How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[Tommy555]

*Tommy I would say that the reason why you saw so many women involved is because more women attend Mass and therefore become involved. Perhaps men think this is a woman’s role!! We women are nurturers and perhaps more conscious of the need to be spiritual!! ??? At the parishes I attend there are men involved.

One of our deacons is a very macho type and one would not expect him to be so devout and deeply spiritual, in a way. He conducts a workshop each week and recently he was attacked while asleep when a robber took a knife from the kitchen and plunged it into his back - he bled a lot and fortunately his spine was not injured. After 3 days in hospital he left the hospital at 5pm and at 6.30pm was at the weekly workshop. More men are becoming involved and more men are attending the workshop.

blessings
Cinette*

In the mass, I thought that the priest is the Christ that we see; he is a picture of Jesus Christ. Women is a picture of the Church. When women participate in the mass, we make Jesus Christ and the Church equals.

Mary would not, could not, have been what she was, what she is, or done what she did without Christ Jesus. Although He, Jesus, was the fruit of her womb, she was first the fruit of Him and what He did and was going to do. Without Jesus Christ, Mary was nothing and would have perished a sinner. She was only without sin because of Jesus Christ. Christ is the second Adam; Mary is the second Eve. Eve came from Adam, was the fruit of Adam. Likewise, Mary is the fruit of Jesus. Woman came from man, and man comes from woman. Mary was from Jesus, and Jesus was from Mary.

The priest, as previously stated, is a picture of Christ. In the mass, we see what Christ is doing for us, what He has done for us, and what He will do for us. When a woman, or women, participates in the mass, the picture is destroyed, for the woman is a picture of the Church. The focus on our Lord Jesus Christ is completely lost because the Church becomes equal with Him.

Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, is a picture of the posture of the Church: sitting at the feet of Jesus. Women participating in the mass is a picture of Martha, and Martha was rebuked. The Blessed Mother also shows us the proper posture of the Church when she tells the servants, “Do whatever He says.” The Blessed Mother never makes herself equal to Jesus nor participates in His work. She ponders; she intercedes; she says, “Obey Him,” which is what the Church does.

The beautiful picture that the mass paints of our Lord as Prophet, Priest, King, and Savior is completely destroyed when the Church is portrayed as being equal to Christ. The priest no longer is a picture of Christ, but is only another part of the Church. True, He is the Head of the Church; therefore, a part of the Body. But He must be first; must be exalted; must be worshipped. The Body is not to be worshipped; only the Head.

This is why the mass was so devastating to me: Christ was no longer present in the mass. The mass–so I was thinking–was about what Christ was doing for each of us individually and as a body. My wife, who was a Catholic, was also dismayed.

I had thought that if there was one church that did not cave in to feminization that it would be the Catholic Church. In their bulletin, the Catholic Church we attended stated that culture could not change the church. That is doubtful now. The Catholic Church states that it stands on Scripture and Tradition. I was strongly considering the Catholic Church, but now I must hit my knees again.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

In the mass, I thought that the priest is the Christ that we see; he is a picture of Jesus Christ. Women is a picture of the Church.

That is correct.

When women participate in the mass, we make Jesus Christ and the Church equals.

Only if the woman takes the place of the priest. The priest is the one who so particularly and magnificently represents Christ. The people who do the readings or assist the priest don’t have to be men for the spiritual symbolism to remain intact. In fact, Mary Magdalene poured perfume on Jesus’ feet to prepare Him for His burial while He was still alive on Earth, and the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass is the proclamation of Christ’s death (1 Cor. 11:25). Jesus saw nothing wrong with a woman assisting Him in the preparation for His Great Pascal Sacrifice, just as women today can bring the gifts to the priest at the altar while never themselves taking the role of the priest. The priest himself can never be a woman. To pretend that a woman could be a priest would be to distort the glory of the Incarnation.

The Virgin Mary stood at the foot of the Cross, as we all do at the Mass; she did not hang on the Cross as the Eucharist is raised into the air in the hands of the priest and then broken that all might receive. The Old and New Testaments reveal only men possessing either the offices of presbyter or bishop, and Christ chose only men as His apostles. In keeping with this Sacred Tradition, the Church, speaking through John Paul II, has decreed infallibly that the Church can never ordain women; she has no authority to do so.

Your post above is very beautiful and shows a much stronger theology of the Mass than the average Catholic has. I very much enjoyed reading it . My difficulty with it is that you kept on suggesting that a woman participating in the Mass in any way is the same thing as her snatching the role of the priesthood, and that suggestion severely undermines the distinctive glory of Holy Orders.

