D
Denise1957
Guest
Peter 2 1:20
“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.”
- Status
“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.”
D
Denise1957
Guest
A rule is indeed based on the authority of the one who made the rule. The Church alone has been granted the authority by God to interpret scripture. The reformers took what did not belong to them, and made of it their own. They had no authority to do so. It was the Catholic Church that promulgated the Bible. It rightly belongs to her.
You will disagree of course, and that’s fine.
A
Abu
Guest
The fact that the Orthodox do not assent to Christ when He clearly founded His Catholic Church with St Peter as His Chief Vicar is the reason that they have fallen prey to some false beliefs and practices.
Christ was crystal clear:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].
**Sole authority: **“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Christ established only His own Church on St Peter and mandated “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.” Lk10:16. Again, Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen.” (Matt. 18:17). Our Lord never commanded men to obey two conflicting authorities.
A
Abu
Guest
The silliness of the sola scriptura argument is that Jesus wrote nothing and commanded us to follow His Catholic Church, which authenticated and pronounced infallibly which writings form the Sacred Scriptures.
The early Catholics had no NT to appeal to and learned their faith from oral not written instruction as the Bible was inaccessible to most until the printing press was developed in the 15th century. Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455.
So the complete message of Jesus was, and is, through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of His Church, and no other.
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
My first response would be not to stay where you are, you have obviously been introduced to apostolic Christianity and have come to know that it comes from Christ himself. So to settle for anything less than apostolic Christianity would be the wrong thing to do given what you know. Secondly, I have been in your shoes before. I would say read apologetics, like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray and the like. There is overwhelming support for papal supremacy in the church fathers and in church history. I can’t list anything right now because my battery is about to die but look into it.
C
czarlazar
Guest
A
Abu
Guest
With reference to my post #123,
Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].
The fidelity shown at the Council of Chalcedon was later discarded:
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are Orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
The supreme and universal jurisdiction which originated with Christ is thus acknowledged and accepted until the fateful schism which has resulted in the false teaching and errors below.
The shallowness and naiveté exists with those who do not know or deny the mandate of Christ in installing His Supreme Vicar, St Peter. The universal jurisdiction existed from the beginning – from Christ (post #123).
Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].
The fidelity shown at the Council of Chalcedon was later discarded:
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are Orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
The supreme and universal jurisdiction which originated with Christ is thus acknowledged and accepted until the fateful schism which has resulted in the false teaching and errors below.
While the Orthodox to their credit have validly ordained priests and bishops, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven sacraments, they have fallen into false beliefs and practices in that they explicitly have the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, allowing contraception, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
A
Abu
Guest
See post #117.
Yes: in post #123 the Christ, as God the Son, did precisely establish St Peter as His Supreme Vicar of His Catholic Church on earth.
Where is your authority to challenge the Christ?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Don’t confuse Rome with the bloggings/postings of one individual on the “World Wide Web”.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Like I said, naive and shallow.
The USCCB, IOW - **your **immediate authority says:
Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not everyone cares for that.
The SSPX website even has a page headed “A brief explanation of ecumenism showing what the Church teaches on this issue and how Vatican II contradicts it.” Need I go on?
(I could also quote a plethora of internet bloggers, but I’d much rather not. I think they get quoted too much already. Indeed, I won’t even post the link to the webpage I mentioned – anyone who really wants to find it can do so on their own. 
)
K
Koineman
Guest
That passage is not talking about individuals interpreting scripture. It is talking about the reliability of prophecy because of its source: divine inspiration. The context bears this out:
He’s saying that the prophets didn’t make up their message or interpret it as they saw fit but rather spoke it directly from God. They spoke as they were “moved by the Holy Spirit.” Thus, he is showing the absolute reliability of those messages. Hence his reference to “the prophetic message that is altogether reliable” and his exhortation in v. 19: “whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place.”
The subject of whether or not individuals should interpret Scripture on their own is not in view here. It’s about the reliability of the prophecies because of the One they come from and because of the manner in which they were delivered: not by the will of man or by the prophet’s own personal interpretation but directly from God. Thus, it’s not about the people who hear those prophecies.
D
Denise1957
Guest
The passage I quoted said that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. Meaning, that the truth of scripture is not to be interpreted privately. It’s quite simple, really.
K
Koineman
Guest
I agree. It IS quite simple. Just look at the context and follow the author’s train of thought, like I did, and you can see what he intended to say. Nothing about people interpreting Scripture; everything about the source of prophecy and why it’s reliable. The “private interpretation” bit is referring to the prophets not interpreting the message as they passed it along.
D
Denise1957
Guest
That’s your private interpretation.
R
Rohzek
Guest
I think you should fully quote the verse instead of leaving it there. It is much more fair to his argument, although it doesn’t rule out yours either.
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as there were moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1: 20
Really, what Peter is talking about here is the need to consult God when reading and interpreting prophecy. There is nothing directly tying this to the Church of Rome. If you want to make that argument, you need to add more to your points in order to reach that conclusion.
K
Koineman
Guest
I don’t think the text goes that far. The only thing Peter exhorts his readers to do is to look to the prophecies. The rest of the text regarding inspiration and no individual interpretation has to do with how the prophets received the message and passed it on. There just doesn’t seem to be any idea of “here’s how you should read prophecy” in this passage.
D
Denise1957
Guest
What is your understanding of the term ‘prophecy?’
- Status