How many scriptures have been interpretted?

[myfavoritmartin]

He was not “condemned”. That’s not what an excommunication does. Does this have anything to do with this thread?

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
(June 22, 1633)

law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Martin, if I may, I’m wondering what makes you think you have received the Holy Spirit to help you interpret Scripture? I mean, you believe the Bible, right? So how does the Bible say we “receive the Holy Spirit”? Let’s see…

NUMBERING MINE TO UNDERSTAND THE ORDER FOR YOU
While Peter was still speaking these words, 1.) the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
2.) Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thats not true and it costed Gallileo his salvation because he was excommunicated and outside the church there is no salvation…

First of all, I understand Galileo to be censured, not excommunicated. But second of all, how many times have I told you about extenuating ways to be joined to the Church informally? From the time of Scripture, Augustine, and elsewhere? 10, 20, 100 times???

People would take your challenges more seriously if you would not press on with fallacious views after having been definitively shown them to be wrong.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

First of all, I understand Galileo to be censured, not excommunicated. :

did you read his condemnation?
This is a lil more than being censured…
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

 

[Luke65]

NUMBERING MINE TO UNDERSTAND THE ORDER FOR YOU
While Peter was still speaking these words, 1.) the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
2.) Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Ahh, so which is it, Martin? How come only the apostles could give the Holy Spirit? Why couldn’t Philip the presbyter (cf. Acts 6:5) give the Holy Spirit? Why couldn’t Simon the sorcerer give the Holy Spirit? Can Benny Hinn?

 

[Luke65]

did you read his condemnation?
This is a lil more than being censured…
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

And what did the Church proscribe? Galileo was never excommunicated; he was put under house arrest, in a papal villa, where he continued his work.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Ahh, so which is it, Martin? How come only the apostles could give the Holy Spirit? Why couldn’t Philip the presbyter (cf. Acts 6:5) give the Holy Spirit? Why couldn’t Simon the sorcerer give the Holy Spirit? Can Benny Hinn?

Phillip could see Acts 8:6
Simon the sorcery couldn’t because he was NOT in Christ (born again)

 

[Luke65]

Phillip could see Acts 8:6
Simon the sorcery couldn’t because he was NOT in Christ (born again)

Philip was the one who baptized the Samaritans. He performed all kinds of miracles. But he could not confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, which is why the Apostles decided Peter and John should go to Samaria, so that the Samaritans could receive the Holy Spirit. Are we reading the same Bible?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay here is a good example and one that is used frequently by catholics…2 thess 2:15

Is it referenced? and if so how does Rome interpret it?
Because I see catholics continually use it in support of “tradition”
Which to me denies the suffiency of the Holy scriptures.

MFM-

Catholics have no problem accepting that the scriptures are materially sufficient; we do not believe that they are formally sufficient.

This is a huge distinction, and one you should familiarize yourself with since you are such a fixture in this forum.

**MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY **
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (*Tradition and Traditions *[New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate [between Patrick Madrid and James White on *sola scriptura] James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So is scripture worthless if we are unable to interpret it ourselves

Do you believe that Catholics think scripture is worthless?

Catholics can and do interpret scripture for themselves; however, we also understand that our fallible efforts are always subject to correction by the infallible Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You really think Scripture is worthless? I know you’re baiting.

:sad_yes:

MFM often appears suddenly after a long absence in which he has been reading (James McCarhy? James Swan? James White?) and preparing for his next attack.

It is no coincidence that he started this thread and is asking questions which are not designed to enlighten him regarding Catholic theology but are intended to trap the unwary.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

So is scripture worthless if we are unable to interpret it ourselves

how sad of a mindset. The Church, being a good mother, has taught and proclaimed the truth of Jesus Christ, being His Bride, faithfully over the years. The Word of God, Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, together, form this truth. Whatever teachings are in the bible are found within the bible, at least their roots (hence the development of doctrine). The Church has provided a sort of sandbox of truth, defined by Her dogma’s. As long as you follow the sound principles of exegesis, and do not violate or contradict any teaching of the Church, you will find meaning in “unofficially” interpreted scriptures; its like playing in the sandbox built by the Church.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
(June 22, 1633)

law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

read this bub:

The Key Is In The Book Of Joshua

                From Wil Milan’s article "Twisting the Knife" (November/December 1999), one may be led to conclude that Pope Urban VIII excommunicated Galileo because Galileo incurred the wrath of the Church by ridiculing the Pope in his *Dialogue*. Unfortunately, this overlooks the crux of the matter.