The role of the priest remains necessarily a man. Having a woman offer a reading does nothing to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and, consequently, does nothing to diminish the validity of the Mass or to distort the image of Christ as Priest. Christ the High Priest is indeed revealed in the priest, as you say in your post. The presence of women, or men, assisting the priest, does not impair this Christological image. It’s women replacing His role as priest that would distort the Christology of the Sacrifice of the Mass if ever practiced. That is why the Church has repeatedly and constantly condemned the effort of feminists to snare the priesthood for women, but the Church has permitted women to assist at the Mass in other ways, such as offering readings or bringing the gifts to the altar. The Church hasn’t permitted women to assist at Mass as a concession to feminism; she has done this because there is nothing doctrinally wrong with it. Women helping the priest at Mass aren’t acting in the role of the priest, so they aren’t distorting the image of him standing place of Christ the High Priest.

On another note, it is very important for us to trust the mind of the Church, even if we don’t understand something she has done or said. The Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians says the following,

“Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God! Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God. Please ye Him under whom ye fight, and from whom ye receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that ye may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering, therefore, with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you.May I have joy of you for ever!”

This teaching, that we should never desert the Church or bishop but suffer in meekness, trusting always, understanding that his doctrine will stand firm, believing the opinion of the Church above our own, this is a high pathway to holiness. It is required of us all.

I too am struggling with an issue where it would appear on the surface that the Church’s teaching changed, but I surrender to the Church out of faith, for I know that she is right and my confusion is just my confusion. I know that by faith, if not fully by understanding as yet. And I continue to seek to form my understanding according to her wisdom; I’m just still seeking more information. The Church is always one, true, and faithful, and she cannot ever err or fail. Praise be to Jesus Who offers us so holy and glorious a promise (Matt. 16:18-19)!

 

[schaick]

Hi, Schaick,

This sounds very good … would you kindly provide an example of a correct interpretation (that does differ from the ‘correct interpretation’ of another group - this is how we can stay on course for this thread…) that has developed into a fuller view through time and discussion.

The development of insight is expected in all aspects of human growth and development - this is true for our progress in the Christian Life. What I would find interesting would be an example of where there was one way of looking at a verse describing a scriptural reality - and then years that same verse is recognized as something quite different.

For example, in John 20:20-22 we have Christ specifically giving His Apostles the delegated power of God to forgive the sins of men. My understanding is that protestants do not take this literally… and none have ever taken the discussion on in such a way so that years later they would say, “Thourgh our progress in understanding the Word of God, Christ’s words are to be taken literally.”

I would find using this or any example you wish - showing actually progress from an earlier understanding to a later understanding where the two, when viewed side-by-side, are the oppisite.

Thanks and God bless

If the interpretations are opposite or differ from each other then one is NOT a fuller understanding. Scripture must be allowed to interprete scripture, it must jive.

In my studies I have not been aware of a deeper fuller meaning for each and every verse. Does it mean there isn’t a deeper meaning and that it should be taken at just face value? No either I am not ready, my life experience doesn’t warrant it, etc.

This may be a duh-no brainer for you but for me it was great because- I was speaking to Muslims about the apprpriate time for a man to marry a woman. As you might know it is very early according to allah and their Quran. They said there was nothing in the Holy Bible to guide man in this issue:

**Ezekiel 16:4-14 ** Is about the reltionship between GOD and Israel, but in it we can see the appropriate time for a man to marry a woman, specifically these:

7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

8 " 'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.

GOD considers a woman ready for love, marriage after puberty and not what Muslims say in trying to follow Mohammad.

I am a non-catholic Christian, yes I do agree, Jesus did in fact give HIS Disciples the power to forgive.

But you were one verse short:
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

 

[fhansen]

If the interpretations are opposite or differ from each other then one is NOT a fuller understanding. Scripture must be allowed to interprete scripture, it must jive.

The “problem” is that scripture can’t/doesn’t interpret scripture-only people do that. If two interpretations are opposite or differ from each other, both could be wrong.

 

[schaick]

The “problem” is that scripture can’t/doesn’t interpret scripture-only people do that. If two interpretations are opposite or differ from each other, both could be wrong.

That saying "Scripture must be allowed to interprete scripture, means it must jive".

LOL!! that dates me doesn’t it!

The understanding of one verse must be consistant with the verses surrounding it - the chapter - the Book - the New Testament, the whole Bible.

You must read the verse in context of everything written in the Holy Bible.

Check out this verse:
Matthew 10
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

It is mentioned again here:

Luke 12
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Is this really Jesus’ mission or is it simply Jesus’ aknowledgement of how man has in fact reacted to HIS time here on earth?

