How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[PRmerger]

No need to try and ridicule me- you are questioning what Jesus taught.

How is it that catholics accuse some Christians for not taking literally that it is HIS Body and Blood yet can’t take the rest literally?

Catholics “take the rest” with the understanding provided to us by the Apostles. When it is to be understood in a literalist manner, we understand it in a literalist manner. When it is to be understood metaphorically, we understand it metaphorically.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Schaik, I went to the trouble of bolding the words in your own post, above which noted that the Church’s teaching (and it was pretty clear) did not involve any ‘change’ from its understanding of the ‘fullness’ of the Eucharist.

It is you who seem to have created a false dichotomy by insisting that reception of ‘only’ the Blood or "only’ the Body involves receiving "only a PART of Jesus’.

Really, Jesus is Risen, His body is glorified. Somehow God made man, who is able to feed us with His Body, is hampered and can only give PART of it in each species? Where is THAT in Scripture?

If we are feeding on Jesus, and we partake of the Body, are we somehow MISSING THE BLOOD? How does that happen? Is Jesus wandering around the heaven in two separate parts, body and blood, each eternally ‘separate’ from the other???

 

[schaick]

How curious! Especially, since the Bible does not say it is the Final Authority.

In fact, it says something else is the foundation for our Truth, eh?

What church calls you a heretic based on the word “heresies” inserted in the Bible?

The church is the pillar of truth- what church?

Timothy 3
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

If we look at the literal we see the word assembly:
1 Timothy 3
5and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth [thee] to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God – a pillar and foundation of the truth,

Blue Letter Bible:
1Ti 3
15But1161 if1437 I tarry long1019 , that2443 thou mayest know1492 how4459 thou oughtest1163 to behave thyself390 in1722 the house3624 of God2316, which3748 is2076 the church1577 of the living2198 God2316, the pillar4769 and2532 ground1477 of the truth225

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1577&t=KJV&page=1
the church1577 ekklēsia

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   b) the assembly of the Israelites
   c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   d) in a Christian sense
2. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
3. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
4. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
5. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
6. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Look at in context, just previously we see requirements for a bishop of that Church:
1 Timothy 3
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Paul addresses the men and women of the Church:
1 Timothy 2
8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

In 1 Timothy 3 Paul also addresses ovverseers, Deacons and their wives,

Paul even mentions those that will depart from the faith:
1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Paul is writting to Timothy and the Church of Ephesus, the entire Church body at Ephesus. Paul is saying that every Christian as Christ’s representatives to the world must be the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[schaick]

Indeed, it matters, schaick!

One can’t baptize with chocolate milk.
One can’t use Coca-Cola and Pringles to confect the Eucharist.
One can’t make a lizard a priest.
One can’t marry a turnip.

One must have proper form and proper matter in order to confect the sacraments. Otherwise, you get the absurdities listed above.

More ridicule? We are not talking about any of the stupid, silly things you listed.

Why in the world would you do such a thing? Because, I don’t fit into your neat little Catholic box?

**We are taking about the **fruit of the vine and whether it matters if it is fermented or not.

 

[schaick]

Schaik, I went to the trouble of bolding the words in your own post, above which noted that the Church’s teaching (and it was pretty clear) did not involve any ‘change’ from its understanding of the ‘fullness’ of the Eucharist.

It is you who seem to have created a false dichotomy by insisting that reception of ‘only’ the Blood or "only’ the Body involves receiving "only a PART of Jesus’.

Really, Jesus is Risen, His body is glorified. Somehow God made man, who is able to feed us with His Body, is hampered and can only give PART of it in each species? Where is THAT in Scripture?

If we are feeding on Jesus, and we partake of the Body, are we somehow MISSING THE BLOOD? How does that happen? Is Jesus wandering around the heaven in two separate parts, body and blood, each eternally ‘separate’ from the other???

I am saying Catholics before the ‘rules’ were changed back were simply not enjoying the full experience, they were being limited to just one part of the Eucharist.

I am happy to see you mentiion glorified body. Earlier in the thread, read back in the thread to get the gist of why I say that.

FYI - Jews eat kosher and do eat flesh and not blood.

One thing I have learned on this forum- Catholics are very sensitive about the fullness of their faith and church- yet accuss others of not having the full experience in a heart beat saying it can only be found in the Catholic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

The church is the pillar of truth- what church?

