Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[twb1621]

Hi Benedictus 2 thank you for your reply. What I’m saying to Des on 1006 and twb1621 about what Jesus means in His dialog in John 6 which actually starts at verse 25 and continues to the end of that chapter, is that Jesus is not speaking literally of being bread (loaf) that came down from heaven or that He expects anyone to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. In v 63, Jesus clarifies it all by saying His words that He has spoken are in a spiritual sense and not literal. That’s why some diciples left, they thought of cannibalism. If the eating the flesh/blood is taken literally, then what about Jesus being the bread of life? that can’t be taken literally too! ------- I never said that we are not to consume communion, which is symbolic of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. If the Eucharist is mystically changed to the literal flesh and blood as transubstantiation claims it to be, then Jesus would be violating the prohibition of eating blood as per the Law of Lev. 7:26-27.-------When Des quotes a commentary from the Duoay/Rhiems Bible, that Bible is the last place I would trust for any information. I already have shown how they mistranslated “Do Penance” rather than “Repent” in Acts 2:38 which is now corrected in the New American Bible. Also they had the audacity not to mistranslate but to misquote Jesus in John 3:5. Jesus never said,” born again of water" (this is where Catholics get baptism) Jesus said, "born of water (physical birth) compared to spiritual birth. We are not born again by baptism in reference to that one and only misquoted verse, when there are numerous verses that very clearly state that we are born again by believing in Jesus’ name. John 1:12-13, Acts 16:31, Joel 2:32, Rom 10:13, 1Per 1:23, ED O.

Ed, refer to Posts 1021 ans 1022 that you haven’t responded to.

60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Ed, You are trying very hard but your interpretation is misguided. I have copied verse 63 for you above for your reference. Jesus is not speaking of His flesh and His soul, He is saying Man’s spirit gives life and man’s flesh is of no avail. This is not in any way shape or form to be taken as He disclaims the bread and Wine as His Body and Blood. That is a major mistake to think it otherwise. You should have picked up on that when referring to the other verses I presented you. Refer to John Chapter 3 V6 below.

Also refer to cross reference; John CH3; 6 What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

 

[Ginger2]

Just because Luther believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that does not say anything about Zwingli, Calvin, etc. Also, Luther did not believe in the Real Presence as the Catholic Church does, as he did not subscribe to transubstantiation, rather Luther subscribed to his own theory, consubstantiation.

I believe in the literal meaning because the Bible leaves no room to do otherwise - it is clear.

However, perfect understanding is not a requirement of salvation. Even your Pope admits not to knowing everything nor understanding everything.

So, if one says, "I believe and trust God’s Word is true. I understand I am supposed to do this, but don’t really understand concisely what it means. * I think it means “xzy…”.*

That does not sever their union with God, as long as they will accept clear understanding when God provides it and not reject the truth to follow what is more pleasing in their own minds. This has to be true or the RC is perishing for not have complete and perfect understanding, as well.

The Apostle’s and other disciples who stayed made a faith choice to trust God without complete and perfect understanding.

That is what I am doing, and what the RC is doing when they say it’s a mystery, but we believe it, because Jesus told us it is so…

Now, you may feel compelled to say God has revealed truth through the chair of Peter. But that is inaccurate because it was already reveal through Scriptures.

and insufficient, because anti-popes will temporarily hold the office of pope and are never ? exposed until after the fact. And their teachings are destroyed once they are exposed, so we cannot verify the claims of the RC.

So, for us to place our trust in a man is irresponsible and disobedient to God’s commands.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

The main question appears to be why do Protestants disagree on essential Christian doctrines, while Catholics are in perfect agreement?