 

[fhansen]

That saying "Scripture must be allowed to interprete scripture, means it must jive".

LOL!! that dates me doesn’t it!

Yeah, it dates me, too.

The understanding of one verse must be consistant with the verses surrounding it - the chapter - the Book - the New Testament, the whole Bible.

You must read the verse in context of everything written in the Holy Bible.

Check out this verse:
Matthew 10
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

It is mentioned again here:

Luke 12
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Is this really Jesus’ mission or is it simply Jesus’ aknowledgement of how man has in fact reacted to HIS time here on earth?

Jesus’ mission was to separate good from evil, the wheat from the tares, so the wheat can be saved. We’re to look to and value God first, before we value family relationships.

But even if my interpretation of these particular verses is wrong, it’s OK- I can look to the CC, the one place guaranteed to be free from error on the essential matters of faith and morals, and trust her understanding is correct. I may struggle with a teaching here and there, but as I’ve grown in trust and agreement on the important doctrines and dogma-after years of being anti-Catholic BTW-I’ll always give her the benefit of the doubt and continue to seek understanding on the issue.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick,

My wife and I have been married for 40 years … and … as I recall … I did not meet her in the manner described… But… it was a good meeting! LOL

Oh, sorry about shorting you on that verse … thanks for catching it.

Now, tell me, as I reflect on that verse (John 20:20-23) and your understanding of it - how do you see this being fulfilled in the Christian life today?

God bless

If the interpretations are opposite or differ from each other then one is NOT a fuller understanding. Scripture must be allowed to interprete scripture, it must jive.

In my studies I have not been aware of a deeper fuller meaning for each and every verse. Does it mean there isn’t a deeper meaning and that it should be taken at just face value? No either I am not ready, my life experience doesn’t warrant it, etc.

This may be a duh-no brainer for you but for me it was great because- I was speaking to Muslims about the apprpriate time for a man to marry a woman. As you might know it is very early according to allah and their Quran. They said there was nothing in the Holy Bible to guide man in this issue:

**Ezekiel 16:4-14 ** Is about the reltionship between GOD and Israel, but in it we can see the appropriate time for a man to marry a woman, specifically these:

7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

8 " 'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.

GOD considers a woman ready for love, marriage after puberty and not what Muslims say in trying to follow Mohammad.

I am a non-catholic Christian, yes I do agree, Jesus did in fact give HIS Disciples the power to forgive.

But you were one verse short:
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

 

[schaick]

Hi, Schaick,

My wife and I have been married for 40 years … and … as I recall … I did not meet her in the manner described… But… it was a good meeting! LOL

Oh, sorry about shorting you on that verse … thanks for catching it.

Now, tell me, as I reflect on that verse (John 20:20-23) and your understanding of it - how do you see this being fulfilled in the Christian life today?

God bless

LOL! too funny!

It should be a reminder to us that as Christians we must forgive people when they sin against us especially when they say they are sorry. We are not to hold a grudge.

In Chruces I have seen it **applied **in different ways.

Pastor reminds you that when you repent Jesus forgives you.

Pastor says as a called and ordained servant of the Lord I forgive you your sins in Jesus’ name.

Upon this your confession, I, by virtue of my office as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God to all of you, and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins.

These are really just reminders because we know through:

Acts 10
42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

 

[benedictus2]

I have been to many Bible study groups, same denomination and different denominations- basically there is one interpretation with many celebrations within that one interpretation.

Where there has been a “different” interpretation usually is simply a deeper fuller understanding of the Bible passage.

Is it correct for where you are in your life, your maturity level as a Christian? The more you read the Bible the more it answers questions for your daily life.

In our groups we discover that the most discussion, best discussions come when we each have a different fuller and deeper understanding of the passages.

But that is nothing more than relativism.

How do you know that the “different” interpretation usually is simply a deeper fuller understanding of the Bible passage" is really such and not a corruption or a distortion?

And what does it mean “many celebrations in one interpretation”. That is what I call “vague speak” or “fudge speak”. It’s saying something but not really meaning anything.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Schaick, different interpretations can be appreciated and used to nourish our spiritual growth provided they don’t contradict each other (or what is true). There can be multiple layers of meaning in one text, but there aren’t any contradictory meanings, for the truth is one and absolute. EDIT: Oh . . . I just noticed you agree with this, so that’s fine then .

By the way, Benedictus makes a good point. How do you know your interpretation of any given Bible passage is true or not?

 

[schaick]

But that is nothing more than relativism.

How do you know that the “different” interpretation usually is simply a deeper fuller understanding of the Bible passage" is really such and not a corruption or a distortion?