Timothy 3
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

If we look at the literal we see the word assembly:
1 Timothy 3
5and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth [thee] to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God – a pillar and foundation of the truth,

Blue Letter Bible:
1Ti 3
15But1161 if1437 I tarry long1019 , that2443 thou mayest know1492 how4459 thou oughtest1163 to behave thyself390 in1722 the house3624 of God2316, which3748 is2076 the church1577 of the living2198 God2316, the pillar4769 and2532 ground1477 of the truth225

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1577&t=KJV&page=1
the church1577 ekklēsia

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   b) the assembly of the Israelites
   c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   d) in a Christian sense
2. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
3. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
4. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
5. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
6. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Look at in context, just previously we see requirements for a bishop of that Church:
1 Timothy 3
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Paul addresses the men and women of the Church:
1 Timothy 2
8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

In 1 Timothy 3 Paul also addresses ovverseers, Deacons and their wives,

Paul even mentions those that will depart from the faith:
1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Paul is writting to Timothy and the Church of Ephesus, the entire Church body at Ephesus. Paul is saying that every Christian as Christ’s representatives to the world must be the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Ahhhh…not exactly! There is more than what you want to convey. And Paul is also NOT saying it is okay if the church at Corinth practices infant baptism and the church at Ephesus can teach the Eucharist is only symbolic and telling Titus women can be ordained clergy and Timothy that only adults can be baptized?

Sorry,but that is not the Body of Christ,only in belief,but not in doctrine!

Christ did not found His Church with conflicting teachings an doctrines. This belief was incorporated by non-Catholics later to justify their chaos and confusion,hence as still belonging to Christ ONE Body.

 

[Nicea325]

I am saying Catholics before the ‘rules’ were changed back were simply not enjoying the full experience, they were being limited to just one part of the Eucharist.

I am happy to see you mentiion glorified body. Earlier in the thread, read back in the thread to get the gist of why I say that.

FYI - Jews eat kosher and do eat flesh and not blood.

One thing I have learned on this forum- Catholics are very sensitive about the fullness of their faith and church- yet accuss others of not having the full experience in a heart beat saying it can only be found in the Catholic Church.

FYI - Jews eat kosher and do eat flesh and not blood.

Precisely why those Jews no longer followed Him after He told them they had no life unless they ate His Body and drank His BLOOD.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Greetings:

I would just like to comment on a few things as I have been reading many posts on this interesting subject “How Do You Know Your Interpretation is Correct?”

I find it fascinating that many Catholics feel so confident in their acceptance of a supposed infallible authority (btw how could one even prove that in any sense without using private judgement and private interpretation). May I ask Catholics online how they came to the decision that they will submit to Rome as their infallible authority? What thought processes did you use? Was it an act of faith? Did you prove to yourself that Rome was the infallible authority? Did you do this apart from private judgement and interpretation?

Have any Catholics on the forum considered that perhaps they rely on a circular argument: “I know the Catholic church is the one true infallible church because the infallible Pope of Rome tells me so?”. Here is another one: “I know the Bishop of Rome is infallible because the Church tells me he is and the Church is infallible because the infallible Pope tells me so.”

I am just posing these questions because many Catholics just love to go after Protestants concerning Sola Scriptura (in fact what they really are debating against but don’t realize it is Solo Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura) and they like to bring up private judgement and interpretation and it seems they have the same essential problem but won’t admit it.

From an article I read called “10 Objections to Sola scriptura” I found this very interesting:

It presumes the right of private judgment:

A Catholic apologist might object that my whole critique represents a tendentious exercise in the right of private judgment, assuming one of the principal points dividing Catholic and Protestant. When we quote Scripture against the Roman Church we’re taking for granted our competence to interpret Scripture aright quite apart from the Magisterium. But Rome denies that very premise. It must be established before it can be utilized. By way of reply:

(i) Even if this represented a genuine problem, and even if there were such a thing as the Magisterium, appealing to that office only relocates the original problem, for unless the laity are competent to interpret magisterial teachings, they cannot comply with them. Whatever complications are involved in exegetical and systematic theology are dwarfed by the scope of canon law. To plow through the Fathers, Doctors, Councils and Popes, reading them against a historical backdrop (minutes, correspondence, &c.), producing critical editions (textual criticism), collating the material and sifting it all according to degrees of normativity—is quite beyond the resources of a full time research scholar or professional theologian—much less a busy bishop or his parish priest. Even if the Pope were ordinarily immunized from doctrinal error in his public teaching, that instruction must still be popularized at the seminary and parish level. So it still amounts to a trickle down process, with the mass inculcation and application delegated to an army of fallible foot-soldiers. Again, Catholic scholars write commentaries too. They bring to this task the same set of fallible faculties as their Protestant counterparts. They have to exercise private judgment. While their publications must pass muster with an official censor, that, too is a form of fallible peer review. The same applies to Catholic theologians. The exercise is especially lame when the censor is not in the same intellectual league as the scholar or theologian under review.

