How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[fhansen]

fhanson,

What you are missing is the point that the Holy Spirit would come Who would teach us many things…

I don’t know if you missed my point or not, but for 2,000 years people in the spirit of the Church have produced the same fruit: Jesus Christ. There have been doctors of the church who further defined the spiritual life…Pentecost was only the beginning.

What comes after the last book of the Bible is the new reality of the Church…more to learn within the Church.

You have to see the dates regarding Mary…1800 to almost 2000, certainly not jumping to any conclusions I would say…and beliefs people have held for just as long…but through the doctors of the church, theologians, and much debate lasting centuries…it was the Holy Spirit that moved in these two dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and her assumption into heaven…

What may help you understand is to go beyond the Bible, you are well versed enough and find a doctor of the church discussing the walk of perfection…here you will go in depth to study the common walk we must all take in purging us of ourselves, and allowing Christ the New man to be formed in us…

The Bible does not stand alone; it can be easily used as an idol or tool to further divine and malign…that is why we were given the Church. The Word of God and the Church…how the Word is most fully realized.

OK, I dunno; you must’ve misunderstood me.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .Some people apparently want and/or need a neatly arranged, cookie-cutter faith handed to them by some church. I don’t criticize them if that have that need, but I don’t. What I do require is a reasonable faith, and I resist believing the unbelievable because that what "i’m supposed to do’.

. . . .God bless everybody! A special blessing if you have an open mind. So much of our loyalty is based on tribalism rather than calm, cool and creative thought.

Roy,

From my posts, are you getting the impression that I fall into the category of those who “want and/or need a neatly arranged, cookie-cutter faith handed to them by some church?”

From my posts, are you getting the idea that much of my loyalty is “based on tribalism rather than calm, cool and creative thought?”

gurneyhalleck1 and I are the only two in discussion with you right now. So, are these comments directed to us?

Anna

 

[PRmerger]

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.”

No, not circular, Andrew. Our belief in the infallibility of the Church is based on a spiral argument.

We first understand that the Bible is reliable, as merely a historical document. Then we understand, based on this reliable Bible, that an infallible Church was founded. From that we take that this infallible Church determined that the Bible is inspired. And this inspired Bible proclaims that the Church is infallible.

So spiral. Not circular.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Anna,

When people go out in the National Parks there are signs posted that say, “Don’t Feed the Bears”. Now, there are several reasons for this - but, all of them revolve around the safety of the visitor - the bears have no problem on making a meal our of anyone who gets within their reach.

After reading the various rants and efforts to bring this ‘bear’ along … I think posting such a sign above your monitor would be prudent…

God bless

google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/378606481_307dd1ac61.jpg&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/76446886%40N00/378606481&usg=__KwQwL2U9ELWzFmLmsal5iRSWPGM=&h=500&w=375&sz=94&hl=en&start=210&tbnid=3dEROb8-PoJMRM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddon%27t%2Bfeed%2Bthe%2Bbears%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D594%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C5383&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=501&vpy=322&dur=3994&hovh=130&hovw=98&tx=96&ty=78&ei=3aBsTPbqI4OC8gawiIWhCw&oei=C59sTOnmE8P98AaX5NigCw&esq=7&page=12&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:210&biw=1259&bih=594

Roy,

From my posts, are you getting the impression that I fall into the category of those who “want and/or need a neatly arranged, cookie-cutter faith handed to them by some church?”

From my posts, are you getting the idea that much of my loyalty is “based on tribalism rather than calm, cool and creative thought?”

gurneyhalleck1 and I are the only two in discussion with you right now. So, are these comments directed to us?

Anna

 

[PRmerger]

Are you kidding ?Your latin has no “Roma” in it, the pope’s quote does.

Meaning?

Is this the same pope (1800’s who condemned freedom of conscious ,

Source for this alleged condemnation of freedom of -]conscious /-] conscience?

and declared what other popes refused-the Immaculate Conception,

Source for other popes refusing to declare the Immaculate Conception (a dogma?)

and later Papal Infallibility.I do not know if you misqoute him , but it seems he might say something like no salvation to souls outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes. Outside the Church (the Catholic Church, which, BTW is not Roman), there is no salvation.

Of course we know today,salvation is recognized by Rome for orthodox and protestants ,just not in “fullness”,(second class)…

Salvation is* possible* for you, yes.