Since I have been unable to get any of you to understand the Bible explains this, I am going to use a different approach to show Catholics have this same problem:

Here is a real-life conversation from this forum:

Catholic 1: We are expecting a baby due at the beginning of this coming Lent. The priests at our parish and neighboring parishes I have contacted said they absolutely will not baptize babies during Lent because baptism is supposed to be a celebration and it’s not liturgically appropriate. The priest at my own parish says I should not worry about what might happen in the meantime because unbaptized babies will go to heaven. In my own understanding, we can only entrust them to the mercy of God, and there is no assurance of them going to heaven… also, that the Church recommends there be no significant delays in baptizing babies.

Catholic 2: The parishes you have contacted are incorrect to deny your baby baptism. I recommend contacting your diocese and asking for assistance in finding a priest or deacon who will baptize your baby during Lent.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus 2 thank you for your reply. What I’m saying to Des on 1006 and twb1621 about what Jesus means in His dialog in John 6 which actually starts at verse 25 and continues to the end of that chapter, is that Jesus is not speaking literally of being bread (loaf) that came down from heaven or that He expects anyone to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. In v 63, Jesus clarifies it all by saying His words that He has spoken are in a spiritual sense and not literal.

Nope. Quite the contrary. Verse 63 in no way clarifies that what He has said from verse 25-60 is to be taken in a spiritual sense as in symbolic. Here are the verses

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “**How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” **53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you EAT THE FLESH of the Son of Man and DRINK HIS BLOOD, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 **For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. **56 **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. ****57 **Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, SO ALSO THE ONE WHO FEEDS ON ME will have life because of me.

So no, you are quite wrong. Jesus was in no way clarifying the above statements as to be treated in a spiritual manner by verse 63. Besides, what you really mean by saying that it was to be a spiritual understanding was that Jesus was talking symbolically but He was not.

This is one of His discourses where He never lets up but instead keeps hammering it in.

As I have pointed out, verse 63 refers to FLESH IN GENERAL. The other verses referred to HIS FLESH.

That’s why some diciples left, they thought of cannibalism. If the eating the flesh/blood is taken literally, then what about Jesus being the bread of life? that can’t be taken literally too! -------

EXACTLY! They left and Jesus did not try to correct their perception. He did not even try to correct the perception of those who remained. All He said was “Do you also want to leave?”

I never said that we are not to consume communion, which is symbolic of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Nope. It is NOT SYMBOLIC of eating his flesh and drinking His blood. Those who left got it right, that is why Jesus did not correct them. But what they thought was being asked of them was that they will be asked to literally cut him up as meat. This is because they had no faith.

That is why at verse 28, He asked them to believe in Him.

The difference between those who left and those who remained was faith. That no matter how hard the saying was, Jesus had the Words of eternal life so they stuck to him.

If the Eucharist is mystically changed to the literal flesh and blood as transubstantiation claims it to be, then Jesus would be violating the prohibition of eating blood as per the Law of Lev. 7:26-27.

Aaah, but this is where the mystery is. We are actually eating Him (Bodyl Blood, Soul and Divinity) but our senses perceive bread. The levitical law prohibits eating flesh perceived as flesh.

And that is what makes this so beautiful.

In John 6 He tells them that they must FEED ON HIM, and yet He does not give them the wherewithal to do that.

But in the synoptics, He does. He says this is my body, my blood, take eat, drink.

If you read the synoptics by themselves, Jesus saying this is my Body take and eat is just so out of whack with what was happening. There they were at table and He tells them this without any preamble or explanation.

If you read the synoptic account by themselves, this part of the last supper will not make sense at all because there seems to be no reason why we should eat His Body, drink His Blood. Only when we juxtapose this with John 6 does it start to make sense.

 

[Ginger2]

EdOsiecki & benedictus2

Nope. Quite the contrary. Verse 63 in no way clarifies that what He has said from verse 25-60 is to be taken in a spiritual sense as in symbolic.

Nope. It is NOT SYMBOLIC of eating his flesh and drinking His blood. …Jesus did not correct them.

benedictus2, You are correct. It is not merely symbolic. But it is spiritual.

Where you are incorrect is:

First, the word “flesh” does not always mean the physical body. Jesus said a man and woman become one “flesh” when joined in marriage. This is not literally sharing the same physical body, but rather becoming one spiritually.