(ii) The right of private judgment wasn’t some apologetic ruse invented by the Protestant Reformers. The Bible is a public revelation, addressed to the common people (e.g. Exod 24:7; Deut 31:11; Neh 8:3; Jer 36:6; Lk 4:16; Acts 13:15; 15:21; Col 4:16; 1 Thes 5:27; 1 Tim 4:13; Rev 1:3-4), and adapted to popular understanding (2 Cor 1:13; Eph 3:4). The OT prophets make direct appeal to the Mosaic Covenant when addressing their remarks to the congregation of Israel. Christ and the Apostles so the same. All this assumes that the rank-and-file are able to follow an exegetical argument. Indeed, they are held no less accountable for misunderstanding the message! Christ often pulled rank on the religious leaders as he addressed the masses and called on them to judge the doctrine of the religious establishment by straightforward appeal to Scripture. The same practice operates in the Book of Acts. As a review of Luke-Acts also makes plain, religious instruction in the synagogue followed a fairly informal arrangement. There was no elaborate command-structure corresponding to the Catholic hierarchy. And that’s because the Mosaic code itself did not deem it necessary to make any such provision, even though it can get very detailed when it needs to be.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

(iii) For that matter, even councils like Trent, Vatican I & Vatican II cite Scriptural prooftexts in support of their dogmas. Isn’t this an appeal to the reader? To a reader who is not a member of the Magisterium—since these documents are generated by the Magisterium and addressed to the church at large? Doesn’t such an appeal assume that the reader is able to connect the content of the proof text with the content of the dogma? The same applies to papal pronouncements like “Munificentissimus Deus.” And doesn’t that comparison invite the possibility of falsification? Unless these proof texts do, in fact, implicate the dogmas to which they’re assigned, their citation is duplicitous. (Very important point)

(iv) One of the standing ironies in Catholic apologetics is the spectacle of ordinary priests and laymen in lay organizations churning out books by and for laymen, sternly admonishing the laity that laymen are incompetent to speak with authority on matters of faith and morals. Here we have priests and laymen who—by definition—fall outside the ranks of the Magisterium, making a case on behalf of the Magisterium. Isn’t this a self-refuting exercise? Shouldn’t the hierarchy be left to speak for itself? The irony is never more acute than when a renegade Protestant tries to justify his defection. Shouldn’t he refer all inquiries to his bishop? Shouldn’t he let Mother Church do all the talking and speak on his behalf, rather than vice versa? While he now claims to be a Catholic, he still acts like a Protestant! A Catholic apologist never makes a more compelling case for the Protestant rule of faith than when he takes it upon himself to pen a popular apologetic against our rule of faith!

The lay apologist is having to exercise the right of private judgment in the very act of denying it. How does his position differ in practice from the practice of the Protestant apologist? Why can’t the Pope fight his own battles? Why did the bishops at Vatican II require the services of the periti? (a skilled theologian used as a consultant)

(v) If the Bible can’t be interpreted without benefit of a living teaching office, why bother with a “dead” book at all? What function does the Bible perform if you have a hotline to God via the living voice of Mother Church?

(vi) Rome herself recognizes the validity of the Orthodox communion. No less a spokesman than Cardinal Ratzinger grants that while “the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity” (Principles of Catholic Theology [Ignatius, 1987], 196). That being so, a papal Magisterium is superfluous to the preservation of faith and morals.
(vii) Karl Rahner freely concedes the right of private judgment in submitting to the Church in the first place:

…We may not of course obscure the obvious fact that the free acceptance of the church and its authority is itself once again an act of freedom and decision for which every Christian including a Catholic Christian has to take responsibility in the loneliness of his own conscience. Nor can he depend on the authority of the church as such at this point in the history of his freedom. Moreover, the fact that the authority of the church does become effective for an individual Christian always remains based upon this “lonely” decision. There is no essential difference on this point between a Catholic Christian and an Evangelical Christian who recognizes any authoritative instance at all, for example, Holy Scripture, as coming “from without” and hence binding, Foundations of Christian Faith, (Seabury 1990), 346.