And what does it mean “many celebrations in one interpretation”. That is what I call “vague speak” or “fudge speak”. It’s saying something but not really meaning anything.

See my example of a fuller meaning:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6884199&postcount=342

Maybe wrong terminology - Celebrations = applications really. How do we as Christians use that verse today? Even Psators and Priest-How do I use that verse in this day of age.

Also, I am not saying every verse had different applications.

Actually I have had this discussion here before. I will see if I can find it.

 

[schaick]

Schaick, different interpretations can be appreciated and used to nourish our spiritual growth provided they don’t contradict each other (or what is true). There can be multiple layers of meaning in one text, but there aren’t any contradictory meanings, for the truth is one and absolute. EDIT: Oh . . . I just noticed you agree with this, so that’s fine then .

By the way, Benedictus makes a good point. How do you know your interpretation of any given Bible passage is true or not?

It has to jive with the rest of the Chapter, Book, Testament, Bible.

I just looked up jive and that** IS NOT **how we used it!! And it isn’t jibe either!?! LOL! I am going to have to find a new word!

But then again where and when I grew up wicked was very good!

Harmonize, all the pieces have to fit together…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick,

Ahhhhh… yes, you did respond to this…

Ezekiel 16:4-14 Is about the reltionship between GOD and Israel, but in it we can see the appropriate time for a man to marry a woman, specifically these:

7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

but, to be honest, this was really what I had in mind…

See my example of a fuller meaning:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6884199&postcount=342

Maybe wrong terminology - Celebrations = applications really. How do we as Christians use that verse today? Even Psators and Priest-How do I use that verse in this day of age.

Also, I am not saying every verse had different applications.

Actually I have had this discussion here before. I will see if I can find it.

While Catholics and Protestants probably have a similar view of what Ezekiel is talking about… I was more thinking along the lines of Christ delegating the Power to man to forgive sin (John 20) or Christ commanding us to eat His Flesh if we are to have life in us (John 6). Here are just two areas where there is a tremendous difference in our understandings - and one where the fruits of contemplation and dialogue would be simple to identify - if they existed.

My understanding of your previous post was that new meaning were developing from a study of scripture. As an example, if a protestant group were to identify that after reading these two chapters in John, they have come to believe what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years - now that would be something to report. If the protestant group were to say, “Naaaaaaw, these verses can not be taken literally. We do not go to men to have sin forgiven and Christ really did not mean for us to eat His Flesh.” that would be nothing new. Would you agree with that?

So, how do you avoid the relativism that Benedictus2 clearly identified? I think this is the heart of the matter - and, even more so since you personally identified that you believe that man can forgive sin through the special Power of God (and, that would be through the Sacrament of Holy Orders).

God bless

 

[schaick]

While Catholics and Protestants probably have a similar view of what Ezekiel is talking about… I was more thinking along the lines of Christ delegating the Power to man to forgive sin (John 20) or Christ commanding us to eat His Flesh if we are to have life in us (John 6). Here are just two areas where there is a tremendous difference in our understandings - and one where the fruits of contemplation and dialogue would be simple to identify - if they existed.

My understanding of your previous post was that new meaning were developing from a study of scripture. As an example, if a protestant group were to identify that after reading these two chapters in John, they have come to believe what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years - now that would be something to report. If the protestant group were to say, “Naaaaaaw, these verses can not be taken literally. We do not go to men to have sin forgiven and Christ really did not mean for us to eat His Flesh.” that would be nothing new. Would you agree with that?

Our GOD is not a god of confusion. There is one interpretation.

So, how do you avoid the relativism that Benedictus2 clearly identified? I think this is the heart of the matter - and, even more so since you personally identified that you believe that man can forgive sin through the special Power of God (and, that would be through the Sacrament of Holy Orders).

God bless

I was asked “accused” of meta-ethical moral relativism on the other thread I mentioned.

*Originally Posted by schaick
What? GOD gave us each a brain.

It is up to each individual to search for the truth. You look for the fruits, check with scripture- is that minister preaching and living the Gospel of Jesus?

If one person says my church is the only way we have the secrets that no one else has, we have the only answer or all the answers - run!

**Quote:
Originally Posted by 1holycatholic **
This post has meta-ethical moral relativism all over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by schaick
hardly- pick a moral issue and let’s see.

**Quote:
Originally Posted by 1holycatholic **
Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil.

Your move.

**Originally Posted by schaick **
Artifical contraception that causes death of a potential life is a no brainer- it is going against one of GOD’s commandments.

Each case has to be decided on an individual basis.

I would say birth control so a person young or old could mess around falls under the sexual immorality catagory mentioned in the Holy Bible.

