How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[PRmerger]

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?

Ah, the irony! Clearly, the fact that Catholic Answers even exists is testament to the fallacy of your position. Otherwise, every single answer to questions posed here would be, "Because the Magisterium said so. Now, if you don’t believe, ‘there is the door!’ " What a miserable place this would be, eh?

Now, just like we can’t arbitrarily decide that California’s capital is Carson City and Missouri is the Cornhusker state, we can’t arbitrarily decide that, say, women can be ordained and Mary is Divine.

 

[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.

I rather like the humility shown by this Non-Catholic poster, Fantom Scholar, regarding when his own private interpretations of Scripture disagrees with his organization’s: (bold mine)

Originally posted by Fantom Scholar, who lists his religion as Baptist:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JustMeAndrew,

When I reviewed this, I had to go into an extra page! Enjoy - page 1 of 2

I certainly do want to go there - and, believe me I am not worried about any personal embarrassment that may come my way. But, your consideration for my feelings is truly appreciated… Now, let’s get down to some work - and, I do not expect you evade issues has you have done in this post!

**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. “

You’re on…

Glad you have no trouble with creeds … so tell me (since you are a bit vague about your denomination) what is your creed?

If you use the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds than you mis-use the term Catholic which was used by Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the 2nd Century. Just when did your version of protestantism come to be recognized? The following quote from Ignatitus will do twice the work for me - identifying when the term catholic or universal was used and how it refers to the Church founded by Christ on Peter - and an early non-Scriptural reference to the Eucharist.

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Truly, if you are concerned about canards, than you do not have to look very far!

Now, when it comes to Papal Infallibility, we have to be careful to understand just what is being identified. In the almost 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church the Holy Spirit has prevented His Church from teaching error. That is all that is meant (but, considering the doctrinal chaos one sees throughout the 20,000+ various protestant groups, sects, cults, assemblies, unions, congregations, etc - not teaching error says a lot!) By the same token, Papal Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is sinless, perfect, wise, or never makes a mistake in matter outside of Faith and Morals when he is going to speak in a definitive way. This long history of Popes beginning with Peter’s 3x denial of Christ has a list of individuals who certainly demonstrated - some through public scandal - that they were very human. Fortunately, these men have been few and far between.

Paul’s two letters to Timmothy contain some excellent resources - so, let me invite you to look at 1Tim 3:14-15 and 2Tim 1:12-14. I’ve taken the liberty of providing the text for you…

1Tim 3:14
I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

It is the Catholic Church that is “…the pillar and foundation of truth…” not Scripture! This does not belittle Scripture (only the heresy of Sola Scriptura). There is no confusion of doctrine or of meaning because the Catholic Church is protected by the Holy Spirit in defining and explaining the message of God without fear of error.

2Tim 12
On this account I am suffering these things; but I am not ashamed, for I know him in whom I have believed and am confident that he is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day.
13
Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
14
Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JustMeAndrew,

When I reviewed this, I had to go into an extra page! Enjoy - page 2 of 2

The Church is the guardian of “…this rich trust…” of God’s message of salvation. The Early Catholics (Early Christians, if you prefer…) saw the Power of God on that First Pentecost (Acts 2) in that after Peter (the First Pope) preached 3,000 persons were baptized into the Family of God. Whoever heard the Church - heard the voice of Jesus as recorded in Luke 10:15-16

Luke 10:15
And as for you, Capernaum, ‘Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.’"
16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

These are the Words of God as written in Scripture - and the Early Catholics knew they could count on the Church to keep the young Church from falling into the teachings of men (like the Judiazers). Rejecting the Words of Christ is the same as rejecting Christ. There is no escaping Christ’s meaning - especially his condemnation of those unbelievers in Capernaum.

Now, let’s take a look at the promise made by Christ to protect His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) from error. We find this in John 16:12-15

John 16:12
"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
13
5 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
14
He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
15
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

Note - Christ tells us there is more to His Message, and will give us additional teaching when He determins the time is right. The entire context here is that the Holy Spirit is going to protect the Church of Christ - the Catholic Church - so that no error can corrupt the Message of Salvation.

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.

The above references totally refute your premise. There is no ‘Private Interpretation and Private Judgment’ - the Word of God has declared the Catholic Church will not teach error.

Do you really want to go there…I mean seriously.

Yes! I seriously want to go there… You see, Early Church Fathers were not promised Papal Infallibility. There were free to discuss their ideas as they considered best. The issue was what happened AFTER the Pope made a determination. Like St. Augustine’s famous quote, “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.”

