- Status
J
jcrichton
Guest
…there’s a myth that continues to be perpetrated… back when people did not have their own personal copies of Sacred Writings; most of the communication being done was through “oral” exchange.
Heated arguments pro/against Apostolic Teaching (which would include Oral and Written Teaching) would develop from casual to specific exchanges… hardly anyone would claim “check with the Word” since only few and far in between would have access to the Sacred Writings.
…so no, not many would have problems with “reading” St. Paul–it would be mostly what they believe he had Taught. Yet, as in today’s world, the “scholars” would readily appear to put in their twos; some, as St. Peter stated, seeking to derail the Word/Gospel.
Maran atha!
Angel
T
tad
Guest
- Not that I know that much about the Sacred Scriptures but while I was in RCIA and my first bunch of years as a Catholic I did go to daily mass. After listening to the three cycles three times the Sacred Scriptures did become more familiar and I could use them as our first pope implored ’ to give a defense of the hope that was within me.’ God bless our protestant brothers and sisters as well as they have always driven me into reading the holy bible for myself. It’s from their insistence that I have grown a greater love of the Sacred Scriptures and of our Catholic faith.
T
Telstar
Guest
Probably because some of the people who misunderstood Paul’s writings at the time, were coming and telling Peter what they thought Paul was saying, but Peter knew very well that their shoddy interpretations weren’t what Paul actually meant, at all. That’s most likely why he decided to write something about it in his letter, so that people would realize that Paul’s meanings were very deeply spiritual, and extremely difficult for some of the more simple minded people to fully understand. Even the Gospels had many things expressed in them that still confuse people, today. Thus the reason for leaving the interpretation of scripture up to the Magisterium. That’s also why there are many thousands of flavors of Protestantism, with a zillion different interpretations of scripture. They didn’t listen to St. Peter.
Last edited:
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
Since the deposit of revelation which has been granted to us in the scriptures has infinite depth, I would rate myself 1/(infinity). So… not nearly enough.
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
I felt this was the closest one to my own situation. But I should point out that I am technically still Protestant. The church I attended for many years was huge on scripture memorization and I can still quote many, many verses.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Struggling with understanding Scripture does not necessairily mean you’re lacking the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Scripture has multiple meanings that only the Holy Spirit can reveal. The Apostles struggled greatly with Our Blessed Lord’s teachings, and, even though He sent the Paraclete to lead them into all truth, that did not mean they would never struggle through revelation; even Jesus Christ grew in stature and wisdom.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Did you really just try to “compare” understanding the intricate depths of Scripture to getting hit by a semi?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Very likely. However, Saint Peter acknowledges himself that there are hard things in Saint Paul’s letters to understand from a first-hand perspective.
He does not say, “There are hard things for you to understand”. No, he simply states that there are hard things to understand in his letters.
P
Pug
Guest
Lillypilly, I have to admit that even though I know it is a painting by Caravaggio and not in scripture, I still once on accident described Paul as falling off a horse. The painting had so much effect on me when I saw it that often it is all I see in my mind when I think of that incident. It is hard to remove the horse once it is seen.
J
jcrichton
Guest
I concur with you on this; we find them all thinking that the Parousia is imminent (within their own lifespan); yet, it is Revealed to them that it is not as they expected.
Yet, this does not mean that St. Paul knew more than others. It means that they all held the same understanding.
When St. Peter speaks of St. Paul’s Writings it is not because he needed his guidance in understanding God’s Revelation in St. Paul’s Writings; it means that he understood that the Teaching was hard for both the Jews and the Gentile to accept and put into practice… just as it was hard for them to understand that the Revelation of Yahweh as the One True God was the same Revelation that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is that One True God.
It is also the reason why they did not leave the Old Covenant’s Practice till they were exiled from the Temple and the synagogues and Realized, with the Holy Spirit’s Guidance, that the Church had to stand on her own.
So the changes that took place from Judaism to Christianity were seldom clear cut; the Teaching and Unfolding of the Holy Spirit was not according to the individuals’ intellectual prowess but actual and deliberate Divine Revelation and Guidance.
