Personal interpretation

[SemperReformada]

But is the Assumption an essential? And what essentials are we speaking off? Is it those essentials for salvation or those essentials to be Catholic?

Okay, you bring up a good point. What essentials are we talking about?

It seems to me this is a fairly complicated subject. I think as a Catholic you have to submit to any dogma that your church has declared. That kinda makes sense too, right? If your church has the gift of infallibility and has the authority it says it has, you better believe what it says to believe, right? Why wouldn’t you?

But, I am not Catholic (considering converting but I am not there yet). The whole “no salvation outside the church” topic is greatly confusing to me and how it applies to non-Catholic Christians and other non-Catholic’s such as Jews, Muslims, etc.

For example, I believe most of what the Catholic church teaches but not everything. You, as a Catholic would have to believe all that your church teaches. According to your catechism I may be able to achieve salvation, apparently even though I reject certain Catholic dogmas. You apparently couldn’t obtain salvation knowingly rejecting dogmatic statements.

 

[inkaneer]

Okay, you bring up a good point. What essentials are we talking about?

It seems to me this is a fairly complicated subject. I think as a Catholic you have to submit to any dogma that your church has declared. That kinda makes sense too, right? If your church has the gift of infallibility and has the authority it says it has, you better believe what it says to believe, right? Why wouldn’t you?

But, I am not Catholic (considering converting but I am not there yet). The whole “no salvation outside the church” topic is greatly confusing to me and how it applies to non-Catholic Christians and other non-Catholic’s such as Jews, Muslims, etc.

For example, I believe most of what the Catholic church teaches but not everything. You, as a Catholic would have to believe all that your church teaches. According to your catechism I may be able to achieve salvation, apparently even though I reject certain Catholic dogmas. You apparently couldn’t obtain salvation knowingly rejecting dogmatic statements.

Extra ecclesia nol salus [outside the church there is no salvation] is indeed a dogma of the Catholic Church. Reduced to its basics it means that Christ established a church and entrusted it to the Apostles. All of the teaching of Christ inherited by the Apostles is present in that church and constitutes what is called the deposit of faith. Despite Jesus’ prayer that His followers be one as He and the Father were one the church is not one. Despite that division there exists portions of the deposit of faith in all of mankind’s religions Christian as well as non Christian even if it is as basic as belief in one God. Obviously Christian denominations have a greater portion of that deposit of faith than non christian but none except the Catholic Church has the complete deposit of faith. So the question then becomes just how much of the deposit of faith is necessary for one to believe in order to be saved. That is not an easy question to answer as it involves the concept of ignorance be it invinceable or vinceable. In addition there is the issue of sin and specifically mortal sin. Jesus gave authority over sin to His church so that it can be forgiven or retained. That authority is not present in sola scripturist denominations. So again we come back to Extra ecclesia nol salus

 

[gtrenewed]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
But is the Assumption an essential? And what essentials are we speaking off? Is it those essentials for salvation or those essentials to be Catholic?

Okay, you bring up a good point. What essentials are we talking about?

It seems to me this is a fairly complicated subject. I think as a Catholic you have to submit to any dogma that your church has declared. That kinda makes sense too, right? If your church has the gift of infallibility and has the authority it says it has, you better believe what it says to believe, right? Why wouldn’t you?

But, I am not Catholic (considering converting but I am not there yet). The whole “no salvation outside the church” topic is greatly confusing to me and how it applies to non-Catholic Christians and other non-Catholic’s such as Jews, Muslims, etc.

For example, I believe most of what the Catholic church teaches but not everything. You, as a Catholic would have to believe all that your church teaches. According to your catechism I may be able to achieve salvation, apparently even though I reject certain Catholic dogmas. You apparently couldn’t obtain salvation knowingly rejecting dogmatic statements.

It started on this thread in response to the protestant claim that they have “unity in essentials, in all non-essentials charity.”

