It seems clear to you, and that is not a problem, because you are reading in the Tradition of the Church, but the Church has not infallibly defined this verse in such a way, and therefore, a Catholic can reject your understanding of it.
I suggest you and John 3 give up the anti catholic rant until you check the CCC
I am a Catholic. I suggest you read the Catechism and learn how to understand the Scriptures according to Catholic Teaching.
Where did you get yours and who made you the apologetics police?
This is not even a nice dodge, De Maria. You stated that Catholics are "prohibited’ from private interpretation. I asked you where you got the definition you are using, since you opened the thread by making a private interpretation of scripture, then said it was not allowed.
By what authority did you become “every Catholic”? You opened a thread. I posted on the thread.
LOL. YOu brought the word into the thread… I think that duty falls to you.
No. I gave no interpretation for this passage.
I think you need to reread your thread, De Maria. You seem to be suffering from some memory problems. You are the one offering the interpretation here. I am the one who claimed there IS NO authoritative Catholic interpretation of this verse. You seem to be quite turned around.
LOL
Its not a dodge. You first need to back up your statement that:
This is not even a nice dodge, De Maria. You stated that Catholics are "prohibited’ from private interpretation. I asked you where you got the definition you are using, since you opened the thread by making a private interpretation of scripture, then said it was not allowed.
You need to show where it is permitted.
On this thread, you did not object to my posting but to po18guy’s. I believe his statements are accurate and correct. Now, provide the evidence that private interpretation of the Scriptures is permitted by the Catholic Church or admit that you are wrong.
You said:LOL. YOu brought the word into the thread… I think that duty falls to you.
You are wrong, I did not engage in private interpretation. Where did you get that? And where did you get the idea that the Church permits it?
The question is, do you know what you are writing. I want to see you prove that the Church permits private interpretation of Scripture.
Don’t dodge the issue. Where did you get the idea that the Church permits private interpretation?
I’m offering an interpretation based upon and in the Spirit of the Traditions of the Catholic Church in complete accordance with the Catechism.
I guess. In the meantime, I have decided that what is good for the gander is good for the goose. If you are going to nitpick my messages, you will find me examining yours with a fine tooth comb. When you get out of my hair, I’ll get out of yours.
I back up my statement to pointing to a lack of condemnation for it in the Catechism or any other official Church documents.
That’s easy! the opening post of this thread demonstrates a private interpretation of Scripture.
You have it backwards, De Maria. I said it is not condemned. That means I can find no condemnation for it in Church teaching. If you believe I am wrong, then you would have to provide such a document, that does in fact condemn it, so as to prove me wrong. I can’t prove a negative, which means I can’t produce a document that does not exist.
Your opening post on this thread is a good example of private interpretation. You have taken a passage of scripture and interpreted in a way that makes sense to you as a private individual. This interpretation is not binding upon the whole Church. The Church does not have an infallible interpretation of this passage, and no one is compelled to agree with your interpretation.
You are asking me to defend a position I never claimed to hold. I claimed it is not condemned. Prove to me that what you have done in the opening post contradicts the teaching of the church.
REading the same passage of the Catechism you are reading.
Exactly! All such private interpretation is not condemned.
The Magisterium of the Church
No it doesn’t. It is perfectly in line with the doctrine known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
You are interpreting the word, “condemned” very narrowly. All the heretics have interpreted Scripture privately and they have all been condemned for doing so.
No, it isn’t. The commonly understood Catholic definition of the term “private interpretation” is interpretation of Scripture in a manner inconsistent with Catholic Teaching. Thus the influential website known as Scripture Catholic says:
I have taken a passage of Scripture and shown how it can be interpreted in line with Catholic doctrine.
Who said it was?
Who said they were?
Private interpretation of Scripture means that one is interpreting in a manner which contradicts the Teaching of the Catholic Church. It is based upon the Word of God in Scripture as well.
No. You made that assumption, in reverse, against po18guy. In fact, you did much worse.
