How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[Just_Me_Andrew]

PRmerger: You quoted my post:

*Originally Posted by 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).
*
Then you responded…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”.

Yes I am under this impression. In RCIA when I had questions about verses used by the Church concerning certain subjects I was taught that private interpretation was a Protestant idea and that I was to follow the teaching of the Magesterium.

Sure on things that had not been officially defined yet e.g. aspects of eschatology (sometimes my catholic friends Catholics online would kick around the idea of “Co Redemptrix”) we could “kick around” However I was basically told that if I understood scripture in a way that contradicted the church I was the one that was wrong. My devout RCIA teacher said that private interpretation has no place in Catholic theology. My teacher Arda told me that if someone had a problem with the teaching and came to a different view than the church and wouldn’t come around to the Church…”there is the door”. He was very blunt.

In Catholicism the Church, the Magesterium lays out the teaching and you believe it and obey it or “there is the door”…there is no room for any “private interpretation” Isn’t the whole discussion on this particular forum concerning private interpretation and how we know our interpretation is correct? As I said Catholics are in the same boat as Protestants, both sides must use their private judgement and private interpretation to come to the conclusions they do…One side is just honest about it…and the other side muddies the water with infallible fuzzy talk. Thanks for listening.—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.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger

Taking up your Cross is suffering for righteousness: 1 of the Fruits of the spirit is Long suffering:
I Know Jesus says to deny your self and take your cross up daily and Follow him.
From my experience here you are not exactly in control of the situation circumstances beyond you control is taking place. when you are having every aspect of your life being nailed to that cross suffering and dieing to ‘‘SELF’’ but i would rather have that then the Other.

Yes. Suffering is uncomfortable, is it not, shaky? Unless you think that Jesus was comfortable on that cross?

Can you Explain what do you mean by hard. what is it that you find hard about it

I find some teachings God has revealed hard. Like the teaching on divorce and re-marriage. I’d much rather be able to tell my friends, “I’m so glad you’ve found happiness”.

And the teaching God has revealed on hell. I’d much rather think that there’s not a single soul who’s suffering in hell. And that demons don’t exist.

What about Sins that we don’t know about?
What about Sins that we are deceived about?

Yes, what about them?

Yes Jesus has made some hard sayings that with man some things can be impossible

YES!! That’s exactly what I was trying to tell dearest Anna. Don’t dismiss the hard sayings of Christ and say, “Well, Jesus wouldn’t really say _________” because it’s something that’s distasteful to your sensibilities.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I am under this impression. In RCIA when I had questions about verses used by the Church concerning certain subjects I was taught that private interpretation was a Protestant idea and that I was to follow the teaching of the Magesterium.

Again, I am telling you that you are certainly free to interpret the Bible privately. In fact, you MUST interpret the Bible privately. Read the Scriptures, Andrew and pray with them and God will speak to you privately!

“So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office.” (source cited previously)

 

[Nicea325]

Sure on things that had not been officially defined yet e.g. aspects of eschatology (sometimes my catholic friends Catholics online would kick around the idea of “Co Redemptrix”) we could “kick around” However I was basically told that if I understood scripture in a way that contradicted the church I was the one that was wrong. My devout RCIA teacher said that private interpretation has no place in Catholic theology. My teacher Arda told me that if someone had a problem with the teaching and came to a different view than the church and wouldn’t come around to the Church…”there is the door”. He was very blunt.

Ahhh…and that is what happened with Satan. It is God WAY or the HIGHWAY! Problem is that many Protestants tend to believe Christ founded a democractic church and He did not. I do not call reading anything in the NT by Christ or the Apostles catering their teachings in order not to offend anyone.