This begs the question, “what are the essentials?” To which various lists of scriptures were given by different respondents, further proving the charge by Catholics that there is no unity in protestantism, everyone has there own personal interpretation of scripture. In fact, the claim was made that there is over 30,000 different interpretations.

Having been in protestantism and now reverted back to my baptismal faith, this seemed a bit of hyperbole. From my experience, most orthodox protestants believe in the Apostle’s Creed as essential to being called a Christian, except they would substitute Body of Christ or universal church for Holy Catholic Church.

The reason I reverted though is because when it came to how you become and live as a Christian, there is much disagreement. I considered baptism and the real presence in the Lord’s Supper as essential in becoming and living as a Christian to which most protestants would disagree.

PR challenged the sola scriptore adherrants to present a scripture which says what is essential in scripture since they only use the scripture for doctrine. If they couldn’t, then sola scriptore is a false concept. Of course, there is no scripture which explicitly says this and this is essential in that precise wording.

This is where I jumped in by saying that one can know what is essential to them becoming and living as a Christian from the Holy Spirit. I knew that baptism and the real presence were essential from scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, just because I know this essential, I did not have the authority to create doctrine. That is why I returned, to submit to the authority of Jesus as He passed it down to the Apostle’s and they in turn passed it on and those who received it from them passed it down.

This is where the protestant has erred. It is not a question of not knowing essentials from scripture, it is that they have not received the authority to create doctrine and that is why there is no consensus in protestantism. We can argue all day over what this scripture means or that scripture means but in the end we must be a disciple of Jesus by submitting to His Words and part of those Words set up the passing down of His authority to His disciples throughout time. That Apostolic succession is realized in the Catholic Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger.

I really do not know why to are doing this … he really has dug in his heels on this most un-Catholic position. When challenged he simply says that the topic on Persnal Interpretation had gone to nothing so he brings this ‘essentials’ up. While waiting for a ‘theologian’ to sort this out, it would appear that a lot of time will be lost.

To me the ultimate argument against this really Protestant argument is that there is no ‘Essential List’ - it is a theoretical construct to enable Protestants to feel good about themselves - “Yes, there are differences, but we agree on the ‘essentials’ of Christianity”… and, as long as those 'essentials remain vague and undefined then everyone is on the ‘same page’. And that is the reality - and, at least to me, that is what makes it so sad… because it is a meaningless exercise. All of these groups contradict each other… on their ‘essentials’!

It may really be best to try and move back to the OPs question - actually, it is ‘Personal Interpretation’ that opened the door (via Luther) to everyone claiming to have the Holy Spirit directly inspire them - leading to 30,000+ ways that truth can be turned upside down.

God bless

Again, no they don’t gt.

If they do, you (as an apologist for this paradigm) would be able to provide us with a verse, using Scripture alone, which says whether Acts 3:17 is essential or not.

So here’s my challenge to you, gt:
Please answer this as an apologist for the “Scripture has essentials and we can know what they are from Scripture alone” paragigm:

-Is Acts 3:17 essential?

-Please, USING ONLY SCRIPTURE, tell us how you know. Please cite book, chapter and verse.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SemperReformada,

Let me try my hand at resonding to your post. I am taking a bit of a Lenten Break - except for Sunday… So, I will try and be as thorough as possible.

PR,

Do you believe the scriptures contain all that one needs to be saved? In other words do you believe in the material sufficiency of scripture?

Actually, no, I do not! Let me tell you why: Scripture contains a wealth of material - like all the parts to a Swiss watch - but, the ‘how to’ or the ‘directions’ are not there. Here are a couple of examples. Just ‘how do you’:

Baptize someone - the Catholic Church requires a specific way to do this, yet Protestants are not only in disagreement about if it is even necessary - their forms are all over the place.

Have a Priesthood - Christ told the Apostles to “Do this in rememberance of Me” and thus established His Apostles to follow His Command and consecrate common bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity. Christ also delegated to these men the power of God to forgive sin - and the Catholic Church has a very special way for men to become priests and fulfill Christ’s commands. Protestants, converesly, dispute the Real Presence and deny the need for priests and have no sacramental Confession.