The church and Jesus are NOT interchangeable in this context. It does show your emphasis on "church "

What Scripture verse says that the church and Jesus are not interchangeable in this context?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

I would differ with you a bit on this one …

No, not circular, Andrew. Our belief in the infallibility of the Church is based on a spiral argument.

We first understand that the Bible is reliable, as merely a historical document. Then we understand, based on this reliable Bible, that an infallible Church was founded. From that we take that this infallible Church determined that the Bible is inspired. And this inspired Bible proclaims that the Church is infallible.

So spiral. Not circular.

I would really see what you have described as a straight line - one that connects us with Christ and Christ with His Heavenly Father. The idea that Christ did nto leave us orphans (John 14:18) - and will keep His Holy Spirit near to us and protext His Church from pronouncing as a Doctrine of Faith - only those things involving Faith and Morals approved by God.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

Anyone reading my posts please forgive my typos…ugh…Im sory Joe…I put…I have read the early ANF and there is no Immaculate Assumption nor Assumption statements in them.

I meant Immaculate Conception…dang I hate typos…lol I don’t want any misconceptions LOL

The misconceptions are not only in the typos…

 

[david_ruiz]

Who says that they taught things orally “but not in writing”? Certainly not the Catholic Church!

This is a list (nonexhaustive) of some of the early Christian writings. It wasn’t until the Catholic Church codified them, 300 years later, that we had an infallible determination of what was theopneustos and what was just some Christian’s musings.

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter
source

My experience with Catholics is that tradition holds equal weight with scripture. Tradition coming from the apostles oral transmission,not specifically put down in writing(Bible). Hence they could have taught transubstantiation by a priest only, confession, purgatory, Mary’s perpetual virginity and ascension, papal sucession, regenerative infant baptism etc. So in general ,of course Catholics claim biblical roots for everything, yet claim tradition for much interpretation and practice…It is opinion, perhaps self-serving, to say scripture was a hodge- podge until a 400 A.D Catholic council (Carthage) codified it ,as your list may suggest . For the most part, the correct books were deemed inspired (apostolic). What took time was regional letters (epistles) becoming universal, spreading across the vast empire . Well before 400 a.d. early fathers had most or all twenty seven books as Holy Scripture…Origen:225 a.d. -27 books, Eusebius:325 a.d.-27 books, Irenaeus:175 a.d.-quotes from most of 27 books .How could all this happen ,without a council ( the church under much persecution-just what was scripture and wasn’t mattered for it could cost you your life) or formal church structure ? Could Christ’s vicar on earth (the Holy Spirit) orchestrated this invisibly ,by His grace and light in men’s hearts .The effects were certainly visible with the above data.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

I would differ with you a bit on this one …

Fair enough.

I would really see what you have described as a straight line - one that connects us with Christ and Christ with His Heavenly Father. The idea that Christ did nto leave us orphans (John 14:18) - and will keep His Holy Spirit near to us and protext His Church from pronouncing as a Doctrine of Faith - only those things involving Faith and Morals approved by God.

God bless

Ah. Good point.

A “straight line argument”, then, could not be further from a circular argument, eh? In fact, I guess you could say that is the diametrical opposite of a circular argument, so we are both shooting down the “it’s just circular” argument.

 

[PRmerger]

My experience with Catholics is that tradition holds equal weight with scripture. Tradition coming from the apostles oral transmission,not specifically put down in writing(Bible). Hence they could have taught transubstantiation by a priest only, confession, purgatory, Mary’s perpetual virginity and ascension, papal sucession, regenerative infant baptism etc.

You forgot to add this: the canon of Scripture.

That’s clearly part of the Sacred Tradition, yes?

 

[Cinette]

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 only have time for one little remark before I begin a very busy day.

You do not credit us with much intelligence and discernment Andrew. But never mind us Catholics, what about Jesus? Do you honestly think that he was capable of founding a Church that is fallible? Would that make sense? Go read Matthew - might as well read the whole of it - and then think* - I mean was Jesus serious or not? What did he mean that he would be with us always? What did he mean when he said he would send his Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth?

I mean, well REALLY Andrew can’t you see your lack of reason?

Your remark: “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.” You were only kidding weren’t you? Because if you weren’t then it is an absolute insult and quite frankly I am going to have to force myself to read further (later). If you want to be taken seriously then you must refrain from such statements. You can disagree but statements like this discredit you completely!