Conspicuous by its absence were the three items I identified that you would disagree with. Here you substitute non-comments for what the ECF’s may have thought about topics you want to introduce - yet evade: the necessity for Baptism, the Real Presence and confession of sins to men. Now, maybe you just overlooked these issus - so, let me invite you back to the work bench and get your responses here. Each is not only Biblical but is clearly stated so that the literal meaning is the real meaning - requiring no ‘work around’ to try and make void the Words of Christ.

You are going to come out and tell me for example Ignatius Bishop of Antioch believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? SHORTENED FOR BREVITY … Doctrine of Purgatory? Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna didn’t fear the “Bishop of Rome” since he contradicted him … .…( Quartrodeciman Controversy)

Really, JMA, you have no argument here, only smoke to obscure.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

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.

I would hazard a guess that a few things you accept go against God’s word and a few things you do not do are specifically written in God’s word.

You judge God’s words according to your own authority and your own standard. So in effect you are the supreme authority, not God’s Word.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

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

Bad reasoning.

The definitions you give here are not how Paul meant the Church to be.

In Paul’s time, when he spoke of the Church he was speaking of the only Church of Christ there was at that time and ever will be - the Catholic Church.

So sorry but no. You’re argumentation does not hold water.

Furthermore, just to assemble will not constitute the Church that Paul spoke of because Christ specifically built a church. Not any assembly will do. If that were the case, He would not have specifically set one up Himself.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Can you eat the flesh without there being blood in it?

When you eat the bread you drink the whole entire resurrected Body of Jesus. Are you saying that somehow His whole entire body is separate to His Blood and His resurrected blood is somewhere else?

Besides what are you quibbling about, you do not even believe that it is indeed his flesh and blood.

 

[joe370]

Dave, Andrew could you guys help me out here, and for now, let’s leave the CC out of it for the moment, for a rejoinder in reference to the CC is nothing more than a red herring regarding the subject, and I really want to resolve this matter once and for all.

In one corner we have some isolated autonomous churches, eg Evangelical churches - that defer to the bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution, and they come away from the bible believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding the Eucharist. In the opposite corner we have some isolated autonomous churches as well, eg, some Lutheran churches - deferring to their bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution and they too come away from the same bible believing the exact opposite.

How can one know who’s interpretation is correct regarding the preceding impasse, if in fact the bible is to be the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences.

In the space of 2 years no one has ever answered this question; just a lot of dodge ball; perhaps that will change here at this thread. Thanks guys…

 

[benedictus2]

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).

How about this in short.

Note however that I can only argue this way because we both (I presume) accept the inerrancy of the Bible.

So here goes.

If you believe that the Bible is inerrant, then you believe in the infallibility of the Church because it is through the Church that the NT was written and it was the Church who determined the canon.

If you say that you do not believe the Church is infallible then there is no way that you can claim that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Bible is inerrant for through the Holy Spirit she wrote and canonized it.

So if you believe the Bible is the Word of God then the only way you can be truly sure of that is if you accept that the Church is infallible.

If you argue that maybe she was infallible when she wrote and set the canon but not in everything else well sorry but that does not work.

If she can be fallible in other matters with regards faith and morals then she can also be fallible with regards the canon.

It is an all or nothing scenario.

 

[benedictus2]

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.”

Well duh, we do not claim so because the Pope says so.

So there you are - arguing against a proposition that we have not even made. Hmmm, and you probably thought that was smart of you.

Scenario

Andrew: But just because you think you are the queen of England does not make you the queen of england.

Benedictus2 and other Catholics : We never claimed to be the Queens of England.

Andrew : But your belief that you are the Queend of England…

Benedictus2 and other Catholics : We already told you we never claimed to be the Queens of England. You are putting words in our mouth and so you are arguing against yourself. Maybe because it is easier to refute yourself.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Oh but we were debating against Sola Scriptura. This Solo Scriptura as far as I know (and of course I could be wrong in this) is a latter invention to try to wiggle out of the flaws of Sola Scriptura but it does not wash.

Luther declared Sola Scriptura and that is what we have debunked.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

And what makes you so sure that you are indeed competent to interpret Scripture apart from the Magisterium, you mere mortal, two thousand years removed from the happenings in the NT and the OT?

And isn’t it the most absurd assumption that we must take for granted your competence to interpret upon your say so? Yet you had the nerve to say " you claim infallibility because the Pope says so" and yet here you are practically claiming infallibility because Andrew said.

Perhaps we should all bow to Pope Andrew the Great.