Second, Jesus did not always correct the misunderstandings of his disciples, either. Jesus spoke of his death and when the disciples didn’t understand he didn’t explain it.
Luke 18:
31 Then he took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and everything written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.
32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon;
33 and after they have scourged him they will kill him, but on the third day he will rise.”
34 But they understood nothing of this; the word remained hidden from them and they failed to comprehend what he said.

 

[benedictus2]

-------When Des quotes a commentary from the Duoay/Rhiems Bible, that Bible is the last place I would trust for any information.

If you read my post, I did not post a commentary from the Douay Rheims Bible so whatever Des said had no bearing on what I wrote.

Also, my post was concerned solely with the Eucharist so what ever else you have written below has no bearing on what I wrote but I will reply anyway.

Jesus never said,” born again of water" (this is where Catholics get baptism) Jesus said, "born of water (physical birth) compared to spiritual birth.

Born of water does not mean physical birth as compared to spiritual birth. If you go back to verse 3, Jesus says you must be born “from above” but Nicodemus misunderstands Him as saying “born again”. So Jesus says that to enter the kingdom you need to be born both of water and spirit. The born of water part was not referreing to physical birth at all because “born of water and spirit” both pertain to being “born from above”.

We are not born again by baptism in reference to that one and only misquoted verse, when there are numerous verses that very clearly state that we are born again by believing in Jesus’ name. John 1:12-13, Acts

16:31, Joel 2:32, Rom 10:13, 1Per 1:23, ED O.

Jesus never spoke about being “born again” and never said we must be “born again”. To be “born again” is a protestant/evangelical construct.

What happens at Baptism is a regeneration, a cleasining of our sins. 1 Peter 3:19-21

" For Christ also suffered 5 for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. 19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "

That is why before His ascension, Jesus commissioned the twelve to baptize. Matthew 28:18-20
"18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

If to be a Chritian is to be a disciple of Christ, then Christ HIMSELF gave us the formula of how that is to happen.

 

[benedictus2]

EdOsiecki & benedictus2

benedictus2, You are correct. It is not merely symbolic. But it is spiritual.

Where you are incorrect is:

First, the word “flesh” does not always mean the physical body. Jesus said a man and woman become one “flesh” when joined in marriage. This is not literally sharing the same physical body, but rather becoming one spiritually.

Second, Jesus did not always correct the misunderstandings of his disciples, either. Jesus spoke of his death and when the disciples didn’t understand he didn’t explain it.
Luke 18:
31 Then he took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and everything written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.
32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon;
33 and after they have scourged him they will kill him, but on the third day he will rise.”
34 But they understood nothing of this; the word remained hidden from them and they failed to comprehend what he said.

I know it is spiritual. What I was trying to correct is Ed’s equation that spriitual = symbolic.

A symbolic interpretation of this passage does not mean it is a spiritual interpretation that is why I was questioning what he means by a spiritual interpretation which based on his post he does not know the meaning of either. .

This is why my exact post went “spiritual sense as in symbolic”.

 

[Ginger2]

I know it is spiritual. What I was trying to correct is Ed’s equation that spriitual = symbolic.

I said “benedictus2, You are correct. It is not merely symbolic. But it is spiritual.”

This was meant as one statement, not two. We are in agreement on that point. Be happy. It may never happen again.

Ginger

 

[benedictus2]

The main question appears to be why do Protestants disagree on essential Christian doctrines, while Catholics are in perfect agreement?

Since I have been unable to get any of you to understand the Bible explains this, I am going to use a different approach to show Catholics have this same problem:

Here is a real-life conversation from this forum:

Catholic 1: We are expecting a baby due at the beginning of this coming Lent. The priests at our parish and neighboring parishes I have contacted said they absolutely will not baptize babies during Lent because baptism is supposed to be a celebration and it’s not liturgically appropriate. The priest at my own parish says I should not worry about what might happen in the meantime because unbaptized babies will go to heaven. In my own understanding, we can only entrust them to the mercy of God, and there is no assurance of them going to heaven… also, that the Church recommends there be no significant delays in baptizing babies.

