Personal interpretation

[Doggg]

All scriptural interpretation must be done in the light of the teaching authority that Jesus gave to His Church.

And His church is the RCC? I would be interested in learning how you were able to know that the RCC is the church founded by Christ. But I’m the skeptical sort. I won’t accept as valid argumentation a circular argument for Rome’s teaching authority.

The kind of argument I’m referring to usually takes this general form:

1. According to Rome, since our own personal interpretation of the biblical text is flawed and imperfect, we need an infallible teaching authority to help us to understand what the bible really says.
2. According to Rome, since God loves truth and hates disunity, He would certainly not found His church on chaos and disorder. Therefore God must have provided an infallible teaching authority to lead us to the truth.
3. According to Rome, there is only one church (one religion) that qualifies as our infallible teaching authority, the RCC.
4. According to Rome, the RCC has such and such qualities (you may fill in the blanks) that are the ‘marks’ of the true church.

As any one can see, the argument can be distilled down to the statement, “The RCC is the church founded by Jesus because the RCC says so.”

The fact of the matter is that not one of these four claims above has ever been proven to be true!

 

[gtrenewed]

Huh? Who says that for something to be an interpretation one must espouse it as the only meaning of that Scripture.

If you don’t have multiple personalities, you will espouse only one contextual meaning for any scripture. You may change your mind but you will not hold to more than one at a time.

Now you can be encouraged by a scripture as it may apply to your life like your example. In this case there is the contextual meaning and in addition it spoke to your heart with a personal meaning.

Don’t Protestants state that each and every individual is free to interpret the Scriptures as long as the Holy Spirit is guiding him? How could millions of Christians be allowed to proclaim what each Bible verse they read means for everyone else.

First of all no. Each group, community, or denomination espouses an interpretation and if you want to belong you must come to their understanding at some point in time; that is why they have bible study.

Not sure how your comment about “millions…” applies?

Whose paradigm is this?

To which paradigm are you referring? To the fact that there are differing groups with differing interpretations?

 

[JM3]

**Sola scriptura was invented in the 16th century **as a denial of Church authority and by doing so is directly contradicted by Mt 16:18-1; John 16:13; 2 Thess 2:15 and a couple of other scripture passages.

It seems to have been known 1,000 years before this, as witnessed by St. Vincent of Lerins:

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, -because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another… Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

 

[JM3]

And His church is the RCC? I would be interested in learning how you were able to know that the RCC is the church founded by Christ. But I’m the skeptical sort. I won’t accept as valid argumentation a circular argument for Rome’s teaching authority.

The kind of argument I’m referring to usually takes this general form:

1. According to Rome, since our own personal interpretation of the biblical text is flawed and imperfect, we need an infallible teaching authority to help us to understand what the bible really says.
2. According to Rome, since God loves truth and hates disunity, He would certainly not found His church on chaos and disorder. Therefore God must have provided an infallible teaching authority to lead us to the truth.
3. According to Rome, there is only one church (one religion) that qualifies as our infallible teaching authority, the RCC.
4. According to Rome, the RCC has such and such qualities (you may fill in the blanks) that are the ‘marks’ of the true church.

As any one can see, the argument can be distilled down to the statement, “The RCC is the church founded by Jesus because the RCC says so.”

The fact of the matter is that not one of these four claims above has ever been proven to be true!

the short answer:

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and built His Church on Peter. Rome has always been the seat of Peter. This has never been disputed by any other church, until the 16th century reformation.

 

[gtrenewed]

And His church is the RCC? I would be interested in learning how you were able to know that the RCC is the church founded by Christ. But I’m the skeptical sort. I won’t accept as valid argumentation a circular argument for Rome’s teaching authority.

I was there too Dogg. I had to look to Jesus and the church fathers. First, I looked at Jesus and that He taught His apostles about the kingdom of heaven and His Father by word of mouth and by scripture.

Then the apostles set up churches with a hierarchy and taught the church fathers. Accordingly, they taught and worshipped. According to them, their worship was essentially the same as the mass today.

