Book of Tobit Typology

[grannymh]

Hi, Toby.

Nothing can’t be privately interpreted.

Even Church interpretations of Scripture must be privately interpreted.

Church interpretations of church interpretations must be privately interpreted.

There is no way around the problerm.

Peter

It is true that Bible churches interpret Scripture privately. Some Protestant ministers interpret their church interpretations privately and so on. And of course you and I interpret Scriptures privately.

However, gross misinterpreting Scripture publically can be a serious problem. This is a public forum. When the misinterpretation involves the Divinity of Christ or other major belief of the Catholic church, then I need to clarify the true teaching.

I am deeply concerned that gross misinterpretations of Scripture on a thread will give the wrong impression of Scripture to readers – readers who may be interested in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I am not always sure, when there is a strong and effective writer, if readers assume that the post is a personal interpretation. Thus, I will post my personal feelings to thought provoking posts. I have noticed that other Catholics are willing to state the true teachings of the Church and they are to be commended.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means - basic instructions before leaving earth

 

[Peter_Dawson]

If some people can’t handle the truth and that ignorant so be it. The truth hurts and many will not like what I have to say. I speak the truth.

Suppose a group of us non-accusers get together and find that you make an error. Do you promise to leave the website?

I’m making a point, here. You are so dark and assaultive in your judgments. This is a discussion site. Reasonable minds can differ. But, a black-hearted judger of others would say, “If 2 are discussing faith, and 1 disagrees, then 1 must, perforce, be a heretic.”

A really black-hearted judger of others would add, “And I don’t err!!!”

Do you ever err, Toby?

If you do, please stop accusing others of heresy. You are blackening the site. You are causing it to be held-up as an exampole of Catholic ugliness.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Toby.

Please don’t accuse someone of heresy. The anti-Catholics in this site have actually quoted you as an example of how ugly-spirited some of us are. In all things, love.

Pardon me. To me, personally, stating a fact doesn’t sound like accusing someone of heresy. Of course, anti-Catholics don’t particularly like Catholic facts. The cafeteria-Catholics don’t like some of the Catholic facts. That’s life.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Suppose a group of us non-accusers get together and find that you make an error. Do you promise to leave the website?

I’m making a point, here. You are so dark and assaultive in your judgments. This is a discussion site. Reasonable minds can differ. But, a black-hearted judger of others would say, “If 2 are discussing faith, and 1 disagrees, then 1 must, perforce, be a heretic.”

A really black-hearted judger of others would add, “And I don’t err!!!”

Do you ever err, Toby?

If you do, please stop accusing others of heresy. You are blackening the site. You are causing it to be held-up as an exampole of Catholic ugliness.

Do I ever err?? Yes I do on an occasion. I usually recant. You have totally misunderstood what heresy is and who is a heretic. I am only saying what is considered heresy and I not accusing you of being a heretic. I am simply informing you the facts.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Do I ever err?? Yes I do on an occasion. I usually recant. You have totally misunderstood what heresy is and who is a heretic. I am only saying what is considered heresy and I not accusing you of being a heretic. I am simply informing you the facts.

You think that you are informing me of facts. You hope that you are informing me of facts. But, please, have the humility to recognize that you might be erring, even at this moment, and the love to refrain from accusing others of heresy.

Please, just love.

 

[grannymh]

Suppose a group of us non-accusers get together and find that you make an error. Do you promise to leave the website?

I’m making a point, here. You are so dark and assaultive in your judgments. This is a discussion site. Reasonable minds can differ. But, a black-hearted judger of others would say, “If 2 are discussing faith, and 1 disagrees, then 1 must, perforce, be a heretic.”

A really black-hearted judger of others would add, “And I don’t err!!!”

Do you ever err, Toby?

If you do, please stop accusing others of heresy. You are blackening the site. You are causing it to be held-up as an exampole of Catholic ugliness.

Sorry, but it sounds to me, personally, like there is some confusion between error and Divine Revelation. Or maybe there is confusion between error and heresy? Or maybe, and this is a personal opinion, a confusion as to what a reasonable mind is when it comes to accepting truth.

BTW I err lots of times and if there is ever a group of non-accusers, I wouldn’t be able to meet the entrance requirement.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

To me, personally, stating a fact doesn’t sound like accusing someone of heresy.