Lastly in a debate between Apoliono Latar vs Julie Staples…

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Rebut 3
Thirdly, I asked my opponent, “Could you tell me how you know the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church without engaging in private interpretation?” His response to me was as follows:
“I do not become the sole arbiter of truth, but submit to which has authority over me, which is the Church. Submitting and conforming to the Truth is NOT private interpretation. I do not claim that “Peter is the Pope in Matthew 16:18” as if I was the judge, but I conformed to what the Church teaches.”
What Apolonio demonstrates is that he had to use private judgment in order to ascertain that Rome is the authority under which he should submit. I ask this question to show the fallacy a Roman Catholic commits when he uses this argument against Sola Scriptura, “But you are left with nothing but your private interpretation of Scripture, whereas we have an infallible authority to exegete Scripture for us.” What it comes down to is this: Which authority will we submit ourselves to? The theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures, or one “infallible human authority.” And how does the Roman Catholic know that his infallible authority is true, and not Salt Lake City (Mormonisn) or Brooklyn (Watchtower Society)? He must use his private judgment to interpret which he feels is telling the truth. The very thing he throws up in the face of the adherent to Sola Scriptura, he himself is guilty of.

Thank you for reading: Have a wonderful day

“‘But, after all,’ said the Duke of Bavaria to them, ‘can you refute by sound reasons the Confession made by the elector and his allies?’ ‘With the writings of the apostles and prophets-no!’ replied Eck; ‘but with those of the Fathers and of the councils-yes!’ ‘I understand,’ quickly replied the duke;** ‘I und**erstand. The Lutherans, according to you, are in Scripture; and we are outside.’”
-A conversation between Dr. John Eck and the Duke of Bavaria, both Roman Catholics, at the Diet of Augsburg, as recorded in J.H. Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, trans. Dr. H. White, Vol. V (Rapidan, VA: Harland Publications, reprinted 1846 London edition), p.568.

Sorry for having 3 posts…but one post, I was told was too big

 

[Nicea325]

[FO(iii)

For that matter, even councils like Trent, Vatican I & Vatican II cite Scriptural prooftexts in support of their dogmas. Isn’t this an appeal to the reader? To a reader who is not a member of the Magisterium—since these documents are generated by the Magisterium and addressed to the church at large? Doesn’t such an appeal assume that the reader is able to connect the content of the proof text with the content of the dogma? The same applies to papal pronouncements like “Munificentissimus Deus.” And doesn’t that comparison invite the possibility of falsification? Unless these proof texts do, in fact, implicate the dogmas to which they’re assigned, their citation is duplicitous. (Very important point)

Scriptural proof-text in support of their dogmas? Show me one proof-text for one dogma?

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Please go to the Vatican website and look for yourself…MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION: Now go look at the references to scripture in the endnotes…

ENDNOTES

*1. Rom 8:28.

1. Gal 4:4.
2. Cf. Hentrich-Von Moos, Petitiones de Assumptione Corporea B. Virginis Mariae in Caelum Definienda ad S. Sedem Delatae, 2 volumes (Vatican Polyglot Press, 1942).
3. Acts 20:28.
4. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, in the Acta Pii IX, pars 1, Vol. 1, p. 615.
5. The Vatican Council, Constitution Dei filius, c. 4.
6. Jn 14:26.
7. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor Aeternus, c. 4.
8. Ibid., Dei Filius, c. 3.
9. The encyclical Mediator Dei (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXIX, 541).
10. Sacramentarium Gregorianum.
11. Menaei Totius Anni.
12. Lk 22:32.
13. Liber Pontificalis.
14. Ibid.
15. Responsa Nicolai Papae I ad Consulta Bulgarorum.
16. St. John Damascene, Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.
17. St. Germanus of Constantinople, In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem, Sermo I.
18. The Encomium in Dormitionem Sanctissimae Dominae Nostrate Deiparae Semperque Virginis Mariae, attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem, n. 14.
19. Cf. St. John Damascene, op. cit., Hom. II, n. 11; and also the Encomium attributed to St. Modestus.
20. Ps 131:8.
21. Ps 44:10-14ff.
22. Song 3:6; cf. also 4:8; 6:9.
23. Rv 12:1ff.
24. Lk 1:28.
25. Amadeus of Lausanne, De Beatae Virginis Obitu, Assumptione in Caelum Exaltatione ad Filii Dexteram.
26. Is 61:13.
27. St. Anthony of Padua, Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus, In Assumptione S. Mariae Virginis Sermo.
28. St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 132.
29. St. Albert the Great, Sermones de Sanctis, Sermo XV in Annuntiatione B. Mariae; cf. also Mariale, q. 132.
30. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., I, lla; q. 27, a. 1; q. 83, a. 5, ad 8; Expositio Salutationis Angelicae; In Symb. Apostolorum Expositio, a. S; In IV Sent., d. 12, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 3; d. 43, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 1, 2.
31. St. Bonaventure, De Nativitate B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo V.
32. Song 8:5.
33. St. Bonaventure, De Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 1.
34. St. Bernardine of Siena, In Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 11.
35. Ibid.
36. St. Robert Bellarmine, Conciones Habitae Lovanii, n. 40, De Assumption B. Mariae Virginis.
37. Oeuvres de St. Francois De Sales, sermon for the Feast of the Assumption.
38. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 2, d. 1.
39. Eph 5:27.
40. I Tim 3:15.
41. St. Peter Canisius, De Maria Virgine.
42. Suarez, In Tertiam Partem D. Thomae, q. 27, a. 2, disp. 3, sec. 5, n. 31.
43. Gen 3:15.
44. Rom 5-6; I Cor. 15:21-26, 54-57.
45. I Cor 15:54.
46. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, loc. cit., p. 599.
47. I Tim 1:17.*