So for me it logically followed that Jesus intended for His faith to be passed down from generation to generation in a hierarchal form by word of mouth (tradition) and scripture.

It so happens that Rome and the Orthodox are separated but both show lineage back to the apostles and their worship is essentially the same. So again logically, this seems to be the church of Jesus Christ. Since I was born to RC parents, that is where I returned.

To me this is truth from the Holy Spirit and since it is truth then Rome can declare it as such. It seems circular but not if the Holy Spirit is confirming it by faith.

 

[po18guy]

And His church is the RCC? I would be interested in learning how you were able to know that the RCC is the church founded by Christ.

No circles involved. Hands-on ordination of the Apostle’s successors which trace either forward or back in an unbroken line to and from the twelve.

 

[po18guy]

And His church is the RCC? I would be interested in learning how you were able to know that the RCC is the church founded by Christ.

Back at ya: How do you know that your faith community was founded by Christ? Does this even matter to you?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Sola scriptura was invented in the 16th century as a denial of Church authority and by doing so is directly contradicted by Mt 16:18-1; John 16:13; 2 Thess 2:15 and a couple of other scripture passages.

It seems to have been known 1,000 years before this, as witnessed by St. Vincent of Lerins:

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, -because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another… Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Not really. Notice he says:

"But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?

Notice the “perhaps will ask”. That word perhaps means ‘maybe someone will ask’. It is not an acknowledgement that someone did ask but rather someone, sometime in the future will ask. St. Vincent was providing the answer to the protestants 1,000 years before sola scriptura was around. If they only listened to St. Vincent. They would not be in the chaos they are today.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy
All scriptural interpretation must be done in the light of the teaching authority that Jesus gave to His Church.

And His church is the RCC? I would be interested in learning how you were able to know that the RCC is the church founded by Christ. But I’m the skeptical sort. I won’t accept as valid argumentation a circular argument for Rome’s teaching authority.

The kind of argument I’m referring to usually takes this general form:

1. According to Rome, since our own personal interpretation of the biblical text is flawed and imperfect, we need an infallible teaching authority to help us to understand what the bible really says.
2. According to Rome, since God loves truth and hates disunity, He would certainly not found His church on chaos and disorder. Therefore God must have provided an infallible teaching authority to lead us to the truth.
3. According to Rome, there is only one church (one religion) that qualifies as our infallible teaching authority, the RCC.
4. According to Rome, the RCC has such and such qualities (you may fill in the blanks) that are the ‘marks’ of the true church.

As any one can see, the argument can be distilled down to the statement, “The RCC is the church founded by Jesus because the RCC says so.”

The fact of the matter is that not one of these four claims above has ever been proven to be true!

Actually no circular argument is needed. First one must establish some facts from scripture. So let’s do so, shall we?

1. In Mt 16:18 we find that Jesus said He would establish a church.
   “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of
   death shall not prevail against it.”
2. In Mt 28:19-20 we find Jesus saying two things. First, the church, in the form of the
   Apostles, was to evangelize the world and second, Jesus would remain with this church
   until the end of the Age.
   “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 lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
3. In John 16:12-13 we find Jesus telling these same Apostles that they would be guided
   into all truth.
   "12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the
   Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own
   authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things
   that are to come.”
4. In Acts 1:15-26 we see the Apostles acting to replace one of their number who had
   died. Notice in verse 20 Scripture uses the Greek word episcope which means
   bishop rather than the Greek word apostolos meanining apostle.
5. In John 21:15-17 we find Jesus telling Peter to feed bosko] (verses 15 and 17) His
   sheep and to govern His flock poimano] 9verse 16). Peter will be the shepherd of
   the church.