Toby, a little over an hour ago: “That is heresy to say it privately interprets scripture…”

And, she misunderstood me, anyway.

 

[grannymh]

You think that you are informing me of facts. You hope that you are informing me of facts. But, please, have the humility to recognize that you might be erring, even at this moment, and the love to refrain from accusing others of heresy.

Please, just love.

I am probably not understanding again. But if someone is kind enough to repeat the teaching of the Catholic church, who is in error?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Toby, a little over an hour ago: “That is heresy to say it privately interprets scripture…”

And, she misunderstood me, anyway.

Private interpretation of scripture isn’t allowed. And to suggest that Church privately interprets scripture is making the Church look like it is professing heresy. The Church does interpret scriptures via the Holy Spirit and not privately. Saying the Church does teach something when it doesn’t in spreading heresy. I honestly don’t think you know what I mean. BY no means does that mean you are speaking heresy because you didn’t know something was heresy when it was spoke.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I am probably not understanding again. But if someone is kind enough to repeat the teaching of the Catholic church, who is in error?

The Church interprets scriptures. Its interpretation is guided via the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person in the trinity. Man doesn’t interpret scripture. That is private interpration.

 

[grannymh]

The Church interprets scriptures. Its interpretation is guided via the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person in the trinity. Man doesn’t interpret scripture. That is private interpration.

That is correct. Praise God! There are some wonderful paragraphs in the beginning of the Catechism which explain the transmission of Divine Revelation. I feel extremely fortunate to belong to the Catholic Church. Amen.

 

[tobinatorstark]

That is correct. Praise God! There are some wonderful paragraphs in the beginning of the Catechism which explain the transmission of Divine Revelation. I feel extremely fortunate to belong to the Catholic Church. Amen.

Dei Verbum is another document that is worth reading. It the Vatican II document Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Dei Verbum means word of God. If you have a NAB St. Joseph Edition, more than likely this document will be in the beginning pages.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I am probably not understanding again. But if someone is kind enough to repeat the teaching of the Catholic church, who is in error?

My father used to repeat the precise words the Council’s said in their decrees – but not only did he sometimes not understand the decrees, but he believed that they meant the opposite of what he thought they meant!

So, “repeating words” =/= “freedom from error,” necessarily.

Also, the Church does appear to err, sometimes.

 

[tobinatorstark]

My father used to repeat the precise words the Council’s said in their decrees – but not only did he sometimes not understand the decrees, but he believed that they meant the opposite of what he thought they meant!

So, “repeating words” =/= “freedom from error,” necessarily.

Also, the Church does appear to err, sometimes.

no the Church doesn’t err, humans err

 

[tobinatorstark]

the infallabillity of the Church

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[grannymh]

My father used to repeat the precise words the Council’s said in their decrees – but not only did he sometimes not understand the decrees, but he believed that they meant the opposite of what he thought they meant!

So, “repeating words” =/= “freedom from error,” necessarily.

Also, the Church does appear to err, sometimes.

Repeating words = repeating words is a true statement. Do with it what you will.

What one does with the words, or as you mentioned, how one understands the words is another step in life. In fact, what one does with words that one doesn’t understand can be serious trouble. Worse yet, is what happens when one misinterprets words because of misunderstanding.

However, right now, I am concerned that “misinterpretations” of Scripture on a thread will give the wrong impression of Scripture to readers – readers who may be interested in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Thus, I will post my personal feelings to thought provoking posts. I am especially sensitive to material involving the Divinity of Christ. When there is error, even unintentional error, it needs to be clarified.

 

[Mintaka]

Private interpretation doesn’t mean “nobody can ever come up with anything about the Bible out of their own head”. It means that you are to try to interpret the Bible according to Christ’s teaching, to apostolic teaching, and to the general teaching of the Church, and that you are to refer what you say to the judgment and correction of the Church. Your methods are supposed to be the traditional methods of reasoning and understanding, sharpened as best you can by your own learning and experience and that of others.

In other words, you can come up with new ideas, but you’re not supposed to just pull things out of mid-air and then insist that they must be right and that you are the only true Christian teacher, yada yada.

Personally, though, I have a hard time pulling anything out of mid-air without actually trying to come up with something twisted and wrong. My own good ideas and insights usually turn out to have been used already, anywhere from 400 to 1500 years ago. There are a lot better Biblical thinkers than me out there, though.