The Congregation of the Holy Office condemned Galileo in 1616, under Pope Paul V, and again in 1633 under Pope Urban VIII. Contrary to modern belief, the excommunication was unrelated to Galileo’s theory that the earth moved around the sun, a discovery made in 1543 by a Catholic priest from Poland named Copernicus. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa held this same view, and neither he nor Fr. Copernicus encountered any opposition from the Holy See. The Holy See does not comment on theories of science unless they are presented as scientific truths that contradict revealed truth, in which case these scientific theories become theological pronouncements.

Mr. Milan writes, “After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal [Robert] Bellarmine . . . concluded that Galileo did not contradict Scripture.” This assertion must be qualified by the following passage from letter the Cardinal wrote to a Mr. Foscarini, a close friend of Galileo: “There would be no objection on the part of the Congregation to putting forward the system of Copernicus as the best explanation of the celestial phenomena provided no reference was made to the apparent conflict with the Bible” (emphasis added).

The Congregation took issue not with the movement of the celestial bodies around the sun but with Galileo’s statement that the sun did not move. Why is that? The key is in the book of Joshua: “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day” (Josh. 10:12–14, emphasis added).

If the sun does not move, as Galileo affirmed, how could the Lord have commanded it to stand still? The Church had not made an infallible pronouncement on the proper interpretation of these verses. Galileo, on the other hand, was making one: The sun does not move, meaning either Scripture is in error or the Church has to infallibly declare that the meaning of these verses is not literal.

The Church, to protect the faithful and to call Galileo to repentance, issued her condemnation. Pope John Paul II has removed the bull of excommunication against Galileo in part because the astronomer’s teaching no longer constitutes a danger to the faithful (just as Paul’s stern warning against circumcision in Galatians 5:2–4 was binding for his time but is not binding today).

The irony is that, factually, the seventeenth-century Church was on the side of science, which has shown that the sun does move and is not fixed, as Galileo would have had it.

                Naji Mouawad
                San Marcos, California

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002ltrs.asp

note: Naji is the speaker in Qorbono.com, a comprehensive, deep bible study which I hope everyone gets a chance to experience (been going for 5 years now)!

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Holy Ghost, out of the mouth of Paul, says, “Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good.” Here are two great truths:

1st…The right, duty, and necessity of private judgment. “Prove all things.”

And we do this by learning what the Church teaches.

No one says “proving” has to be left to the individual in isolation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Whats the gospel message?

Again, a baiting question.

But on the chance that you are unclear yourself and seek a genuine answer, here is a great article that will help you:

What is the Gospel?
by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/gospjust/gospel.htm

 

[MarcoPolo]

did you read his condemnation?
This is a lil more than being censured…
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

Right, he was disciplined and he complied as far as I know. But the point is, not even excommunication renders someone automatically to hell in the eyes of the Church.

Has anyone identified what we are supposed to learn from you in this thread yet?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well let me ask you a question… Do you believe the Magisterium, headed by the Pope, is the final and infallible authority in all things?

On earth, yes, the Pope, along with the Bishops in communion with him, is the final authority and has the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Of course, not everything that a Pope or Bishop teaches is infallible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lets review the disourse of John 14-17 and see if it says specifically “THE CHURCH” shall we?

It does not have to say, “the Church” explicitly because the context is obvious.

Jesus is not teaching a crowd out on a hillside; He is in a closed room with only His closest disciples.

The promise was to them, the Apostles, and not to the masses.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He was speaking to the disciples directly but it was meant for all…
LOOK…
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

And no where in this passage does scripture say that the Holy Spirit will lead “the world” or “all disciples” into all truth. The Holy Spirit does convict men of their sin, but that is not the same as guaranteeing their infallibility.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thats not true and it costed Gallileo his salvation because he was excommunicated and outside the church there is no salvation…See the bull “speculatores domus israel”

This is not what got Galileo into trouble, and you have been around this forum long enough to have learned this.