To a reader who is not a member of the Magisterium—since these documents are generated by the Magisterium and addressed to the church at large? Doesn’t such an appeal assume that the reader is able to connect the content of the proof text with the content of the dogma? The same applies to papal pronouncements like “Munificentissimus Deus.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tommy555,

Let me encourage you to continue your readings on Marian doctrine. Distraction is a common human experience. There really is a lot to this doctrine - take your time, read a little each day and take notes - give thought to your readings. If there is something specific you do not understand, just ask.

Hi, tqualey:

I am still reading on Marian doctrine, but got distracted. This is from the Catholic Catechism:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God… EDITED FOR BREVITY…

It troubled me when you said “heard of the Catholic Church.” You see, we have been to two Catholic Churches in the last four weeks. Feelings make me wary because they are so very deceptive, but God gave us feelings. I felt as though I was in a fast food restaurant. I left both feeling unfulfilled, empty. In our church, we kneel at the communion rail; the pastor gives us the host, saying, "This is the body of Christ given for you (name); then, when we are given the chalice, we are told, "This is the blood of Christ, shed for you****. There is reverence that I did not see at the Catholic Church. There were too many people helping, that it was distracting. I am sure this is not true in all Catholic churches. Both my wife and I agreed: Our church was more Catholic than the Catholic churches.

You present a real challenge to all - do we as individuals reflect or mirror Christ on Earth in such a way that others see the Works of Christ through our hands, hear Christ’s Words through our statements? This is the goal - and we do fall short of this goal. I can not argue with what you are saying - you feel more comfortable with your current religion than with your experience with Catholic litergy.

Let me put my ‘cards on the table’ - in the past 2,000 …begining with Peter’s denial of Christ 3x to the recent scandals of sexual abuse by priests - Catholics have not always given good example. That is a fact. Another fact is that during this time period, the teachings of the Catholic Church have remained consistent. Based on just a human understanding of human institutions - if the Catholic Church were just a human organization - it would have splintered and fragmented long ago.

Not to put to fine a point on this … since the 16th Century, protestantism has fragmented in such a way that there are 20,000+ groups, sects, assemblies, organizations, cults, all claiming not only to be a church - but the true church. The snag comes in is that each group disparages all other groups for not being true. There is no agreement on doctrine - except they all disagree with the Catholic Church - the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18).

I wish that you and your wife had experienced better example - or, had a better experience - but, your job is do honest research and make an intellectual (rather than emotional type) decision. I think you will find that the real Church of Christ is the one He founded on Peter and Peter’s Successors - the current being Pope Benedict XVI. I also think you will find Catholic Liturgy that can not only touch your mind and heart - but, your soul, too!

God bless

 

[Roy5]

Anna Scott

Sorry I don't have time to spend too much of it on CAF, as much as I'd like to.

Now, in response to your question to me. What do I believe?

Most Christians, traditional Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants certainly, are ready to recite and defend their doctrines. Catholics have the creeds (as do many Protestants). Protestants usually use the Bible to prove their case.

 As for me - and this may be hard for them to understand - I'm simply not into dogmatic religion. I believe in God, God's essential goodness and mercy. I believe that Christ has shown us the way in his Sermon on the Mount. I believe in loving God and helping one another, as Jesus commanded. I also believe in eternal life in some form - just how I'm not ready to say.

  Beyond that, frankly, I don't need all sorts of doctrines and dogmas to fill in the gaps. Was Mary a virgin? That really doesn't engage my attention all that much. I tend to doubt the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, two come-lately doctrines, one defined in 1864 as I recall, the other in 1950. I suspect that Marilogy was heavily influenced by some paganism - the various virgin and virgin births that were believed by different mystery religions at the time. But none of that particularly offends me. If people can believe it, God bless them.