Anyway, I enjoy reading people’s reasonings about the Bible better than anger at each other. I’m sorry if my previous comments on this thread weren’t helpful.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

no the Church doesn’t err, humans err

But what does that mean, in the sense of, How does what you observe play-out in reality?

Many say, “The Church does not err,” and those sound like brave, bold, comforting words, but an awful lot of those exact, same people who say that retreat to only 2 utterances of the Church in 2,000 years as “examples” of error-free teaching – the teaching on the Immaculate Conceprtion, and the teaching on the Assumption, banishing from review tens of thousands of acts, decrees and canons. In consequence, one can find on-line and elsewhere the snide comment by nasty anti-Catholics that “the less disprovable the teaching is, the more likely one is to find use of the teaching as an example of Church inerrancy.”

And, of course, the words, “The Church does not err; humans err,” seems to be a tautology, self-equipped with a parachute enabling the one making the assertion to bail-out of his burning airplane, if it turns out that an error is found, with the claim, “Since there was an error, the speaker must have been human, but not acting as the Church!,” which, if that interpretation is an intended meaning, reduces the words to total non-utility, and reduces them to an uncomforting NON-assurance!

So, here is the question: There is pretty good indirect evidence that in 357 A.D. Pope Liberius condemned the traditional understanding of the Trinity taught by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, a saint and doctor of the Church, and publicly approved, in writing, one of the Arian formulas for the Trinity. Dozens of documents mentioning the problem are cited by supporters and antagonists, and each says that the other’s documents are forgeries. Millions of words have been written about the documents supporting each side.

Six basic facts seem to militate in favor of a decision that Liberius caved-in to the Arians and taught Arianism.

(1) We can’t actually find Liberius’ written condemnation of Athanasius and of the traditional non-Arian Trinitarian formula. I.e., that, itself, is a little bit of evidence that the Church, itself, hid the evidence.

(2) St. Athanasius wrote that Liberius caved-in to the Arians.

(3) St. Jerome wrote that Liberius caved-in to the Arians, with words like this: The world went to bed Christian, and woke-up Arian!

(4) The Roman Emperor, a stout supporter of the Arians, made the famous boast, “Now it’s Athanasius against the world!” (These same words later became Athanasius’ boast, for he later defeated the world!)

(5) Liberius later condemned his own prior teaching! We do have that document!

(6) Athansius was declared a saint and a doctor of the Church. Liberius became the first pope not canonized.

Someone saying, “the Church doesn’t err, humans err” would have to answer, “Well, if Liberius approved of Arianism in a written teaching, then that wasn’t the Church, that was a human,” which makes those words, “the Church doesn’t err, humans err” poor assurance of anything.

 

[grannymh]

But what does that mean, in the sense of, How does what you observe play-out in reality?

Many say, “The Church does not err,” and those sound like brave, bold, comforting words, but an awful lot of those exact, same people who say that retreat to only 2 utterances of the Church in 2,000 years as “examples” of error-free teaching – the teaching on the Immaculate Conceprtion, and the teaching on the Assumption, banishing from review tens of thousands of acts, decrees and canons. In consequence, one can find on-line and elsewhere the snide comment by nasty anti-Catholics that “the less disprovable the teaching is, the more likely one is to find use of the teaching as an example of Church inerrancy.”

And, of course, the words, “The Church does not err; humans err,” seems to be a tautology, self-equipped with a parachute enabling the one making the assertion to bail-out of his burning airplane, if it turns out that an error is found, with the claim, “Since there was an error, the speaker must have been human, but not acting as the Church!,” which, if that interpretation is an intended meaning, reduces the words to total non-utility, and reduces them to an uncomforting NON-assurance!

So, here is the question: There is pretty good indirect evidence that in 357 A.D. Pope Liberius condemned the traditional understanding of the Trinity taught by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, a saint and doctor of the Church, and publicly approved, in writing, one of the Arian formulas for the Trinity. Dozens of documents mentioning the problem are cited by supporters and antagonists, and each says that the other’s documents are forgeries. Millions of words have been written about the documents supporting each side.

Six basic facts seem to militate in favor of a decision that Liberius caved-in to the Arians and taught Arianism.

