Do Catholics cherry-pick/read-meaning-into Scripture?

[Tomdstone]

It is, but you did not answer my questions.

The first part of the text λόγω της άψογης της εξουσίας της Εκκλησίας says “owing to the perfect power of the church”. The phrase όλη την Εκκλησία means the whole church. You have translated this as omnem convenire Ecclesiam Ecclesiae propter eminentiam potestatis. I don’t see where the phrase omnem convenire comes from in the Greek text you have supplied?

 

[guanophore]

The first part of the text λόγω της άψογης της εξουσίας της Εκκλησίας says “owing to the perfect power of the church”. The phrase όλη την Εκκλησία means the whole church. You have translated this as omnem convenire Ecclesiam Ecclesiae propter eminentiam potestatis. I don’t see where the phrase omnem convenire comes from in the Greek text you have supplied?

I did not do the translation, but that was not the content of my questions. I am wondering why you are not taking the historical understanding into account?

Grammatical details aside, is there some reason all of the Church should not be in unity?

 

[ericc]

There are a lot of them. For example, is it good to aquire wisdom or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

These are not contradictory. Getting wisdom and understanding is not at odds with associated advantages or disadvantages. Unless one actually think ignorance is bliss and is a good thing to remain at the ignorant level.

 

[Tomdstone]

is there some reason all of the Church should not be in unity?

The answer to your question might be off topic, but
In 1054 Rome gave the reasons for excommunicating His Holiness Michael Cerularius - some of which were:
a married clergy
no filioque
beards on priests
because of these errors and others, Rome declared anathema Maranatha on His Holiness Michael Cerularius together with all his followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself…etc.
ercf.blogspot.com/2011/05/papal-bull-of-excommunication-to.html
In 1848, Orthodox Patriarchs wrote a letter outlining what they saw as reasons for the disunity in the Church:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
At the present time, the major issue is the papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction and several other issues as well.
Getting back to the topic of the thread, the Orthodox have a different interpretation of Matthew 16:18 which could be relevant to the issue of reading meaning into Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

At the present time, the major issue is the papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction and several other issues as well.
Getting back to the topic of the thread, the Orthodox have a different interpretation of Matthew 16:18 which could be relevant to the issue of reading meaning into Scripture.

Thank you, this is helpful.

We must all pray for unity. Looking back to the excommunications they seem petty, but it is refreshing they have been withdrawn from both sides, and there is dialogue.

It is significant that there was not a conflict over the Scriptures or any other documents that reference the primacy of Peter prior to the Great Schism.

 

[Tomdstone]

These are not contradictory. Getting wisdom and understanding is not at odds with associated advantages or disadvantages. Unless one actually think ignorance is bliss and is a good thing to remain at the ignorant level.

Here’s another: Do the righteous flourish or do they perish?
PSA 92:12: “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree.”

ISA 57:1: “The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart.”

 

[Bookcat]

Do Catholics cherry-pick/read-meaning-into Scripture?

Well there are alot of Catholics in the world …so maybe some do.

But the Church in her Teachings does not.

 

[Usagi]

Here’s another: Do the righteous flourish or do they perish?
PSA 92:12: “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree.”

ISA 57:1: “The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart.”

Are those really just bald, contextless assertions about “the righteous” in general, or do they refer to particular situations or times? I notice that the Psalm speaks of what “shall” happen, while the quotation from Isaiah speaks of what is happening. We do indeed believe that there is frequently injustice now but that the righteous will be vindicated in the end, so it is possible those two statements do not contradict at all.

 

[Tomdstone]

Are those really just bald, contextless assertions about “the righteous” in general, or do they refer to particular situations or times? I notice that the Psalm speaks of what “shall” happen, while the quotation from Isaiah speaks of what is happening. We do indeed believe that there is frequently injustice now but that the righteous will be vindicated in the end, so it is possible those two statements do not contradict at all.