Catholic 2: The parishes you have contacted are incorrect to deny your baby baptism. I recommend contacting your diocese and asking for assistance in finding a priest or deacon who will baptize your baby during Lent.

The examples you cited above are individual Catholic understanding and not necessarily what the Church teaches. If Catholic 1 believed in the real presence, and Catholic 2 did not, it does not mean that the Catholic Church has different beliefs. The Catholic Church still maintains that doctrine regardless of what individual Catholics believe.

But in protestantism, you have churches differing in interpretation and not merely church members dissenting or not knowing what their church actually teaches.

 

[Ginger2]

The examples you cited above are individual Catholic understanding and not necessarily what the Church teaches.

Can you refer me to the specific teaching of the RC which states whether or not a baby can be Baptized during Lent?

If not, my point stands.

 

[benedictus2]

I said “benedictus2, You are correct. It is not merely symbolic. But it is spiritual.”

This was meant as one statement, not two. We are in agreement on that point. Be happy. It may never happen again.

Ginger

And that is why I responded with “I know it is spiritual”.

Your statement “'BUT it is spritual” seems to indicate that you don’t think I know that it is spiritual. If you know that I know it is spiritual, you would not have needed to add the "But it is spirtual and left it at “You are correct”.

 

[estesbob]

Can you refer me to the specific teaching of the RC which states whether or not a baby can be Baptized during Lent?

If not, my point stands.

There is no prohibition against Baptizing ANYONE during Lent:

CHAPTER I : THE CELEBRATION OF BAPTISM

Can. 850 Baptism is administered according to the rite prescribed in the approved liturgical books, except in a case of urgent necessity when only those elements which are required for the validity of the sacrament must be observed.
Can. 851 The celebration of baptism should be properly prepared. Accordingly:

1° an adult who intends to receive baptism is to be admitted to the catechumenate and, as far as possible, brought through the various stages to sacramental initiation, in accordance with the rite of initiation as adapted by the Episcopal Conference and with the particular norms issued by it;

2° the parents of a child who is to be baptised, and those who are to undertake the office of sponsers, are to be suitably instructed on the meaning of this sacrament and the obligations attaching to it. The parish priest is to see to it that either he or others duly prepare the parents, by means of pastoral advice and indeed by prayer together; a number of families might be brought together for this purpose and, where possible, each family visited.

Can. 852 §1 The provisions of the canons on adult baptism apply to all those who, being no longer infants, have reached the use of reason.
§2 One who is incapable of personal responsibility is regarded as an infant even in regard to baptism.
Can. 853 Apart from a case of necessity, the water to be used in conferring baptism is to be blessed, in accordance with the provisions of the liturgical books.
Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring, in accordance with the provisions of the Episcopal Conference.
Can. 855 Parents, sponsors and parish priests are to take care that a name is not given which is foreign to christian sentiment.
Can. 856 Though baptism may be celebrated on any day, it is recommended that normally it be celebrated on a Sunday or, if possible, on the vigil of Easter.
Can. 857 §1 Apart from a case of necessity, the proper place for baptism is a church or an oratory.
§2 As a rule and unless a just reason suggests otherwise, an adult is to be baptised in his or her proper parish church, and an infant in the proper parish church of the parents.
Can. 858 §1 Each parish church is to have a baptismal font, without prejudice to the same right already acquired by other churches.
§2 The local Ordinary, after consultation with the local parish priest, may for the convenience of the faithful permit or order that a baptismal font be placed also in another church or oratory within the parish.
Can. 859 If, because of distance or other circumstances, the person to be baptised cannot without grave inconvenience go or be brought to the parish church or the oratory mentioned in can. 858 §2, baptism may and must be conferred in some other church or oratory which is nearer, or even in some other fitting place.
Can. 860 §1 Apart from a case of necessity, baptism is not to be conferred in private houses, unless the local Ordinary should for a grave reason permit it.
§2 Unless the diocesan Bishop has decreed otherwise, baptism is not to be conferred in hospital, except in a case of necessity or for some other pressing pastoral reason.