(1) We can’t actually find Liberius’ written condemnation of Athanasius and of the traditional non-Arian Trinitarian formula. I.e., that, itself, is a little bit of evidence that the Church, itself, hid the evidence.

(2) St. Athanasius wrote that Liberius caved-in to the Arians.

(3) St. Jerome wrote that Liberius caved-in to the Arians, with words like this: The world went to bed Christian, and woke-up Arian!

(4) The Roman Emperor, a stout supporter of the Arians, made the famous boast, “Now it’s Athanasius against the world!” (These same words later became Athanasius’ boast, for he later defeated the world!)

(5) Liberius later condemned his own prior teaching! We do have that document!

(6) Athansius was declared a saint and a doctor of the Church. Liberius became the first pope not canonized.

Someone saying, “the Church doesn’t err, humans err” would have to answer, “Well, if Liberius approved of Arianism in a written teaching, then that wasn’t the Church, that was a human,” which makes those words, “the Church doesn’t err, humans err” poor assurance of anything.

Interesting thing – the Arians denied the Divinity of Christ. Maybe that is where all those sin symbols come from. Arians also held that Jesus was only the highest of created beings. Hmmm, that explains some other threads. I do remember a form of Arianism which surfaced around the 1940’s. Maybe it morphed to fit the 21st century?

 

[tobinatorstark]

But what does that mean, in the sense of, How does what you observe play-out in reality?

Many say, “The Church does not err,” and those sound like brave, bold, comforting words, but an awful lot of those exact, same people who say that retreat to only 2 utterances of the Church in 2,000 years as “examples” of error-free teaching – the teaching on the Immaculate Conceprtion, and the teaching on the Assumption, banishing from review tens of thousands of acts, decrees and canons. In consequence, one can find on-line and elsewhere the snide comment by nasty anti-Catholics that “the less disprovable the teaching is, the more likely one is to find use of the teaching as an example of Church inerrancy.”

And, of course, the words, “The Church does not err; humans err,” seems to be a tautology, self-equipped with a parachute enabling the one making the assertion to bail-out of his burning airplane, if it turns out that an error is found, with the claim, “Since there was an error, the speaker must have been human, but not acting as the Church!,” which, if that interpretation is an intended meaning, reduces the words to total non-utility, and reduces them to an uncomforting NON-assurance!

So, here is the question: There is pretty good indirect evidence that in 357 A.D. Pope Liberius condemned the traditional understanding of the Trinity taught by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, a saint and doctor of the Church, and publicly approved, in writing, one of the Arian formulas for the Trinity. Dozens of documents mentioning the problem are cited by supporters and antagonists, and each says that the other’s documents are forgeries. Millions of words have been written about the documents supporting each side.

Six basic facts seem to militate in favor of a decision that Liberius caved-in to the Arians and taught Arianism.

(1) We can’t actually find Liberius’ written condemnation of Athanasius and of the traditional non-Arian Trinitarian formula. I.e., that, itself, is a little bit of evidence that the Church, itself, hid the evidence.

(2) St. Athanasius wrote that Liberius caved-in to the Arians.

(3) St. Jerome wrote that Liberius caved-in to the Arians, with words like this: The world went to bed Christian, and woke-up Arian!

(4) The Roman Emperor, a stout supporter of the Arians, made the famous boast, “Now it’s Athanasius against the world!” (These same words later became Athanasius’ boast, for he later defeated the world!)

(5) Liberius later condemned his own prior teaching! We do have that document!

(6) Athansius was declared a saint and a doctor of the Church. Liberius became the first pope not canonized.

Someone saying, “the Church doesn’t err, humans err” would have to answer, “Well, if Liberius approved of Arianism in a written teaching, then that wasn’t the Church, that was a human,” which makes those words, “the Church doesn’t err, humans err” poor assurance of anything.

Ok I am getting some questionable items here. Are you trying to tell me that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary are errors of the Church??? I may have misunderstood??? Arianism is a whole different subject in its own. Arianism is Heresy and it was humans that brought it in and humans that wiped it out. I don’t want to go deep into Arianism in this thread, we would have to open a different thread that could lead to trouble. Again the Church didn’t err, it was error on man. The Church never abandon the concept of the Trinity. We have had some bad Popes no doubt. They erred not the Church. If you want to talk more about Arianism, I suggest that we open another thread. Did you bother reading the article from New Advent I linked for you???