:shrug:Cinette

 

[PRmerger]

That’s it. Time to tend to some pressing matters here at home. God bless everybody! A special blessing if you have an open mind.

I find this comment quite curious, given that in all of the posts I’ve read, not once have I seen this tolerant, broad-minded, open-minded Roy say: “Good point, Conservative Catholic. I’ve never thought about that in that way before. And I will ponder it, since I am so open minded.”

or

“You know, Fundamentalist Christian, since I am so broad minded, I will consider your point. In fact, you have convinced me you are correct!”

Nope.

In fact, I read only his mini-encyclicals professing his own dogma. Ah, the irony!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Doesn’t a spiral drill go in circles?

No, not circular, Andrew. Our belief in the infallibility of the Church is based on a spiral argument.

We first understand that the Bible is reliable, as merely a historical document. Then we understand, based on this reliable Bible, that an infallible Church was founded. From that we take that this infallible Church determined that the Bible is inspired. And this inspired Bible proclaims that the Church is infallible.

So spiral. Not circular.

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t a spiral drill go in circles?

Nope. It digs deep to the core. :yup:

 

[guanophore]

I find it fascinating that many Catholics feel so confident in their acceptance of a supposed infallible authority

Why would it be surprising that we take Jesus at His Word?

We don’t consider His promises “supposed” but absolutly real.

(btw how could one even prove that in any sense without using private judgement and private interpretation).

You mean, prove that Jesus meant what He said?

 May I ask Catholics online how they came to the decision that they will submit to Rome as their infallible authority?

Jesus is the Head of the Church. The HS is the Soul of the Church. The divine elements of the Church prevent her from falling into error.

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?

I read the Holy Scriptures, and decided to believe what is written

Yes, it was an act of faith.

I do not think that the revelaiton of God is subject to human science, so no, I did not set about to “prove” anything.

I don’t think that an act of faith can be done apart from involving my personal judgement and interpretation, but it was subjected to the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith that God gave to the Church.

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?”.

Yes, of course. However, since this does not happen, it is no concern of mine.

 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.”

If this were the case, you are right, it would be circular.

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)

Well, I debate against both.

One heresy is as good as another!

 and they like to bring up private judgement and interpretation and it seems they have the same essential problem but won’t admit it.

If the Church were nothing more than the Body of Believers on earth, then this would be true. But, since we don’t subscribe to this deficient and truncated definition, we don’t suffer from the same problem.

When we quote Scripture against the Roman Church we’re taking for granted our competence to interpret Scripture aright quite apart from the Magisterium.

I think this is very true, except that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

(i) Even if this represented a genuine problem, and even if there were such a thing as the Magisterium,

Do you honestly believe that Jesus did not leave a teaching authority in place?

 appealing to that office only relocates the original problem, for unless the laity are competent to interpret magisterial teachings, they cannot comply with them.

Actually, this is not true. One can obey, without fully comprehending. Peter did not know why Jesus wanted him to thow the net on the other side of the boat, but he did it anyway.

Whatever complications are involved in exegetical and systematic theology are dwarfed by the scope of canon law.

These are apples and oranges. Canon lawa does not relate to exegesis or theology. Canon law governs the behavior of those under the shepherding of the Church.

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.

You are quite right, which is why we have a Catechism.

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.

What does it mean to be “ordinarily immunized”? It seems that the writer has a wrong understanding of the gift of infallibility.

Besides, the gift does not apply to those who depart from it. If the Truth is not taught at the seminary and parish level, then they will fall into error.

So it still amounts to a trickle down process, with the mass inculcation and application delegated to an army of fallible foot-soldiers.

Sadly so, but the foot soldiers also have access to the documents, and the mandate to study to show themselves approved.

Do you think this is different than what happened in the early church?

The gift of infalllibility would not be needed if the foot soldiers were not fallible.

 

[david_ruiz]

Meaning?

Source for this alleged condemnation of freedom of -]conscious /-] conscience?

Source for other popes refusing to declare the Immaculate Conception (a dogma?)

Yes. Outside the Church (the Catholic Church, which, BTW is not Roman), there is no salvation.

Salvation is* possible* for you, yes.

What Scripture verse says that the church and Jesus are not interchangeable in this context?