In Catholicism the Church, the Magesterium lays out the teaching and you believe it and obey it or “there is the door”…there is no room for any “private interpretation” Isn’t the whole discussion on this particular forum concerning private interpretation and how we know our interpretation is correct? As I said Catholics are in the same boat as Protestants, both sides must use their private judgement and private interpretation to come to the conclusions they do…One side is just honest about it…and the other side muddies the water with infallible fuzzy talk. Thanks for listening.—Andrew

Nope! False premise! The CC is not in the same boat as Protestants who are so divided and splintered because each person freely interprets scripture as they please. As Luther once said: There will be just as many interpretations as milkmaids. Second,the RCC does not FORBID anyone from interpretating scripture,but at the end of the day it is the church with the correct interpretation.

Andrew,if you and 100 other people were allowed to freely interpret the U.S. Constitution,do you think their will be many interpretations of it? I wonder why we have a Judicial Branch? At the end of the day,the gov’t decides,not the citizens.

 

[PRmerger]

However I was basically told that if I understood scripture in a way that contradicted the church I was the one that was wrong.

Indeed.

It’s like you telling Jesus, “Well, I know you said divorce and re-marriage is adultery, but I’m going to go ahead and say that it’s not.”

You are free to interpret Scriptures in any way that gives it meaning to you; you are not free to depart from the teaching that Christ has given to you.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

schaick You said to PRmerger that Catholics are Jewish? Hmmm I wonder if the chief rabbi would agree with that in Israel. In fact, Orthodox Judaism believes that any Trinitarian Christians are idolaters. We know as well that they believe the Law (Torah) remains in tact and unchanged. Ask them if they have Sunday worship LOL.

Lastly ask an orthodox Jew if they believe Jesus is the Messiah, the annointed one of Yahweh the God of Israel. So how can Catholics be Jewish? btw the Sabbath issue (ie Torah) is a fascinating subject that I like to debate with SDAs and Presbyterians lol.

Have a good day - Andrew

Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that a man could stake his life on it a thousand times. --Martin Luther

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re equating the words Christ issued plainly in Scripture with the Church’s declarations, which I would expect you to do as a Catholic but I think the other poster wouldn’t agree. Could you please expound upon your second paragraph here?

Indeed.

It’s like you telling Jesus, “Well, I know you said divorce and re-marriage is adultery, but I’m going to go ahead and say that it’s not.”

You are free to interpret Scriptures in any way that gives it meaning to you; you are not free to depart from the teaching that Christ has given to you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JustMeAndrew,

According to your self-identification, you are a Protestant - and conisdering the 20,000+ varieties of protestantism out there, I can understand your difficulty with the Catholic Church having not only defined doctrine but, doing its best to ensure that it is followed by those who claim to be Catholic. Admittedly, some groups simply believe whatever their Bible holding pastor tells them to believe and this is the way it has been done there for years.

The thing to consider, however, is that the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) has been teaching the same doctrine for about 2,000 years. Here are three examples that you will undoubtedly disagree with - and they are all scripturally based!

1.) Baptism is required for salvation - it is not an option and not replaced by an Altar Call

2.) The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ - it is not a rememberance done with grape juice

3.) God delegated the Power of God to men to forgive sin - and, those who claim they go to God directly are not following what Christ said to do.

Just who founded your religion, JMA? Unless your religion was founded by Christ on Peter and Peter’s Successors (currently, Benedict XVI is the Pope) then you are following a tradition established by men from someone in the 16th Century or thereafter.

You may want to search the origins of your own form of protestantism.

God bless

PRmerger: You quoted my post:

*Originally Posted by 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).
*
Then you responded…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”.

Yes I am under this impression. In RCIA when I had questions about verses used by the Church concerning certain subjects I was taught that private interpretation was a Protestant idea and that I was to follow the teaching of the Magesterium.

Sure on things that had not been officially defined yet e.g. aspects of eschatology (sometimes my catholic friends Catholics online would kick around the idea of “Co Redemptrix”) we could “kick around” However I was basically told that if I understood scripture in a way that contradicted the church I was the one that was wrong. My devout RCIA teacher said that private interpretation has no place in Catholic theology. My teacher Arda told me that if someone had a problem with the teaching and came to a different view than the church and wouldn’t come around to the Church…”there is the door”. He was very blunt.