And you are still wrong.
Why would I do that? My post is perfectly in line with Catholic Teaching.
That is not private interpretation. Private interpretation is that which contradicts Catholic Teaching.
Yes, of course. And as long as individuals reading the Scriture interpret in such a manner that is consistent with the Church teaching, they have a latitude. Your original post in this thread is a good example of this. The Church does not require us to accept the interpretation you have forwarded here. However, it is not against the Teachings of the Church, so you are free to indulge this private interpretation.
So long as your private interpretation does not contradict what the Church teaches, you are within the boundaries.
In your mind it does, and I can also see your reasoning. But someone else could follow a different line of reasoning and still be within the boundaries.
Of course. The Church is not quick to “condemn” anyone, and when she does, it is always narrowly, with the hope that the offender will return to the One True Faith. Heretics are condemed for private interpretation because they use it to support their heresies. Heresy is condemned. What you have posted here is in no way heretical, and therefore, should not be condemned.
Yes, and what you ahve done is not in disagreement with anything the Church teaches. Your private interpretation is within the bounds allowed.
I think this is true, especially in an apologetics context. But there is nothing inherintly wrong with private interpretation. This is what St. Teresa teaches and is commonly found in Lectio Divina today. So long as the way the person interprets is consitent with the Church, it is not wrong.
So true!
No one. That is what makes it a private interpretation.
That is what makes it private.
This is the definition of private interpretation you are using, and the one that is most common in apologetic circles. However, I don’t believe for a minute that you would fault a doctor of the Church for defining it differently, or that you object to the practice of Lectio Divina, which uses private interpretation also.
No, this is not a condemnation. THe Apostle is INSTRUCTING the faithful so that they understand that interpreting the Scriptures must be done in accordance with the authorities that God has appointed to that task, specifically the Bishops.
Sorry, you lost me here.
YOu will have to forgive me for that, since I am deep in a study of Teresian prayer, and she uses the term differently than modern apologists. Suffice to say it has different meanings in different venues and times in history.
I think if you will look back through this thread, you will find that I have consistently affirmed your right to make a private interpretation of this scripture, and that I have consistely affirmed that it is consistent with the teachings of the Church.
Your private interpretation of this verse is NOT a Catholic doctrine. It is not contrary to it, but it is NOT part of the once for all divine deposit of faith.
I do not find any intent in your original post with regard to private interpretation at all. I think it was your intent to demonstrate that the Sacramental life is consistent with Scripture.
That is your definition of the term private interpret Your original post in this thread is a good example of this…I see that you’re still trying to change the subject. It won’t work this time.
Second, I provided a quote from a prestigious Catholic website using the term private interpretation as a Catholic understands it. The interpretation of Scripture in a manner contrary to Catholic doctrine. You continue to insist upon your definition. I don’t recognize your definition. Period.
All interpretation must be done within the framework of the teaching of the Church. The prohibition is not absolute - but laissez-faire private interpretation, separated from the deposit of faith, is precisely what has caused the Body of Christ to fracture into tiny little impotent bits, while the body of evil grows stronger.
That is not the common Catholic understanding. Nor did po18guy consider it such as he mentioned the Scripture, which is clearly against a private understanding which conflicts with the Apostolic teaching.
It is considered “private” because not everyone in the church is compelled to accept your understanding of it.
And you are trying to change po18guy’s venue and confuse issues by inserting your personal definition in as a strawman and then knocking it down as though you had proved him wrong. But instead, you simply argued against your own false statement.
Off topic. Stick to responding to what is written.
It is a condemnation. If you have read the rest of Scripture you would know that the teaching of new gospels is anathema.
po18guy only mentioned the Scripture. You changed venue and pretended he was talking about Church Teaching.
I doubt that.
Besides the point. You were addressing a particular message and you twisted it all around to make it seem wrong when it wasn’t at all.
But po18guy was addressing Protestants and their propensity to interpret Scripture against the Teaching of the Church and you claimed that he was wrong. Stick to the subject.