What scripture is there that shows ,“outside the fold of the Holy Roman Church there is no salvation”(Pius IX 1870-?)-your quote ? Do you not contradict your pope saying salvation is possible for me (as a protestant ,outside Rome) ?..Please, you must know your own history .The immaculate conception dogma was a long process in it passing -say 1500 years ,with much debate and bickering even death between Holy Orders.It is my understanding that a proclamation was asked of several popes with no success until Pius, finally claimed “inspiration” on the matter…Leo XII-condemned all religious freedom,tolerance,bible societies and translations-1825,Pius the VII and IX condemned liberty of conscience,and worship and speech source :"Halley’s Bible Handbook… C.S. Lewis, “Those ignorant of past history are slaves to the present”-The benevolent tolerant popes of today are just that -today,.but not necessarily of yesterday…“There is no name under heaven where men might be saved” (Jesus -not Holy Roman Church). "Call out in the name of the Lord and you will be saved ", not, “call out in the name of the Holy Roman Church and you will be saved. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”, not “Believe on His Holy Roman Church and you will be saved” The church is the pillar of this truth.Christ is the hinge point ,of which door you pass into eternal life ,and become His bride ,the church .Do not put the cart before or even equal with the horse

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, they don’t. Any Catholic theologian of any salt will submit their findings to the Church of Christ.

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.

Lame?

(ii) The right of private judgment wasn’t some apologetic ruse invented by the Protestant Reformers.

Private interpretation is not a “right” but an abherancy. You are correct, though. If it had not been invented previously, Peter would not be correcting the disciples on that point. It has been an error that has been around since Jannes and Jambres.

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).

Those people being Catholic. the NT was written by, for , and about Catholics. It cannot be properly understood outside the context in which it was written, which is the Catholic faith.

There was no elaborate command-structure corresponding to the Catholic hierarchy.

What does “elaborate” mean?

If you think that the early church was not submitted to the Apostles, then you are in error. All those who were not were considered heretics or schismatics.

If you think they were not subject to their successors, the bishops, then you have not read all the NT.

If you think the presbyters, deacons, and laypeople were not in unity with their bishops, then you have not read the early church fathers.

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.

I think you are contradicting yourself.

It is a simple structure. It can get very detailed when it needs to be. If you think that detail is “elaborate”, then maybe the problem is in the eye of the beholder?

 

[PRmerger]

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).

Are you under the impression that Catholics are not allowed to use “private judgment” and “private interpretation”, Andrew?

If so, you were not well catechized in your “good RCIA program”.

 

[PRmerger]

What scripture is there that shows ,“outside the fold of the Holy Roman Church there is no salvation”(Pius IX 1870-?)-your quote ? Do you not contradict your pope saying salvation is possible for me (as a protestant ,outside Rome) ?..Please, you must know your own history .The immaculate conception dogma was a long process in it passing -say 1500 years ,with much debate and bickering even death between Holy Orders.It is my understanding that a proclamation was asked of several popes with no success until Pius, finally claimed “inspiration” on the matter…Leo XII-condemned all religious freedom,tolerance,bible societies and translations-1825,Pius the VII and IX condemned liberty of conscience,and worship and speech source :"Halley’s Bible Handbook… C.S. Lewis, “Those ignorant of past history are slaves to the present”-The benevolent tolerant popes of today are just that -today,.but not necessarily of yesterday…“There is no name under heaven where men might be saved” (Jesus -not Holy Roman Church). "Call out in the name of the Lord and you will be saved ", not, “call out in the name of the Holy Roman Church and you will be saved. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”, not “Believe on His Holy Roman Church and you will be saved” The church is the pillar of this truth.Christ is the hinge point ,of which door you pass into eternal life ,and become His bride ,the church .Do not put the cart before or even equal with the horse

David, please answer my questions and cite your sources.

Otherwise, you will be reported for contempt for Catholicism in making claims (like some popes refused to declare the Immaculate Conception a dogma) that are unsustainable.

Again, you cannot make claims about Catholicism here unless you’re going to back them up.

Just a friendly warning.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In matters that are de fide Catholics really are not. Can I privately judge, “the pope was wrong declaring Mary immaculate. Not buying it?” No, there’s an anathema attached that will send me into an eternal frying pan if I don’t accept this papal declaration. So private judgment is outskee on that! I think private judgment is not a strong piece of Catholicism.

Are you under the impression that Catholics are not allowed to use “private judgment” and “private interpretation”, Andrew?

If so, you were not well catechized in your “good RCIA program”.