Here is another. The Sermon on the Mount, - was it on the mount or was it in the plain?
MAT 5:1,2: “And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying…”

LUK 6:17,20: “And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people…came to hear him… And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said…”

 

[Tomdstone]

It is significant that there was not a conflict over the Scriptures or any other documents that reference the primacy of Peter prior to the Great Schism.

I think that East and West understand primacy somewhat differently.

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #90
I think that East and West understand primacy somewhat differently.

The Orthodox chose to eliminate the Papal Primacy established by Christ which they had once affirmed.
**
Catholic Apologetics Online**
radioreplies.info/radio-r…p?t=139&n=1255
**1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
**We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, **“An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” **The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” [My emphasis].

 

[fisherman_carl]

If by cherry picking you mean using a limited number of Scripture passages to back up a position then yes we’ve all done that. Especially when you have limited time and space to do anything, like in an internet forum. I think that if one’s faith solely consists of apologetic arguments then something is missing. While apologetics have their place one has to consider how they are in fact seeking truth. Are we interested in only being right or in discovering truth? A superficial faith will only last so long. We will come to see the holes in our own beliefs. Or we will turn a blind eye to them as long as we possibly can. And then perhaps God allows something to happen that shakes our faith. So that we can turn to him and have him lead us to the truth rather than what we would want to hear.

 

[ericc]

Here’s another: Do the righteous flourish or do they perish?
PSA 92:12: “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree.”

ISA 57:1: “The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart.”

They flourish and then they perish. Hardly contradictory at all. Just a timing issue.

 

[Memaw]

How very strange as Jesus was crystal clear on building MY CHURCH, and which, by eliminating the words of Jesus, enable thousands of differing sects all saying something different.
As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. 2 of A History of Christendom), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”

"Eusebius wrote in *The Chronicle *(Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution. The Romans had a policy of hunting down and persecuting all of the Apostles.”

As Dr Warren H Carroll in A History of Christendom, The Foundation of Christendom Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican

St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome.

It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence. [See “The Pope” in Vol 1]
Radio Replies | Catholic Apologetics Online | Rumble & Carthy
radioreplies.info/site-se…+in+Rome+&db=1

AMEN, God Bless, Memaw

 

[HelenRose]

One has to remember that Catholicism is not a religion based on the Bible or, more specifically the New Testament. It is the other way around. Our relgion is based on a Person, Jesus Christ, and what he taught us. Apostles and other faithful disciples wrote the books that became Scripture, and they are thus the product of the faith that shaped them.

In other words, our religion came first. The New Testament came from our religion. The same thing goes for the Old Testament and Judaism. The Jewish religion came first, and faithful Jews were inspired to write the Scriptures. The first Christians were Jews. Neither faith based it’s beliefs on the Bible, but rather the Bible reflects the beliefs and relgious practices of these people and their faith. They had a religion and belief first, and this moved them to write about what they already believed.

Therefore Catholics read and interpret the Bible not in a vacuum but in the context of the faith that inspired it. Just like you can’t read the Old Tetament outside the context of Jewish history and religion, you can’t read the New Testament that way either. You either read the Bible in the context of the traditions that shaped it or ignore them and risk misunderstanding.

Because of this you can neither cherry-pick or blindly apply everything uniformly. Some texts will apply in certain ways and for certain times but others will not. The Scriptures are products of a religious tradition and as such a product that same faith is the necessary ingredient to determine their true meaning.

 

[HelenRose]

These are not contradictory. Getting wisdom and understanding is not at odds with associated advantages or disadvantages. Unless one actually think ignorance is bliss and is a good thing to remain at the ignorant level.

Sometimes it may appear that quotes contradict. I have often thought of this in terms of a doctor’s advice. A doctor may tell me that I need to walk more because I am over weight and need more exercise. The doctor may tell a person who broke his leg to stay off his feet and let his leg heal.

That is why it is important to understand the context. What is good advice for one person may not be good advice for another.