In Catholicism the Church, the Magesterium lays out the teaching and you believe it and obey it or “there is the door”…there is no room for any “private interpretation” Isn’t the whole discussion on this particular forum concerning private interpretation and how we know our interpretation is correct? As I said Catholics are in the same boat as Protestants, both sides must use their private judgement and private interpretation to come to the conclusions they do…One side is just honest about it…and the other side muddies the water with infallible fuzzy talk. Thanks for listening.—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.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

However I was basically told that if I understood scripture in a way that contradicted the church I was the one that was wrong.

You responded: Indeed.

*It’s like you telling Jesus, “Well, I know you said divorce and re-marriage is adultery, but I’m going to go ahead and say that it’s not.”

You are free to interpret Scriptures in any way that gives it meaning to you; you are not free to depart from the teaching that Christ has given to you. *

I can’t resist, I have to put this one forward…kind of like when God said in Exodus 20 that the Sabbath was the seventh day…and the Catholic church says the first day is essentially the Christian Sabbath…“Keep Holy the Lord’s Day” How anyone could mix up the number 7 with the number 1…its amazing. "Yes God we know the Sabbath is the seventh day but we will claim the first day and try to enforce the first day by appealing to the Decalogue. ( I am not a Sabbatarian, I just find the Lord’s Day Sabbath view amusing).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JustMeAndrew,

Glad you can be so easily amused. Maybe this will give you a sense of seriousness…

I can’t resist, I have to put this one forward…kind of like when God said in Exodus 20 that the Sabbath was the seventh day…and the Catholic church says the first day is essentially the Christian Sabbath…“Keep Holy the Lord’s Day” How anyone could mix up the number 7 with the number 1…its amazing. "Yes God we know the Sabbath is the seventh day but we will claim the first day and try to enforce the first day by appealing to the Decalogue. ( I am not a Sabbatarian, I just find the Lord’s Day Sabbath view amusing).

In Matt 16, Christ gives Peter a blank check and tells Peter that WHATEVER he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven. The Christians chose to honor the Resurrection by worshiping on Sunday - the day the Lord conquered the grave.

Now, since you claim not to be Sabbatarian, yet do not worship on the Sabbath - just where is the humor in that? Or, do you find it funny that you are actually following a directive from the Catholic Church?

God bless

 

[Pitcharan]

…I can’t resist, I have to put this one forward…kind of like when God said in Exodus 20 that the Sabbath was the seventh day…and the Catholic church says the first day is essentially the Christian Sabbath…“Keep Holy the Lord’s Day” How anyone could mix up the number 7 with the number 1…its amazing. "Yes God we know the Sabbath is the seventh day but we will claim the first day and try to enforce the first day by appealing to the Decalogue. ( I am not a Sabbatarian, I just find the Lord’s Day Sabbath view amusing).

Just like how you are asking Catholics now how 7 became 1, the Pharisees confronted our Lord, saying that God rested on the 7th day. This is how our Lord responded:“My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” (John 5:17)

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

**tqualey:
**
Do you want to go over these issues in order?

First off, I don’t have problem with defined doctrine…Catholics and Orthodox and Reformation Protestantism have defined doctrines in the form of Creeds. I questioned in my posts since yesterday the issue of Catholics snowballing Protestants with the old canard of “We got an infallible authority (and I know because the Pope told me so) and you Protestants have nothing but a Bible and your Private interpretation. “ My premise is that the conclusions Catholics have come to and have submitted themselves to ( Rome) was deduced obviously from Private interpretation and Private Judgement. This is the very issue they throw in the face of Protestants. They made their fallible choice to follow Rome. Whether you admit to it or not we are in the same boat.

You then said: The thing to consider, however, is that the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) has been teaching the same doctrine for about 2,000 years. Here are three examples that you will undoubtedly disagree with - and they are all scripturally based!