 

[shaky]

Your comment above is an excellent example of why we can’t take isolated verses of Scripture. One must understand its meaning through the lens of those who gave us the Scriptures–that is, through the Church.

Here is the quote in which we are commanded to judge, but to use good discernment when judging.
[BIBLEDRB]John 7:24[/BIBLEDRB]

That seems to be adding to Scripture. That’s most certainly NOT what the verse says, is it? You have added that part about your partner being the adulterer and abandoning you. It says no such thing.

See this article:
Did Jesus Say Adultery Is Grounds for Divorce? By Jimmy Akin

Please cite your source.

Hi PRmerger

Thanks for this scripture: John 7:24 I needed that One: I can use that one. I have seen so many people going round Judging others unfairly+ I have been on the receiving End as-well
It can be very upsetting stressful and damaging.

I no sure exactly what you mean by adding to scripture I have added Adultery
Because when you look at the word Fornication in a dictionary illicit sex includes adultery
I use other scriptures to include about your partner committing adultery;
I used the other scripture where Paul says about you partner abandoning you. You can re-marry when you are divorced.

I need more time to study the article on Grounds for divorce. I will get back to you on that.

The first source was from wikapedia: when i was looking at things between the Eastern orthodox catholic church+ Roman catholic church. but when you said different. I doubled checked at a second source and asked Questions;
Monachos.net Discussion community. Its a Orthodox web site.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

And here again is another less than bright statement.

Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church. It is precisely the Magisterium that interprets these things so that the laity can understand them.

It would be like saying why would we send the kids to school when they don’t need the teachers because they can learn for themselves?

Even in Scripture it is written that Scripture itself is hard to understand.
The Magisterium is there precisely to explain it.

For one thing, if the laity is so brilliant at coming up with the proper interpretation how did Protestant Christianity end up in this 33,000 denominational mess that it is in?

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.

This shows your ignorance regarding the doctrine of infallibility. I suggest you google that first.

But here is an application in reply to the point you raised.

There is no guarantee that every Tom, Dick and Harry will enunciate Catholic Doctrine correctly. Some will have bias and will put forward their own slants concerning morals and doctrine.

However, it remains that if one desires to find out the true teaching of the Church of Christ, then it is there for people to refer to.

I for example may have been slightly misled by a priest who giving his own interpretation and not following the teaching of the Church taught us a less truthful view of doctrine and morality. However, if I were to exert a tiny bit of effort, I can find what the Church teaches and there will not be any ambiguity in it. When the Church is not sure, she does not make dogmatic pronouncements and leave the laity to form their own opinions along certain guidelines.

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.

But the Catholic Scholars are not the magisterium. Theologians are not the magisterium. They can propose, explain, theologize as much as they want but until what they have mulled over is declared dogmatically by the Church it remains opinion. It may be the flavour of the month at the moment but it remains opinion. It may be the latest and many theologians may agree, but it remains opinion until the Church declares otherwise.

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

Sorry to disillusion you but it was.

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).

Adapted to popular understanding. So whatever the going mode or public concensus that is how we will interpret the Bible.

No wonder you have 33,000 strong adaptation to public understanding.

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.

Yes, but the exegete must make the argument and the magisterium must see to it that this exegetical argument conforms to Scripture and Tradition. Yes, tradition. For before there was Scripture there was only Tradition.

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.

And when did He do that?

From memory, what Christ did do is to tell the people to do what the Pharisees TOLD them but not to do what the Pharisees do. And this injunction to follow the Pharisees teaching was made on account of them sitting on the Chair or Moses.

 

[benedictus2]

(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?

Sorry but this is a truly stupid statement. Why would citing proof texts be an appeal to the reader. When Councils cite proof texts from the Bible, all it is doing is it is saying that such and such dogma is consistent with Scripture. Isn’t it absurd for a Protestant to find fault with a reasoning that appeals to Scripture?

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?

Well no. You are assuming that every Catholic Tom, Dick and Harry will be so illiterate as to be unable to make sense of these pronouncements. Hardly the case.

Furthermore, that Councils are citing proof text only proves that they need to explain the meaning of these texts and shed more light on some texts that at first reading may seem obscure. Scriptural things where an ordinary lay man will be hard pressed connecting the dots.

That’s what teachers are for.

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)

Show how! Have you even read Munificentissimus Deus.?

If you have then show where it is a falsification and where it is duplicitous.

It is a very easy document to read so understanding it should not be a problem.

(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.

Ignorance blatantly displayed here. Or maybe just plain incompetence in thinking.

Why is it ironic for a Catholic layman to churn out books on apologetics? If anything that debunks the point you made earlier regarding problems with comprehension for you reasoned that one has to make sense of the doctrinal promulgations of the Magisterium.