Resolve differences - In Acts we see where the Judiazers created the first theological crisis for the Early Catholic Church. It was ultimately resolved by Peter declaring, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, that circumcision was no longer a requirement. Even the briefist reading of the OT would give a person the confidence that circumcision was required by God as a symbol of the Covenant - from Abraham forward, this practice was not to vary - even if the 8th day fell on the Sabbath! Yet, here we have the break between the OT and the NT - coming from Peter without referencing Scripture. It would appear that if Protestants disagree, they separate from whatever was their ‘original’ organization and found another - and that is how we ultimately get to 30,000+ groups all claiming to be right with conflicting doctrines.

As you already know there is no list of the “essentials” and there is no way to answer your question adequately. But, what is the Catholic alternative for this? Is there a list of infallible declarations? I don’t think there is.

Actually, there is - and you identified it in your next paragraph: the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Everything you need to know is right there. Please recall in John where Christ told the Apostles that He had much to tell them but they could not bear it now (John 16:12) and then John concludes his Gospel by telling us that not everything Christ did is recorded in these pages. But, do not feel abandoned (Christ promised He would not abandon us… John 14:18) for He gave us the Church He founded on Peter (Matt 16:18).

Here is a link to the CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Seriously, if you have any question about what the Church’s teaching is on a particular subject - it is answered.

Now, as far as directing someone to a so-called list of Catholic essentials, we could start off with the Apostles Creed (newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm) - but, please note, Christ did not provide the Catholic Church with a Policy and Procedure Manual - so we see some development in doctrine that is actually reduced to writing and established as official Catholic Teaching - not the difference between the Apolstles Creed and the Nicene Creed (newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm )

Obviously there is more to following Christ than professing He is God (the devils in Hell do that much (James 3:6)) or that saying, “Lord! Lord” - or even working ‘mighty deeds’ will accomplish anything positive for one’s immortal soul (Matt 7:22) And, that ‘more’ is spelled out in the CCC. The areas of distinction between Catholic doctrine and the various beliefs of Protestantism can fill volumes - the take home message, however, is really straight forward: looking for a ‘list of essentials’ is a fool’s errand - knowing what makes up the Catholic Faith is something that takes time and study. I really think the CCC will give you the answers you seek.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SemperReformada,

Let me add another perspective to your concern about “outside of the Church there is no Salvation”. Here are three links that may be helpful:

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1005btb.asp (scroll down about 1/2 page to get to the material),

I think the ‘Cliff’s Notes’ version is that if you are thinking that the CC is the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) then you are under an obligation (this really is not casual) to find out the truth and then to embrace it with open arms. If you fail to follow up on this quest for the truth or once found reject it - you will be held accountable to God for your actions (or inactions as the case may be),

This may sound a bit stiff … after all, “We are all Christians, what difference can it make?” The real answer from this comes from Christ Who goes to great lenght to warn us about the Devil and his desire to deceive men away from Christ. The issue is that some will be given a false image of Christ and then told to follow that image - while Christ established the Catholic Church as His Bride and endowed it with the Guidance of the Holy Spirit so that it can not teach error in matters of Faith and Morals. Quite seriously, doubts in these areas are doubts about Christ - and that is why there must be an openness of heart and willingness to have your questions and concerns resolved. My recommendation would be to make an appointment with your local priest and tell him your concerns.

God bless and you are in our prayers.

Okay, you bring up a good point. What essentials are we talking about?

It seems to me this is a fairly complicated subject. I think as a Catholic you have to submit to any dogma that your church has declared. That kinda makes sense too, right? If your church has the gift of infallibility and has the authority it says it has, you better believe what it says to believe, right? Why wouldn’t you?

But, I am not Catholic (considering converting but I am not there yet). The whole “no salvation outside the church” topic is greatly confusing to me and how it applies to non-Catholic Christians and other non-Catholic’s such as Jews, Muslims, etc.