 As for the Bible, there is enormous inspirational material therein. But to say that it is the infallible and inerrant Word of God - forgive me, but I simply cannot bring myself to believe that God who created us in his image was sorry he had made us, decided to drown everybody but eight adults, had Noah bring two of every creature into the ark for 150 days, etc. Gosh, I just can't put my brain and common sense aside and believe such stuff. It is a legend with some historic truth. Probably there was a huge flood. And it makes an important moral point, perhaps. But otherwise.... give me a break. Other Biblical atories are also incredible, such as God ordering Joshua to murder everyone in Jericho or telling Saul that he had to murder every remaining Amalekite. Such an insult to God!

  My main point, made over and over, is that Christianity should be a religion that allows diverse opinions rather than force it adherents to salute every single doctrine that comes to us from ancient times. For example, the Apostles Creed closes by affirming belief in the resurrection of our bodies. Now, I believe in life eternal, as I said, but doubt very seriously that our bodies resurrect. This is so unnecessary, to begin with, since I don't assume that we will live in our earthly bodies in the life to come. 

  I could go on and on, but I feel that I may be wasting time. Some CAFs assume that if we don't agree with the church completely and without doubt we are egotists, stubborn, untutored in the faith, rebellious, or whatever. I am not easily persuaded by such attempts to enforce conformity. Maybe I'm just too interested in thinking 'outside the box' as they say. I'm sure that God isn't troubled when we feel that he is too awesome, too magnificent, too huge, too almighty, and too wise for us mortals to comprehend him. If that is heresy, I am guilty of it. Fortunately we have freedom of religion here in the USA. No more burning at the stake.

  God bless his children of all creeds, colors and countries, and may religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JustMeAndrew,

I am not sure I understand your concern here. Is it that you were not able to locate all the citations? Is it that you do not agree with the doctrine proclaimed in this document? So, here is my attempt to address your post. If this isn’t what you have in mind… than please clarify your concerns. Thanks.

Please go to the Vatican website and look for yourself…MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION: Now go look at the references to scripture in the endnotes…

ENDNOTES

1. Rom 8:28. EDITED FOR BREVITY…
48. I Tim 1:17.

To a reader who is not a member of the Magisterium—since these documents are generated by the Magisterium and addressed to the church at large? Doesn’t such an appeal assume that the reader is able to connect the content of the proof text with the content of the dogma? The same applies to papal pronouncements like “Munificentissimus Deus.”

Here is the 1st paragraph of this dogmatic pronouncement:

1. The most bountiful God, who is almighty, the plan of whose providence rests upon wisdom and love, tempers, in the secret purpose of his own mind, the sorrows of peoples and of individual men by means of joys that he interposes in their lives from time to time, in such a way that, under different conditions and in different ways, all things may work together unto good for those who love him.[1]

And, here is the first endnote:

28
We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.

And the 40th paragraph of this dogmatic pronouncmen that contains the last endnote:
40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,[47] immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.[48]

17
To the king of ages, incorruptible, invisible, the only God, honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

And here is the take home message:
44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

This is the document that honors Mary, the Mother of God and identifies that God has honored her in a very special way.

God bless

 

[joe370]

Andrew you said:

Just_Me_Andrew

I find it fascinating that many Catholics feel so confident in their acceptance of a supposed infallible authority (btw how could one even prove that in any sense without using private judgement and private interpretation).

Andrew, if the CC is not the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33, forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, into all truth until the end of time then you ARE RIGHT.

May I ask Catholics online how they came to the decision that they will submit to Rome as their infallible authority? What thought processes did you use? Was it an act of faith? Did you prove to yourself that Rome was the infallible authority? Did you do this apart from private judgement and interpretation?

Absolutely!!! As a former Lutheran I came to the decision that the CC can teach infallibly (infallible simply means teaching with out error; all churches claim that their teachings are error free - right Andrew?) - in virtue of its place in history. Jesus founded the CC on Kepha (and the rest of the apostles) - and said that even His worst enemy, the anti-Christ would never defeat His Mystical Body the church, (regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat) - of which He is the head and savior, and if I am wrong then simply give me the name of the man or men that founded the CC and when, and if you succeed I will concede that I am wrong and leave the CC!