…it is also the reason why St. Paul calls himself an Apostle (if the least) because, while he was not part of Jesus’ Ministry, it was Revealed to Him by direct Divine intervention.
Man’s wisdom is not required!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
If you follow the response you will get to the point being made–people were struggling to understand, some were ignorantly or purposely twisting St. Paul’s Teachings (as they did with the Old Covenant’s Writing); hence, St. Peter being aware that some would find St. Paul hard to digest and that some would even attempt to derail the Gospel, is nothing short of common knowledge… ergo the semi!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
So you translate this to 'there are hard things that I, Peter, do not understand about Paul’s Writings?
Really? Are you not using eisegesis?
Maran atha!
Angel
Y
yankeesouth
Guest
Smh when I hear people say protestants are more knowledgeable of Scripture than Catholics. Memorization is not knowledge. You can memorize the bible cover to cover but what good is it if you are getting it wrong. If protestants were knowledgeable about Scripture then they would be Catholic.
Anyway I chose 7 & 10.
Anyway I chose 7 & 10.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I know some theologians who are atheists!goodcatholic:
I’m not sure that’s true. I betcha I can name a bushel full of theologians that are full of a bushel of manure.
Edited to add: anyway, you’re doing a good job of illustrating the “appeal to authority” fallacy. An argument should stand on its own merits, and not on the credentials of the person arguing it. So, “self-proclaimed” or “theologian”, the argument should be convincing on its own.
S
somecanadian
Guest
I’m none of these. ROFL
I’ve read the entire Bible. I’ve done countless studies (Revelation OVER AND OVER. One year I did three studies on Revelation ! It was insane).
I cannot quote specific Scriptures (except rarely in strange religious debates - sometimes verses will just come to me). I cannot argue Scriptural things (normally)… but I have this understanding of the big picture, I just can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint the minute details.
Lately, since becoming Catholic, my studies have died down because I don’t have as many resources anymore. I learn best in a crowd but there are no bible studies or anything like that in my diocese so I’m kind of studying on my own and I SUCK at that.
I’ve read the entire Bible. I’ve done countless studies (Revelation OVER AND OVER. One year I did three studies on Revelation ! It was insane).
I cannot quote specific Scriptures (except rarely in strange religious debates - sometimes verses will just come to me). I cannot argue Scriptural things (normally)… but I have this understanding of the big picture, I just can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint the minute details.
Lately, since becoming Catholic, my studies have died down because I don’t have as many resources anymore. I learn best in a crowd but there are no bible studies or anything like that in my diocese so I’m kind of studying on my own and I SUCK at that.
T
Telstar
Guest
We had a friend who told us that his father (who had recently passed away) had been a professor of theology at a very highly regarded local Catholic college. I was very impressed, to say the least. Unfortunately, I was very soon dismayed to learn that, even though he was born and raised Catholic, he was actually an atheist who didn’t believe in anything that he was teaching. I have to wonder exactly WHAT he was teaching, if he was actually an atheist.
God have mercy on his soul, as well as the soul of our friend, who has also passed.
T
Telstar
Guest
I would certainly not call myself a Biblical “expert”, by any stretch of the imagination. But, after spending 60+ years in the Catholic Church, and many of those years also studying on my own, I think I have a fairly good knowledge and understanding of the Bible. I’ve always been particularly drawn to the Gospels, but I’ve also read quite a bit in the Old Testament, too. But, I have never been able to read the entire Bible, from cover to cover. Some of the OT is just not my cup of tea. However, once in a while, I do look things up and find myself reading a lot more of it than I had intended to. I also have the DRV bookmarked in my browser, so I can search for things that might help me to make a point, especially here on the forum. It’s easier to read it online because I can adjust the size of the font (ctrl+) to a more comfortable size for reading. Sometimes, I like to open it up just to read it.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
No, when did I ever allude to such an idea?! Please do not place a caricature on my words for you to attack more easily.
- Status