For example, I believe most of what the Catholic church teaches but not everything. You, as a Catholic would have to believe all that your church teaches. According to your catechism I may be able to achieve salvation, apparently even though I reject certain Catholic dogmas. You apparently couldn’t obtain salvation knowingly rejecting dogmatic statements.

 

[gtrenewed]

Hi, PRmerger.

I really do not know why to are doing this … he really has dug in his heels on this most un-Catholic position. When challenged he simply says that the topic on Persnal Interpretation had gone to nothing so he brings this ‘essentials’ up. While waiting for a ‘theologian’ to sort this out, it would appear that a lot of time will be lost.

To me the ultimate argument against this really Protestant argument is that there is no ‘Essential List’ - it is a theoretical construct to enable Protestants to feel good about themselves - “Yes, there are differences, but we agree on the ‘essentials’ of Christianity”… and, as long as those 'essentials remain vague and undefined then everyone is on the ‘same page’. And that is the reality - and, at least to me, that is what makes it so sad… because it is a meaningless exercise. All of these groups contradict each other… on their ‘essentials’!

It may really be best to try and move back to the OPs question - actually, it is ‘Personal Interpretation’ that opened the door (via Luther) to everyone claiming to have the Holy Spirit directly inspire them - leading to 30,000+ ways that truth can be turned upside down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Again, no they don’t gt.

If they do, you (as an apologist for this paradigm) would be able to provide us with a verse, using Scripture alone, which says whether Acts 3:17 is essential or not.

So here’s my challenge to you, gt:
Please answer this as an apologist for the “Scripture has essentials and we can know what they are from Scripture alone” paragigm:

-Is Acts 3:17 essential?

-Please, USING ONLY SCRIPTURE, tell us how you know. Please cite book, chapter and verse.

God bless

Tom, I assume you are talking about me since you are referencing a reply from PR to me.

I would say first, how can you call my view ‘un-Catholic’, haven’t you read
my post #651 which is right before yours?

Second, PR wanted me to quote scripture, which I could except that PR already said that unless it has the word ‘essential’ in the verse, PR won’t except it. That is unfortunate since many Catholic beliefs, such as the Trinity, do not have that specific word in the scripture verse.

Third, I did not bring up essentials the OP did. I jumped in at your hyperbole of 30,000 different essentials. I neither agreed with nor defended the OP, except to say only that if the discussion of essentials is limited to the Apostles Creed, there is more agreement among the orthodox protestants than not and that they have used scripture to determine the truth of the Creed.

Lastly, you asked for facts and I gave you paragraphs out of the Catechism to support my opinion. You have not commented on that post. Remember that the Catechism calls Trinitarian Baptized protestants brothers and sisters in the Lord. Many of those that do not hold to the necessity of baptism for salvation receive the Trinitarian Baptism out of obedience to the Lord’s command. You should respect these brothers and sisters by staying away from hyperbole and trying to understand what they are saying so you can present the Catholic Church authentically.

Tom, could you explain why you said this, “While waiting for a ‘theologian’ to sort this out, it would appear that a lot of time will be lost.”

You, PR, and I are at an impasse. I feel I have supported my opinion in a Catholic manner and you guys feel the same. PR’s opinion is repeating a theologian’s blog in response to a comment on essentials by a protestant which I maintain is similar but not exactly the same position
I am putting forth, that is why I submitted my position to a theologian for my benefit not necessarily to prove you guys wrong, although I doubt you guys would admit it if that happened.

I feel we are talking past each other at this point and I feel there is nothing left to say to PR. I answered your challenge for fact but you have not answered me, you just keep repeating hyperbole.

Tom, unless you bring something new or respond to my questions, you and I have taken this as far as it can go. Blessings to you.