It’s not an act of faith; it’s an historical fact! If Rome cannot teach infallibly then perhaps the CC got it wrong about the Trinity; after all nowhere in the New Testament does the NT say that the Father and the HS are one or that the Son and the HS are one other than what is recorded in some bibles in 1 John 5:7, and that is an interpolation; it is found nowhere in any of the original Greek manuscripts:

*“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”*This is the one who came through water and blood, 2 Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth.
So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

Andrew, if the head quarters of the CC cannot teach infallibly vis-a-vis faith and morals then which church in the world today was given that authority by means of the involvement of the holy spirit in perpetuity??? I want to belong to that church!!! The church to which Jesus said,* “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth,”* is certainly exempt from the whole private interpretation admonition; wouldn’t you agree??? If not, then you are right and no one has any authority to privately interpret sacred scripture; where does that leave us? It leaves us with the bible, without any stewardship which of course is NOT biblical and a silly proposition, after all Jesus said to just one church:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

What’s the point of Jesus’ church teaching if they cannot teach error free doctrine? Take the HS out of the equation and they would be vulnerable to fallible teachings, without doubt.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Have any Catholics on the forum considered that perhaps they rely on a circular argument…

Andrew, if Jesus founded the CC and this is a historical fact,* (if not then prove me wrong) *- and the CC canonized the bible then there is no circular argument. If Jesus did not found the CC then you my friend are right. To be circular the CC mus be assuming what it is attempting to prove in order for there to be room for circular argumentation and this is not the case. However, every church not founded by Jesus, claiming that the bible is to be the Christians final authority is in fact assuming what they are attempting to prove for nowhere in the bible is this fact stated - right, or am I wrong?

“I know the Catholic church is the one true infallible church because the infallible Pope of Rome tells me so?”.

Clearly this would be circular argumentation if the CC was/is not the church founded by Jesus, and you would be correct.

The CC teaches error free doctrine regarding Jesus’ teachings by virtue of the fact that the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ church; if not the CC then which church? Surely you agree with scripture regarding the fact that the holy spirit is forever guiding Jesus’ one church into all truth as opposed to many churches into some truth as ell as opposing truth - right??? Andrew, just find that church in the world today and you are good to go!!!

Again, give me the name of the man or men that founded the CC and when and I will concede your point. I can certainly give you the name of the man or men that founded each and every protestant church and when, and it won’t be Jesus and it won’t be the 1st century, not to impugn the wonderful works of these man-made churches - never!

Here is another one: “I know the Bishop of Rome is infallible because the Church tells me he is and the Church is infallible because the infallible Pope tells me so.”

The bishop of Rome is not infallible. Ask him some quantum physics questions just to prove my point. LOL…

I find it fascinating that many Catholics feel so confident in their acceptance of a supposed infallible authority (btw how could one even prove that in any sense without using private judgement and private interpretation).

Andrew, if the CC is not the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33, forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, into all truth as opposed to partial truth, until the end of time then you ARE RIGHT.
Are you right?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick,

We really need a sense of history here …

Crushed grapes ferment and will naturally turn to a wine (quality, flavor, bouquet are all after-the-fact events now present with the alcohol that has been naturally produced.) Wine (a grape beverage containing alcohol) was known to mankind thousands of years before Christ’s birth - and durng this long history, mankind spent much time and effort on getting the flavor of the wine just ‘right’ given the type of grapes used (hence the need for a wine steward to make sure things went well in this area as identified in the Marriage Feast of Cana. John 2:1)

Now, fast forward to 1869 - where a New Jersey dentist decided that Christ really did not use wine - (the evils of alcohol were to be avoided!) - and so through this American’s chemistry, stopped the fermentation process. Here is a link:welchs.com/about-welchs/history

This is where the sense of history comes in … the Jews required WINE at the Passover feast. Grape juice did not exist prior to 1868. And, if we go to Scripture - specifically: Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:34 we do not read, “Look, here comes a glutton and a grape juice drinker!” Christ not only drank wine (St. John the Baptist did not) but apparently ate well, too (John was doing the locust and wild honey diet and this still has not really caught on! )

Christ was a faithful Jew and, as such, drank wine at the Passover celebrations. He even made over 100 gallons of the finest wine the wine steward ever tasted - is there any reason to believe Christ did not drink some (and this is not the same as saying that Christ got drunk!).

There truly is not merit in the argument that Christ drank grape juice - and, if you wanted to get your hands around a 100% tradition of man - you have it right here - and these we are told to avoid (Mark 7:8, Colossians 2: 8)

God bless

Look, a Glutton and a Drunkard (Matthew 11:19 & Luke 7:34).

We know from GOD’s Word what is required of us for our salvation.

If it doesn’t go against GOD’s Word and isn’t spelled out specifically in GOD’s Word- it doesn’t matter.