Do you really want to go there…I mean seriously. You are going to come out and tell me for example Ignatius Bishop of Antioch believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? Your going to tell me that Justin Martyr believed in the Doctrine of Purgatory? Please I suggest you stop before you embarrass yourself. I am trying to say this nicely. Concerning the Bishop of Rome and the doctrine of Papal infallibility…I’m sure that Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna didn’t fear the “Bishop of Rome” since he contradicted him and said he was the one following the tradition of the Apostles and they kept the “Passover” on the 14th of Nisan every year.…( Quartrodeciman Controversy) I am also quite sure Polycrates wasn’t worried neither as he observed the 14th as well and said he observed the time they threw out the leaven (unleavened bread).

continued…

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Did you ask the Eastern Orthodox what they say of the Bishop of Rome? They believe he is the first among equals like a spokesman…However equal amongst all the other Bishops not above them in jurisdiction. I could go on but I don’t want to bore you on this.

Concerning Baptism I believe that God regenerates in any manner he chooses and I agree that Baptism is not an option. Scriptural evidence I believe is very strong and I am not convinced by arguments of those who reject Baptismal Regeneration…God can impart life giving Grace as he wishes and what method he chooses.

Concerning number 2 and 3 I will give a more in depth answer next time…I won’t forget. Lastly…You said:

Just who founded your religion, JMA? Unless your religion was founded by Christ on Peter and Peter’s Successors (currently, Benedict XVI is the Pope) then you are following a tradition established by men from someone in the 16th Century or thereafter.

Now you are assuming a Papacy and all that goes with that, which I firmly deny and I reverse the question on you…Can you tell me and show me in the Anti Nicean fathers when we have some clear defined teaching that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church in Jurisdiction and is the infallible ruler when he speaks ex cathedra? Show me in Ignatius, maybe Justin or Polycarp…? Maybe Irenaeus? Don’t give me quote books with allusions to the fathers…I want clear concise statements in their contexts showing the Bishop of Rome is the Universal Papa . Thank You for listening.

Andrew

“Seeing that a Pilot steers the ship in which we sail, who will never allow us to perish even in the midst of shipwrecks, there is no reason why our minds should be overwhelmed with fear and overcome with weariness”—John Calvin

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Here is some interesting info from John Calvin in his famous and brilliant book “Institutes of the Christian Religion” from book 4 chapter 9 " OF COUNCILS AND THEIR AUTHORITY.

Councils against councils!

Moreover, why should I review the contests of council with council? Nor is there any ground for whispering to me, that when councils are at variance, one or other of them is not a lawful council. For how shall we ascertain this? Just, if I mistake not, by judging from Scripture that the decrees are not orthodox. For this alone is the sure law of discrimination.

It is now about nine hundred years since the Council of Constantinople, convened under the Emperor Leo, determined that the images set up in temples were to be thrown down and broken to pieces. Shortly after, the Council of Nice, which was assembled by Irene, through dislike of the former, decreed that images were to be restored. Which of the two councils shall we acknowledge to be lawful? The latter has usually prevailed, and secured a place for images in churches. But Augustine maintains that this could not be done without the greatest danger of idolatry.

Epiphanies, at a later period, speaks much more harshly, (Epist. ad Joann. Hierosolym. et Lib. 3 contra Haeres.) For he says, it is an unspeakable abomination to see images in a Christian temple. Could those who speak thus approve of that council if they were alive in the present day? But if historians speak true, and we believe their acts, not only images themselves, but the worship of them, were there sanctioned. Now it is plain that this decree emanated from Satan. Do they not show, by corrupting and wresting Scripture, that they held it in derision? This I have made sufficiently clear in a former part of the work, (see Book 1 chap. 11. sec. 14.) Be this as it may, we shall never be able to distinguish between contradictory and dissenting councils, which have been many, unless we weigh them all in that balance for men and angels, I mean, the word of God.

