybe? **
Sure, but first answer the following:
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
J
Jolly_Jumbuck
Guest
Sure, but first answer the following:I could and I will but it won’t mean anything to you in the end. I use to share your belief vis-a-vis the Eucharist, as a former protestant but not anymore. Why don’t you start another thread and we can engage that question there, and not derail the OP of this thread. I was really hoping to stay on topic. However, I will answer your question in a few minutes, but first could you answer the following. While you are answering my question I will apply my understanding to my idea of the Eucharist. Thanks Jolly…
**Jesus in the word of God tells me that understanding is the key.
Could you apply understanding to your idea of the Eucharist, whatever that maybe? **
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
**The bible tells me in a number of places that understanding is needed.
Please apply understanding to Roman Catholic dogmas, like the Assumption of Mary.
If you cannot then you must be wrong. **
J
joe370
Guest
Jolly, for starters, let’s look at what the early church believed, the same church that determined the canon when 7 books of our bible were disputed and various times in various places:
The ECF’s interpreted these passages (1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71) - literally. Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:
“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally” (ibid., 211–12).
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Continued…*
The ECF’s interpreted these passages (1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71) - literally. Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:
From the very beginning, the ECF’s referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).
“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally” (ibid., 211–12).
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Continued…*
J
joe370
Guest
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
**
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
**
J
joe370
Guest
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
J
Jolly_Jumbuck
Guest
**How can there be a biblical basis for the Assumption of Mary?
I missed this in your referral and it would help my understanding of Catholicism if you did explain yourself. **
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Here. If you want to discuss the Assumption further, please start your own thread on that topic.
J
joe370
Guest
As you can see I am
answering your question. Could you please answer mine:
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
answering your question. Could you please answer mine:
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
How did we go from the OP, then to the Eucharist and now to Mary?
J
Jolly_Jumbuck
Guest
**Thank you for providing me with the opinions of many in the early church.
Is it possible to quote the word of God, instead of opinions of many?
How do you determine which of these men were heretics and which ones were not, or does that not matter to you? **
J
Jolly_Jumbuck
Guest
Beehumble asked a really good question.
If God has not provided the world with a way to teach and learn infallibly, vis-a-vis infallible truth found in the bible, and interpret infallibly, those teachings found in the bible, then how can God judge any of us for failing to act on an infallible truth that could not, with certainty, be infallibly discerned???
Wouldn’t it be unfair for God to judge us as having failed to act on Truth if said truth cannot be infallibly known with certainty, which seems to be the protestant consensus here at CAF???
The only logical conclusion to draw is that God did in fact give us a way to infallibly discern truth and infallibly interpret the bible; His church!!! Yes, no, maybe???
How did we go from the OP, then to the Eucharist and now to Mary?
**You should have no problems with telling me the infallible truth about the Eucharist and the Assumption of Mary.
However I do not understand your avoidance techniques and your lack of explanations.
You have the fullness of truth, so you claim.
Why can’t you help me to understand?
You may tell me if my request is unreasonable, but please tell me why. **
J
joe370
Guest
Jolly Jumbuck, the interpretation of the Eucharist, (its meaning) - by these leaders that followed in the footsteps of the apostles, (some were actually disciples of the apostles) - seems to be irrelevant to you; why in the world would you want my interpretation of the Eucharist, (its meaning) - iIf you don’t even trust the interpretation of these folks??? I can give you my take on it but what’s the point? You will simply give me your take on it and we will still be without an answer to this question:
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
What is your answer???
I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to tell you that you are wrong and I have the indwelling of the HS, and vice versa, and you too have the indwelling of the HS, so, is there any way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong? The bible, by itself, is not helping us to resolve this matter.
What is your answer???
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Return to topic please
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi Jolly Jumbuck: That is a whole different topic. What I have stated is a commonly accepted fact about how the Bible was transcribed over the years. It was written by people.
Anyway, start another thread if you like and I’ll discuss it. The forum moderator has asked us to get back to the topic.
Your friend
Sufjon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Not quite. The conclusion should be: Ergo, Catholics must read and interpret the Scriptures in light of the faith of the Apostles.The lens through which we understand the Bible is that provided by Sacred Tradition.
Also, here’s a correction:
"However, practically speaking there are very few scriptures where the-] magisterium/-] extraordinary magisterium has -]provided guidance./-] partially had their senses defined.
Again, not quite. The Catechism tends to cite Scripture verses in an illustrative manner, not as the only possible interpretation. While the Catechism is the “sure norm” for our faith, it is not a full articulation of Catholicism.
• The reference to being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.
• In telling the apostles, “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
• In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.
• Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
• The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community.
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/magisterium
- Status