Well here you are with Catholic layment who are well versed and well informed in the teachings of the magisterium making it even more easy to read and even more accessible to ordinary laity.

Thanks for making our case

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?

Well duh, no! If anything, it proves our point that the problem you saw earlier of Magisterial teaching being hard to comprehend is easily solved here. Furthermore, all solved by God by providing these Catholic lay men. More to the point, these Catholic lay men are speaking on behalf of the Magisterium but are not saying anything that Magsiterium is incapable of saying herself and are not saying anything that is contrary to Magisterial teaching.

They can be viewed as amplifiers of Christ’s teaching, something that the Magisterium wants to be passed on.

These lay people are a great help to the Church in passing on her doctrines for not only the priests are called to evangelize but every Catholic is tasked with this mission though few take up the challenge.

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?

Have you not read one single conversion story. All these converts speak what the Church speaks. What these converts say in fact is I have found the truth and I want to share this Truth with you.

The Church is always thrilled to have a son or daughter come home but obviously the one who comes home cannot contain his/her joy so it bursts out of them. That is what joy is about. It cannot be contained.

While he now claims to be a Catholic, he still acts like a Protestant!

Nope. Only in your illogical thinking.

But in terms of mannerisms and other outside trappings they will still act like protestants. You cannot shed sometimes half a lifetime of of these trappings. But inside, with regards theology they are Catholic.

However, It is interesting that this point is brought up for it iseems to Protestants all that matter is trappings.

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!

None sequitur and totally illogical.

A Catholic apologist pens what the Magisterium herself would pen only in the apologists words.

The Protestants writes his/her own magisterial teaching.

The Catholic Apologist explains what the Pope and the Magisterium has promulgated, the Protestant what I/Me/Myself Pope has promulgated.

 

[benedictus2]

As for me - and this may be hard for them to understand - I’m simply not into dogmatic religion.

Oh yes you are. You are into dogma, your own dogma.

Everyone who believes, believes in a set of doctrines.

Some of your dogmas are:

• the big tent Christianity,
• the Catholic Church is not true Church,
• relativism is the go for we can never be sure what is the truth, (which by the way means that Christ lied) but you just haven’t extended that dogma to its logical consequences.
• I/Me/Myself will decide what to believe and what not to believe which really means I am my own magisterium
• Most likely Sola Fide
• Most likely Sola Scriptura

 

[tqualey]

Wow!

Truly a great set of posts. I think JMA’s argumentation lies in a pile of ash!

Keep up the good work…

God bless

Oh yes you are. You are into dogma, your own dogma.

Everyone who believes, believes in a set of doctrines.

Some of your dogmas are:

• the big tent Christianity,
• the Catholic Church is not true Church,
• relativism is the go for we can never be sure what is the truth, (which by the way means that Christ lied) but you just haven’t extended that dogma to its logical consequences.
• I/Me/Myself will decide what to believe and what not to believe which really means I am my own magisterium
• Most likely Sola Fide
• Most likely Sola Scriptura

 

[schaick]

Am I getting this correct?:

Denied? Why would a Catholic be denied the Precious Blood and yet allowed the Eucharist? I can go to Mass and not receive the Precious Blood and consume the Eucahrist and still have a valid communion. Both have been consecrated,plus Christ Body is One.

I am talking about some years back when Catholics were not allowed to take the Wine, just the Bread during the Eucharist and trying to understand why grape juice would not be allowed.

If wine was denied and everything was kosher, why is grape juice not allowed?

Care to show us from historical evidence what other church put the Bible together? When did the CC teach God did not inspire the early Church Fathers regarding scripture?

The second half of my statement is not clear:
Catholics believe that it was the Catholic Church alone that put together the Bible, GOD did not inspire all the early Church Fathers to use the scripture HE wanted in HIS Holy Bible as references in their writings.

In other words - Catholics simply canonized what GOD considered and confirmed as Scripture - through use of it by the early Church Fathers.

Wrong! The CC long before any non-Catholic church existed has taught and believed Scripture is the infallible Word of God. Wrong again! The CC has never taught God’s Word is not the final rule;moreover, God’s Word is not pitted against His Church,which evidently Christ founded and promised the Holy Spirit.

[What I am trying to get my head around is GOD having to say to man “My Word is the final rule”. That seems like a given to me. Are not the 10 Commandments the final rule on those specific issues?]