What do you think about this case, which is actually a true to life case-

A married person has Huntington’s Chorea they are a carrier, have the disease and watched their parent die from the disease. They have decided against children- 50% end up with the disease.

Mark 10
7’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Genesis 2
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Who is the church to tell them it is wrong? There is nothing in the Bible about this issue and must be left up for GOD to decide. *

**I guess I believe that not only is GOD not a god of confusion. **

HE is also a personal GOD.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick,

We are on the same page here! Our God is not a god of confusion - and that is for sure! But, that isn’t the idea that I had in mind. So, let me try again.

Our GOD is not a god of confusion. There is one interpretation.

If, as you say, “There is one interpretation”, then tell me WHICH interpretation is correct?

1.) John 6 - where Jesus tells His listeners that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood if they are to have life in them.

Catholics have always taken this literally and have the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist

Protestants have not taken this literally and believe it is simply a memorial service at best.

Both of these interpretations are opposed to one another - which is correct?

2.) John 20 - where Jesus delegates the Power of God to men to forgive or retain sin.

Catholics have always taken this literally and have the Sacrament of Holy Orders where a man is consecrated a priest and given the delegated Power of God to forgive sin.

Protestants do not believe man can forgive sin and say we are to take our sorrow for sin directly to God.

Both of these interpretations are opposed to one another - which is correct?

I submit that the Catholic Church which traces is origin back to Christ placing Peter as the foundation of Christ’s Church (Matt 16:18) - with Christ being the Cornerstone. (Acts 4:11, Psalms 118:22). The Church with Apostolic Tradition that preceeded the New Testament, The same Church that has 400 years of the writings of the Early Church Fathers that back up the idea that the Eucharist really is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that Christ gave men the Power of God to forgive sin - and still teaching these same truths today has the correct interpretaton.

Now, if you think what I have said is in error, then please, tell me why … and, some Scriptural references would be appreciated.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

The “problem” is that scripture can’t/doesn’t interpret scripture-only people do that. If two interpretations are opposite or differ from each other, both could be wrong.

Exatly

 

[benedictus2]

That saying "Scripture must be allowed to interprete scripture, means it must jive".

LOL!! that dates me doesn’t it!

The understanding of one verse must be consistant with the verses surrounding it - the chapter - the Book - the New Testament, the whole Bible.

You must read the verse in context of everything written in the Holy Bible.

Check out this verse:
Matthew 10
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

It is mentioned again here:

Luke 12
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Is this really Jesus’ mission or is it simply Jesus’ aknowledgement of how man has in fact reacted to HIS time here on earth?

Well then, let’s take concrete examples.

• Eucharist. Is it real or merely symbolic.
• Confession. Can the priests forgive or not.
• Mary. Must we venerate her or not.
• Pope. Is infallibility true or not.

How do we know in any of these instances which one is correct?

 

[schaick]

Well then, let’s take concrete examples.

• Eucharist. Is it real or merely symbolic.
• Confession. Can the priests forgive or not.
• Mary. Must we venerate her or not.
• Pope. Is infallibility true or not.

How do we know in any of these instances which one is correct?

Hope this doesn’t derail the thread on interpretation.

I believe there is presence in the Eucharist. Many non-catholic Christians do too.

Some say that the Eucharist is a memorial, symbol. I wonder if more would say there was true presence if they understood what the “make-up” of that presence was.

God is spirit-we know that he does not have a flesh, bone and blood body. His Word incarnate did have flesh, bone and body, but Jesus is also spirit as a person of the GODHead.

So Jesus speaking of spiritual flesh and blood or human flesh and blood? Jesus explains in John 6.

It is not Jesus’ physical or human body and blood that gives life, but HIS Spiritual Body and Blood. What has come down from heaven.

John 6
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.** The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. **64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

“The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing.”

 

[fhansen]

Hope this doesn’t derail the thread on interpretation.

I believe there is presence in the Eucharist. Many non-catholic Christians do too.

Some say that the Eucharist is a memorial, symbol. I wonder if more would say there was true presence if they understood what the “make-up” of that presence was.

God is spirit-we know that he does not have a flesh, bone and blood body. His Word incarnate did have flesh, bone and body, but Jesus is also spirit as a person of the GODHead.

So Jesus speaking of spiritual flesh and blood or human flesh and blood? Jesus explains in John 6.

It is not Jesus’ physical or human body and blood that gives life, but HIS Spiritual Body and Blood. What has come down from heaven.

John 6
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.** The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. **64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

“The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing.”

So now, is this the final, definitive interpretation?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fhansen,

Maybe … but, don’t count on it! I am sure there is another installment…

God bless

So now, is this the final, definitive interpretation?