If it is not contrary to Catholic doctrine, then it is part of the once for all divine deposit of faith.
Exactly.
You described my method as a form of private interpretation. It is not. It is complete accord with Catholic Teaching.
Private interpretation is the interpretation of Scripture in conflict with Catholic doctrine. My interpretation is completely in line with Catholic doctrine.
You completely ignored the statement I posted from Scripture Catholic. Why should I look at your link? Go back and read the Scripture Catholic explanation. Perhaps you could benefit from it.
I am responding to your original post, which contains a private interpetation of scripture.
Private interpretation is not condemned by the Church, or in the Bible. The use of it must be in accordance with the One Faith. This referenc
Your refusal to accept an alternative point of view does not make the alternative wrong.
He said private interpretation is condemned in the bible, which it is not.
Heresy is condemned, and the use of private interpretation to support it is condemned.
The private interpretation you gave in the opening post is not condemned.
First, John3_3 is quoting from a modern, man-made revision of the original translation. Modern bibles, for whatever reason, use “presence” instead of the original “in the person of Christ” This is a mutilation of scripture and clouds the true meaning.
It appears that you may not believe in sin, or the need to confess it. We confess, not only what we believe, but our sinfulness. Do you confess your sins to one another where you worship? If not, you are not following the bible (James 5:!6). Do you confess only the positive? God sees both that and your sin. I hope you confess your sins. I hope your ears hear that you are forgiven.
At least you understand that grace flows through those humans that God chooses. Yet, there is zero evidence, that what man forgives, God also forgives. Forgiveness before God requires repentance. Period. Jesus gave this power of binding and loosing only to the twelve, and to no one else. They passed it on to their successors. It is very curious that evangelicals deny the Catholic priesthood, but exult in what they believe to be their own. Curious indeed.
In a sense, yes. But, do you claim to have the exact powers that Christ gave only to the twelve? I hope not!
Since you use the partial scripture of John 3:3 as your username, I suspect that you have chosen to disregard John 3:5, which tells how you are born from above: “Water and the Spirit” I suspect also that you are not baptized. If so, then you may not be Christian. Jesus, our Savior, comanded that we BOTH believe and be baptized (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16). If you choose to disregard baptism, does that mean that the rest of us can disregard faith? It is not either/or, it is both/and, my brother.
How? What if you do not repent?
Another man-made teaching that opposes Christ: “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17) By what authority do you overrule Jesus?
Of course he does - but not on my simplistic terms, but on His unfathomable terms - such as through the Sacraments which He alone instituted. You may dwell in His spiritual presence, but 1.5 billion Christians, and even you - can spend time in His physical presence. Ask any Catholic or Orthodox Christian.
I have repeatedly explained to you that it doesn’t. You repeating the same false accusation does not make it so. It just means your back to your old tricks.
It is prohibited and that is enough. You ignore that prohibition at the peril of your own soul
I have refused nothing. Your are changing the venues and rules as you go.
The type of private interpretation which he was speaking of certainly is.
I realize that it does not according to your definition, but in fact, it is.
Holy Mother Church is not going to recommend that I do anything that will endanger my soul, do you think? So when the Church encourages the practice of Lectio Divina, it is clear that this kind of private interpretation is not prohibited. Lectio Divina, just like your example of private interpretation in the original post, is consistent with the Teaching of the Church.
It is prohibited to use private interpretation to go against the Teachings of the Church. I don’t think your post did that. Lectio Divina does not do this either.
How can you tell?
DId you look at this link? Do you think CAtholic Answers is “completely in error?”
Sorry about that. Guanaphore and I have some history. He claims to be a Catholic but in my threads, he takes the Protestant side against Catholics. He is very adept at subtle insinuations of wrong doing. He accuses and compliments all in one phrase. Sort of what can be described as “backhanded compliments”. That is why I doubt his sincerity when he offers his compliments about my so called, “private interpretation”.