Catholics give the impression that Sacred Tradition, Church and GOD’s Word are equal and therefore GOD’s Word is not the final authority

Exactly! Which begs the question: Where did God give mere men the authority to create thousands of different sects,denominations,non-denom’s,etc,etc? Where is that in the 10 Commandments?

Well if all did have the same basic tenants,then why have thousands upon thousands of different churches,sects,etc? The Pope who is a bishop is infallible in matters of faith and morals just as the Apostles were during their earthly lives. The pope is not impeccable,do not confuse it with infallibility.

Why is it an issue that the applications are different? It is still one universal Church.

Does it matter? Muslims believe it does, all must face the Kaaba when praying, all at the same time, all dress in the same way, perform prayers with the same movements, etc. Individualism in regards to celebration of their faith is completely forbidden. I am seeing the same in the Catholic Church.

Example: If a group of Christians desires to follow Scriptural example of who a bishop should be, why is it wrong, frowned upon? If in fact as you say GOD’s Word is the final authority.:

1 Timothy 3
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
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?)
6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Some do because they believe they have the fullness of truth,which makes me wonder something? Why go and start another church? What was wrong with the one Church Jesus Christ founded and written all over the NT?
.

The Catholic Church as it stands today has strayed from the applications of faith compared to that early Church.

Some desire to worship in a simplier manner. Less is more.

Catholics have taken many pagan traditions and turned then into Christian symbols- what is wrong with not wanting to have any of these symbols present in worship?

And some Jews are Catholic.

All Christians have been grafted onto the olive tree.

 

[Cinette]

Originally Posted by Just_Me_Andrew View Post
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.

*Hi Andrew -

that phrase of yours “…because many Catholics just love to go after Protestants concerning Sola Scriptura …” I found that a very curious statement on your part.

It the the Protestants who are always bringing it up and Catholics who refute it. We don’t bring up the subject, Protestants do. We like to talk about what we believe not what we don’t believe.

Consider that will you?

Cinette

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

If you don’t mind, I would like to try to answer your questions…

Dave, Andrew could you guys help me out here, and for now, let’s leave the CC out of it for the moment, for a rejoinder in reference to the CC is nothing more than a red herring regarding the subject, and I really want to resolve this matter once and for all.

I think you have taken a wrong turn here if you condider the Catholic Church a ‘red herring’ regarding this subject. And the reason is with in excess of 20,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming to know the truth and all discounting what the others are saying - and none able to agree on doctrinal issue from the 16th Century on these groups are filled with confusion and myth to say noting of their own interpretation of Scripture. That being said, I think I can at least give a partial answer to your question.

In one corner we have some isolated autonomous churches, eg Evangelical churches - that defer to the bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution, and they come away from the bible believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding the Eucharist. In the opposite corner we have some isolated autonomous churches as well, eg, some Lutheran churches - deferring to their bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution and they too come away from the same bible believing the exact opposite.

The way that I see it, the 6th Chapter of John’s Gospel can be divided into five major parts grouped in the following verses:

1.) 01-15 Jesus feeds 5,000 men - here we have a lot of hungry people and Jesus shows that He can feed all of them - He has Power over our physical needs. This sets the stage for the remainder of the text.

2.) 16-21 Jesus walks on water** ** - here we see that Christ has Power over all of nature by walking on water, calming a storm, and bringing the boat immediatly to Capernaum. This impresses on all that Jesus is God and can do All Things - He has NO limitations.

3.) 22-24 Jesus will not surrender His Plan for salvation - here we see people eager to make Him ‘king’ and Jesus rejects their efforts for the second time here by leaving the area.

4.) 25-48 Jesus the Bread of Life as metaphor! Here we see how Jesus compares Himself to things these Jews claim to know - but, really are quite ignorant of what Jesus is talking about. The crowd stays to hear what Jesus says - still, apparently in hopes of getting another free meal.

5.) 49-72 Jesus the Bread of Life as literal! Here we see Jesus telling the Jews that He is True Food and Drink - and they understand Him exactly - no longer any confusion about a metaphor - and, they reject Him because of what He is teaching.

If you simply read what is written - and then try to summarize the text in 100 words or less - you will see where the first group clinging to metaphor misses the meaning of the remainder of the text.

This presentation does not answer the second group - who claim that the Eucharist is really Christ - but, do not have a valid ministers to offer this sacrifice.

How can one know who’s interpretation is correct regarding the preceding impasse, if in fact the bible is to be the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences.

In the space of 2 years no one has ever answered this question; just a lot of dodge ball; perhaps that will change here at this thread. Thanks guys…

Hope this throws some helpful ideas on your inquiry.

God bless