Be this as it may, we shall never be able to distinguish between contradictory and dissenting councils, which have been many, unless we weigh them all in that balance for men and angels, I mean, the word of God. Thus we embrace the Council of Chalcedony, and repudiate the second of Ephesus, because the latter sanctioned the impiety of Eutyches, and the former condemned it. The judgement of these holy men was founded on the Scriptures, and while we follow it, we desire that the word of God, which illuminated them, may now also illuminate us. Let the Romanists now go and boast after their manner, that the Holy Spirit is fixed and tied to their councils.

Have a good night I am off to bed…God bless all Christians…God knows those who are his.

 

[Cinette]

Gosh, now I’m criticized for (1) not saying to this person or that what a wise point he/she has made and for (2) not engaging in debate on any particular issue.

 As for (1), I have spoken highly of those who are civil in their postings but have not found it necessary - or is that, possible? - to say what a good point someone has made. I think this may be because we're in different worlds. I don't find that quoting some Church Father or some Pope or some encyclical or some Bible passage is a sufficient proof and/or response. The basic problem seems to be one of authority. I don't let some institution or book or ecclesiastical leader tell me what I must believe.

.......................................................................

  I don't believe that some posters will accept different beliefs until skeptics like me change ours and yield to all the doctrines and practices as handed down by the magisterium. Sorry, I guess I'm not made that way. Or, is it that US democracy has tinkered with my brain and made me a person who reserves the right to think for himself. "Think and let think" is one of my slogans. I believe John Wesley may have suggested that expression about 250 years ago. At many points I disagree with Wesley, too, but you'll note that I'm quoting him. The literature and teachings of nearly all faiths can teach and enrich us. Its spiritual arrogance that can turn me off.

  God bless his children of every creed, color and country. Religion should be a bridge and not a barrier.

*Hello Roy! Your slogan “Think and let think” reminds me of someone…ME! In my revolutionary days - years ago. Oh I believe in thinking - we all think. What we must do is be rational.

Cinette*

 

[josie_L]

Did you ask the Eastern Orthodox what they say of the Bishop of Rome? They believe he is the first among equals like a spokesman…However equal amongst all the other Bishops not above them in jurisdiction. I could go on but I don’t want to bore you on this.

If the bishop of Rome was first then he could not be an equal, if they are all equal then there is no one who could be first (the whole first but equal makes no sense). Moreover, even in the Orthodox Church there is a hierarchy of authority, that is, the Patriarch for example has more jurisdictional authority than a local bishop (just like in the Catholic Church except the Pope has care over all the Churches, i.e., so he can strenghten and unite the brethren). Here’s an example of what I mean:

To illustrate how Popes regarded their authority, consider the witness of Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. A.D. 590). Corresponding with the Byzantine bishop of Syracuse in Sicily (Sicily was a Byzantine province at the time), he discusses a new candidate for patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Gregory writes …

 

[Cinette]

PRmerger: You quoted my post:

*Originally Posted by 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).
*
Then you responded…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”.

Yes I am under this impression. In RCIA when I had questions about verses used by the Church concerning certain subjects I was taught that private interpretation was a Protestant idea and that I was to follow the teaching of the Magesterium.

Sure on things that had not been officially defined yet e.g. aspects of eschatology (sometimes my catholic friends Catholics online would kick around the idea of “Co Redemptrix”) we could “kick around” However I was basically told that if I understood scripture in a way that contradicted the church I was the one that was wrong. My devout RCIA teacher said that private interpretation has no place in Catholic theology. My teacher Arda told me that if someone had a problem with the teaching and came to a different view than the church and wouldn’t come around to the Church…”there is the door”. He was very blunt.

In Catholicism the Church, the Magesterium lays out the teaching and you believe it and obey it or “there is the door”…there is no room for any “private interpretation” Isn’t the whole discussion on this particular forum concerning private interpretation and how we know our interpretation is correct? As I said Catholics are in the same boat as Protestants, both sides must use their private judgement and private interpretation to come to the conclusions they do…One side is just honest about it…and the other side muddies the water with infallible fuzzy talk. Thanks for listening.—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.