Now from this we can form some logical conclusions. The first four tell us that Jesus established a church based on His Apostles. His church would be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth and Jesus would remain with that church until the end of the age and the forces of death would not prevail over that that Church. In addition Jesus’ church would perpetuate itself by the succession of individuals to the episcopacy. Now all we need do is find that one church still present today because the Age has not ened. That church would have a history dating all the way back to the Apostles and have a succession of bishops in each generation. Now which among the protestant denominations meet the criteria received from scripture? None of them can trace a lineage thru a line of bishops back to the apostles. In fact, none of them today can trace a lineage back to a legitimate bishop. Then the clincher. Which church holds Peter as God’s appointed shepherd of the flock? There is only one answer and that is the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church meets all of these criteria. And let’s be precise here the proper name is the Catholic Church This bit about the RCC or the Roman Catholic Church is protestant bigotry concocted by the English of King Henry VIII’s time. That you still employ this bit of prejudicial name calling speaks loudly of your character and true intent.

 

[JM3]

Not really. Notice he says:

"But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?

Notice the “perhaps will ask”. That word perhaps means ‘maybe someone will ask’. It is not an acknowledgement that someone did ask but rather someone, sometime in the future will ask. St. Vincent was providing the answer to the protestants 1,000 years before sola scriptura was around. If they only listened to St. Vincent. They would not be in the chaos they are today.

Perhaps, if a question is written, it is asked or, perhaps, a question must be verbalized before you call it an asked question.

your reasoning always amuses me. Thanks for the morning smile.

 

[inkaneer]

Perhaps, if a question is written, it is asked or, perhaps, a question must be verbalized before you call it an asked question.

your reasoning always amuses me. Thanks for the morning smile.

Well let’s quote St. Vincent correctly. What he said was:

""With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .”
(The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

Taken in its context the correct words of St. Vincent clearly show that he is employing a tactic used by trial attorneys all the time. That is never ask a question to which you do not know the answer. St. Vincent asks the question that he says someone at sometime may perhaps ask. He doesn’t say the question was asked. He says perhaps it may be asked. He then answers the presumed question It is what amounts to a theological pre-emptive first strike that destroys the whole reasoning that would be behind such a question… Hardly any evidence for the existence of sola scriptura before the 16th century.

 

[Ben_F]

The misunderstanding here is that it is fine that we use the Bible for our own personal relationship with Christ. To light our paths… so to speak. We all have our own views of different Scriptural texts and how they relate to our own lives and situations and such… This is not the problem.

The problem is when people use their own understanding/interpretation of the Bible to create doctrines. When they are contradictory, something is certainly wrong. Christ wanted us to be one as He and His Father are one. How is all Christendom supposed to be His Body when His Body contains contradictory Truths? He IS the Truth. His Body cannot be Truth AND untruth. This is the problem of interpreting the bible on our own.

I like this. It´s simple and complete.

 

[Ben_F]

Let’s not state falsehood here. Catholics can indeed interpret the scriptures by themselves up to a point. But there are certain areas that have been defined that are not subject to personal interpretation. These are what are called ‘public revelation’ These consist of formally defined doctrine or other teachings which although not formally defined have been universally taught by the church. For instance we worship on Sunday not the Jewish Sabbath. No where is that formally defined in the church but it has been the practice of the church since Apostolic times. There are other areas known as ‘private revelation’ which a Catholic can have a personal interpretation provided that interpretation does not contradict anything in the Public Revelation. Examples of these are the various writings of the Catholic mystics down thru the ages. So Catholicism is not the Monolithic belief system that it is sometimes pictured to be.

As for the question of how do we know that the teachings of the Catholic Church are true teachings and not something dreamed up by mere men the answer is fairly simple. In scripture we read where Jesus made certain statements. First, He stated he would establish a church [Mt 16:18-19]. That occurred on Pentecost when Peter addressed the crowd. Before that happened though Jesus promised that He would remain with His Church until the end of the Age. [Mt 28:19-20]. The Age has not ended yet so if we accept Jesus’ word as true He is still with His Church. Then He stated that that church would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit [John 16:13]. Then He stated that Peter would shepherd his Church [John 21:15-17] Now all we have to do is find the one church among all the Christian denominations that,

A. Has been here since Pentecost when Peter addressed the crowd. This one criteria
eliminates all of the non Catholic denominations that are typically called protestant
since their very history is short by 1500 years at least and leaves only three choices.
They being the Catholic Church, the Coptic Church and the Orthodox Church.
B. Of these remaining Churches only the Catholic Church holds to the shepherding of
Peter through the Apostolic Succession of Popes from Peter.