 

[benedictus2]

Can you refer me to the specific teaching of the RC which states whether or not a baby can be Baptized during Lent?

If not, my point stands.

There is not rule prohibiting the baptism of children during Lent. There is a certain leeway of when the pastor in concordance with the Bishop may arrange baptisms but it is preferable to do it during Easter or on Sunday.

The priest was probably exercising his right to decide when to do baptisms. He however does not have this leeway if the child is near death.

Regardless, this does not make your point since this is someting that the Church has allowed the pastor and bishop to decide upon so not someting that contradicts any doctrine.

 

[estesbob]

Can you refer me to the specific teaching of the RC which states whether or not a baby can be Baptized during Lent?

If not, my point stands.

Can. 856 Though baptism may be celebrated on any day, it is recommended that normally it be celebrated on a Sunday or, if possible, on the vigil of Easter.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__P2U.HTM

 

[Ginger2]

And that is why I responded with “I know it is spiritual”.

Your statement “'BUT it is spritual” seems to indicate that you don’t think I know that it is spiritual. If you know that I know it is spiritual, you would not have needed to add the "But it is spirtual and left it at “You are correct”.

I realize I should have put a comma instead of a period for clarity. Oops,

 

[Ginger2]

There is not rule prohibiting the baptism of children during Lent. There is a certain leeway of when the pastor in concordance with the Bishop may arrange baptisms but it is preferable to do it during Easter or on Sunday.

The priest was probably exercising his right to decide when to do baptisms. He however does not have this leeway if the child is near death.

Regardless, this does not make your point since this is someting that the Church has allowed the pastor and bishop to decide upon so not someting that contradicts any doctrine.

Very good, B. From this it is clear that Catholic priests may very on the issue without conforming to a specific time line.
One parish may allow it according to the “first few weeks rule”
while another may ignore that rule and wait longer.

Yet, Catholics can criticize for slight differences in Baptism???

 

[Ginger2]

Can. 856 Though baptism may be celebrated on any day, it is recommended that normally it be celebrated on a Sunday or, if possible, on the vigil of Easter.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__P2U.HTM

Again, I see the written rule is that Baptism can be perform on any day, yet the RC allows priests to make their own rules differing from the ones laid out in the CCC.

Yet, Catholics deny this same privilege to Protestants who differ slightly on Baptism.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“May be”. Not “MUST BE”.

Suppose I said, “I may hang a picture on any day this coming week.” But. . .for some reason, perhaps an illness, or an unexpected vacation, I don’t get to do it that week. Suppose I decide that I’d rather hang the picture in the spring. You can’t say, “But you said you were going to do it this coming week.” I said “May” and that’s a conditional that can be altered by me.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

P.S. From what I understand, you’re telling me that the “Bible says” that there can be different interpretations of Scripture, but you’re still not telling me that this therefore means that those Christians who hold the Scripture differences are not wrong. And you’re not telling me which Christians are RIGHT. If you are correct in what you say, there is a specific TRUE interpretation for every passage and the Christians either know it and follow it, or ignore it.

But you still don’t give any authority or detail who is right and why.

 

[Ginger2]

I attended a Catholic Baptism years ago. We were all set for the ceremony, but the priest suddenly decided he wasn’t going to do the Baptism.

I thought this was terribly unprofessional since he could have discussed his concern with the mother before everyone showed and avoided public embarrassment (his, not hers)

Since I was raised Catholic, I knew his objection was invalid and pointed out church teaching on the subject. To which his response was to simply perform the Baptism.

Giving priests leeway to decide who should and shouldn’t be Baptized and when, apart from the church teaching is an open door to introduce error and negligence.

Ginger