*I am madly busy with a thousand things to do but I find this thread very interesting so whenever I get a chance I take a peek. I find your posting FULL of “things” - you appear to have lots of issues against the Church with a measure of anger and frustration added. I get confused just reading your postings! Then Guanophore answered you painstakingly and I would love to see your responses to what Guano said. Could you not press “quote” on Guano’s postings and then insert your responses in a different colour please Andrew?

I love it when there is a good debate - you can disagree - some get angry but it is not necessary.

Cheers
Cinette

 

[Pitcharan]

*I am madly busy with a thousand things to do but I find this thread very interesting so whenever I get a chance I take a peek. I find your posting FULL of “things” - you appear to have lots of issues against the Church with a measure of anger and frustration added. I get confused just reading your postings! Then Guanophore answered you painstakingly and I would love to see your responses to what Guano said. Could you not press “quote” on Guano’s postings and then insert your responses in a different colour please Andrew?

I love it when there is a good debate - you can disagree - some get angry but it is not necessary.

Cheers
Cinette

Beautifully put Cinette! I take this opportunity to assure all those embittered non-catholics like David Ruiz and Just_Me_Andrew, that we love them. If they wish to be healed for certain they may be thro’ a live demo of “AGAPE LOVE” as lay volunteers for a week at one of the homes of the Missionaries of Charity. God Bless Mother Teresa, may her tribe increase!

 

[PRmerger]

You’re equating the words Christ issued plainly in Scripture with the Church’s declarations, which I would expect you to do as a Catholic but I think the other poster wouldn’t agree. Could you please expound upon your second paragraph here?

Here’s a crude analogy (and, as all analogies do, it will fail at some point, but it does get the point across):

Let’s say you’re going to see your Beloved and he provides you with a map of how to get to his house. Inside the map are also some hidden private love messages to you.

You are given the info that Canada is north and California is west. You are not free to deviate from this data. (Well, you certainly are free to deviate, but if you do you won’t end up at your Beloved’s home. You’ll end up down South, where I hear it’s really, really hot. )

As far as the private love messages, you can read them and enjoy them and get the hidden jokes and private meaning that no one else is privy to.

 

[Pitcharan]

Here’s a crude analogy (and, as all analogies do, it will fail at some point, but it does get the point across):

Let’s say you’re going to see your Beloved and he provides you with a map of how to get to his house. Inside the map are also some hidden private love messages to you.

You are given the info that Canada is north and California is west. You are not free to deviate from this data. (Well, you certainly are free to deviate, but if you do you won’t end up at your Beloved’s home. You’ll end up down South, where I hear it’s really, really hot. )

As far as the private love messages, you can read them and enjoy them and get the hidden jokes and private meaning that no one else is privy to.

Sounds very interesting. I can’t resist quoting something similar from a book called PARABOLIC REFLECTIONS Notice the red portion:

*The parables of our Lord provoke us to mull over, lead us to light and gently beckon us to be transformed. My efforts to analyse, understand and learn have been an ecstatic experience. I admit that my vocabulary is insufficient to fully describe the experiences; yet let me try and sum up the special features of our Lord’s parabolic method of teaching by recalling from many journeys.

Setting* : The situations chosen are most familiar to the audience – typical and easy to relate. Even for the uneducated and simple lot, the message does not go over the head. Common folk who come to listen are at ease and get absorbed, and the comfort level even encourages the listeners to query more.

Delivery: Leading the audience to a core truth or mystery, is either gradual or instantaneous but has the desired effect in any case. For e.g. “heaven’s joy over a sinner’s conversion” is allowed to gradually descend into the listener’s heart in the parable of the lost (prodigal) son while the same is conveyed rather quickly in the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin. The message is allowed to seep in deeply by delivering these parables one after another in gentle succession.

Multiple truths: While driving home a particular message, several other beautiful messages are packed which start ringing later when the listener ponders over the whole thing. This is especially so when the message is delivered gradually; moreover the additional messages do not in any way divert the listener’s focus from the main message but rather serve as food for afterthought. As realisation dawns, one is provoked to ponder further, only to be rewarded with