That being the case then it only follows that the Catholic Church is that Church and is guided into truth by the Holy Spirit as Jesus said. Now, Jesus also said in Matthew 16 that hell would not prevail over this Church. The only way hell could prevail over the church is if the Church taught error. Remember the mission of the Church according to Jesus in Mt 28 was “to teach the nations” So if the church taught error then the Church fails in its mission and Hell prevails. But Jesus said that would not occur. So there you have it, fairly simple and scripturally sound.

This is real good. Thanks. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Doggg]

I did not interpret anything. All I did was take the very words of Jesus literally as translated. That is not interpretation. Those words are the same in any Bible whether it be protestant or Catholic. Interpretation assigns a different meaning to words other than the literal one. I find we Catholics are more literal in our understanding of scripture than protestants. For instance Mt 26:26-28:

Catholics do not interpret this passage as we take Jesus literally here.

When you read the bible, how do you decide precisely when you must take the words literally and when you must not?

 

[PRmerger]

When you read the bible, how do you decide precisely when you must take the words literally and when you must not?

We interpret it literally or not based upon the faith with which we were given these Scriptures–the Catholic faith.

That’s why where your interpretation has divorced itself from the faith of the Apostles it has diverged from the Truth as revealed to us by God.

 

[Doggg]

Taken in its context the correct words of St. Vincent clearly show that he is employing a tactic used by trial attorneys all the time. That is never ask a question to which you do not know the answer. St. Vincent asks the question that he says someone at sometime may perhaps ask. He doesn’t say the question was asked. He says perhaps it may be asked. He then answers the presumed question It is what amounts to a theological pre-emptive first strike that destroys the whole reasoning that would be behind such a question… Hardly any evidence for the existence of sola scriptura before the 16th century.

Isn’t it true that you are interpreting the words of St. Vincent here? If so, then it is at least possible that your interpretation of his words might be wrong in some way. For example, how can you be certain that he never meant to suggest that the “presumed question” had not yet been asked?

 

[Doggg]

We interpret it literally or not based upon the faith with which we were given these Scriptures–the Catholic faith.

This is circular. See my post #37

 

[cassini]

Its wrong because without proper guidance, we may not fully understand what is actually being said in the Bible and may come to a wrong conclusion. So the danger is we deviate from what is actually being taught by Scripture.

The correct way of course is to listen to one who has received the true teaching. Our clergy and religious are the ones who are trained for this, but there are also well trained lay persons who will teach this. Even in Scripture you will see that we always have this “master-apprentice” relationship when it comes to passing on the faith. We cannot figure out the faith by ourselves, that is why God had to come down and become man Himself to give us the proper teaching.

To which Doggg answered:
‘How did you come to know that the Magisterium should be trusted and authoritative for helping people to understand the written word?’

To which nobody answered.

Constantine, give me one example where the Magisterium interpreted certain passages in Scripture as the correct one in order to stop an incorrect interpretation?

 

[PRmerger]

This is circular. See my post #37

No, it is not circular. The argument is a* spiral* argument.

“We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).** What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.”** source

 

[fhansen]

To which Doggg answered:
‘How did you come to know that the Magisterium should be trusted and authoritative for helping people to understand the written word?’

To which nobody answered.

Constantine, give me one example where the Magisterium interpreted certain passages in Scripture as the correct one in order to stop an incorrect interpretation?

Read conciliar documents, those of Trent and Vat II to name a couple, as well as the Catechism. Scripture is referenced all over the place to support Church teachings, often to correct Reformed positions, etc.