Do you think it matters whether the grape juice is fermented or not? After consecration doesn’t it become transformed under the species/accidents to the Blood of Christ?

EDITED FOR BREVITY…

So, in answer to your question, YES it does make a difference if wine or grape juice is used.

God bless

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Greetings: Hello Joe370: (please forgive me this post will have to be in two parts, its too long as one and it wont let me post the whole thing)

I saw your response to my post. Thank you for responding, I don’t believe however that you got the gist of my questions to the Catholics on this forum. I saw you will continue your post next time. I look forward to it.

I must say upfront that I was a Catholic for 3 years I even went through a good RCIA program, I know the doctrines of the Church…I even still have the Catechisms etc. I realize that when I decided I wouldn’t go anymore to Mass, that I placed myself outside of Rome and under the penalty of Hell in Catholic theology (if I don’t return). However I went through a deconversion process. I didn’t believe in many of the additions to the faith e.g. aspects of Marian dogma, Papal Infallibility, Sunday Sabbatarianism, etc. I believe the evidence is lacking and weak. So I couldn’t in good conscience remain in the Church, so I did the honest thing and left the Church.

There were times I wanted to go back, however I still wasn’t convinced 100 percent and I knew to be a true Catholic one must uphold all the dogma of the Church. So I left the RCC and I don’t see any chance of going back.

I wrote:

I find it fascinating that many Catholics feel so confident in their acceptance of a supposed infallible authority (btw how could one even prove that in any sense without using private judgement and private interpretation).

Then your response:

Andrew, if the CC is not the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33, forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, into all truth until the end of time then you ARE RIGHT.

My point here wasn’t really addressed which was in brackets (btw how could one even prove that in any sense without using private judgement and private interpretation)
The question remains how could you prove in any sense that the RCC is an infallible authority apart from using private judgement and private interpretation? Which is the very thing Rome frowns upon…Private interpretation.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

For example every one of us knows the famous Matthew 16:18-20…Did you study Matthew 16 in context with lexical aids and using hermenutical principles etc and conclude “Rome is right Peter is the first Papa of Rome…”? Did you read some theological papers of the Eastern Orthodox or Lutherans? Or did you just accept that interpretation given by Rome? On what basis did you decide Rome’s interpretation was correct apart from using “private interpretation”? Can you see the circular argumentation you are engaged in?

All you did is present a scenario and ask a question as to what would be if the RCC is not the Church of Jesus Christ. That was not answering my question.

Then you got on about the Trinity and I assume your mentioning it because its not a laid out systematic theology in scripture? Correct. However there are many verses taken in context that when taken as a whole you must seriously be able to see a Trinitarian view of Scripture. Please read the book “The Forgotten Trinity by Dr. James R. White “ btw which even Fr. Mich Pacwa even admitted was a good book.

You stated that if the Catholic church is wrong then perhaps they are wrong about the Trinity…Interesting concerning the Nicean council that the Bishop of Rome wasn’t there to infallibly proclaim that Arius was wrong and “when the Bishop of Rome speaks the matter is finished”…etc Nope, he wasn’t in town at that one. The Eastern Bishops dealt with Arius. In fact Athanasius refuted Arians through Scripture…I don’t read of his pulling out the infallible decree of the Pope. Could it be that the “Pope” was the first among equals and couldn’t make an infallible decree on his own? Perhaps he didn’t have the Jurisdiction at the time…(as the Eastern orthodox would proclaim)

However be it as it may…Lets compare Trinitarian statements of the Anti Nicean Church fathers, which there are many and compare them with the statements on the Marian dogmas hmmm like the Immaculate Conception of Mary? I doubt Ignatius Bishop of Antioch or his contemporary Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna knew anything about it. I have read the early ANF and there is no Immaculate Assumption nor Assumption statements in them.

This could go on forever but I will not bore you. I appreciate feed back…Last time I posted I was virtually ignored. I try to be respectful. Well have a great day. –Andrew

**“‘But, after all,’ said the Duke of Bavaria to them, ‘can you refute by sound reasons the Confession made by the elector and his allies?’ ‘With the writings of the apostles and prophets-no!’ replied Eck; ‘but with those of the Fathers and of the councils-yes!’ ‘I understand,’ quickly replied the duke; ‘I understand. The Lutherans, according to you, are in Scripture; and we are outside.’” **

-A conversation between Dr. John Eck and the Duke of Bavaria, both Roman Catholics, at the Diet of Augsburg, as recorded in J.H. Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, trans. Dr. H. White, Vol. V (Rapidan, VA: Harland Publications, reprinted 1846 London edition), p.568.