 

[angel18]

I am very pleased to be joining this forum because all members have commented that out of a sincere heart, praise the Lord, bless and keep them all and give them happiness always, thank Godhttp://freeimagestocks.com/content/11/dot.png

 

[Evrlsting_Gospl]

Scripture defines scripture:

A vast resource of Biblical information, use it, share it, freely you have received, freely give:
Pearl Trees Of Life:
www.pearltrees.com/awhn

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

Do you believe the scriptures contain all that one needs to be saved? In other words do you believe in the material sufficiency of scripture?

I do not, although I know that it has been proposed as a permissible paradigm for Catholics, and even our pope (as a theologian, not in his office as Supreme Pontiff) has proposed this.

Yet, the belief that public revelation has ended is a teaching all of Christendom supports, yet there is no verse, either implicit or explicit, which declares this.

Hence, Scripture cannot be materially sufficient.

(It’s a SOLEMNITY today, and I am availing myself of canon law and visiting the CAFs today!) :extrahappy:

 

[PRmerger]

As you already know there is no list of the “essentials” and there is no way to answer your question adequately. But, what is the Catholic alternative for this?

The alternative is, of course, the Church.

Is there a list of infallible declarations? I don’t think there is.

No, there is no list of infallible declarations.

But are you conflating “infallible” with “essential”?

So I suppose the catechism would be about as close as there is for the Catholic side. What do you think? How would you direct someone who asks where the list of the “essentials” are?

I would tell someone who asks where the list of the “esentials” is: if you are a lover of Christ then this is the exact* wrong* question to ask.

From apologist Mark Shea:

No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

This begs the question, “what are the essentials?”

Actually, it prompts the question. “Begs the question” is an Aristotelian term in philosophy which means “assumes that which you are trying to prove.”

To which various lists of scriptures were given by different respondents, further proving the charge by Catholics that there is no unity in protestantism, everyone has there own personal interpretation of scripture. In fact, the claim was made that there is over 30,000 different interpretations.

Yes.

Having been in protestantism and now reverted back to my baptismal faith, this seemed a bit of hyperbole. From my experience, most orthodox protestants believe in the Apostle’s Creed as essential to being called a Christian, except they would substitute Body of Christ or universal church for Holy Catholic Church.

Yes. And if they believe in the Apostles Creed as containing essentials then they are NOT using Scripture, but an outside entity to declare what is essential.

PR challenged the sola scriptore adherrants to present a scripture which says what is essential in scripture since they only use the scripture for doctrine.

Yes!

If they couldn’t, then sola scriptore is a false concept.

Well, not exactly. But it does affirm that all Christians–even those who proclaim they are SS advocates–use an outside entity for some of their (major) beliefs.

Of course, there is no scripture which explicitly says this and this is essential in that precise wording.

Correct. And there’s nothing which states it in *im-*precise wording either.

This is where I jumped in by saying that one can know what is essential to them becoming and living as a Christian from the Holy Spirit.

Ok. But not from Scripture then.

And then this list of essentials is purely arbitrary. One can claim that the HS inspired him to believe that cutting off his right hand is an essential doctrine.

 

[PRmerger]

Second, PR wanted me to quote scripture, which I could except that PR already said that unless it has the word ‘essential’ in the verse, PR won’t except it.

Actually, I* never* said that at all. :nope:

This is what I asked:

Please answer this as an apologist for the “Scripture has essentials and we can know what they are from Scripture alone” paradigm:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PR,

I used this most special Friday of the Solemity of the Annuniciation … to enjoy a steak! After reading your posts … it sounds like you are still beating that dead horse…

So, let me see … are the ‘essentials’ in Protestantism (those minimum items that join all of the 30,000+ groups, assemblies, congregations, brotherhoods, clans, sects and cults) contained in the Apostles Creed? And, if so, do we just explain away the ‘Catholic’ part in '…One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic…" like John 6:53 is explained away to mean that this really isn’t a command for us to eat His Flesh?

Truly, even belief in Christ - the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, True God and True Man - doesn’t make it with all of these groups. So, if we can not get this, just what can we get that unites Protestantism - besides their declaration that each one of them is right and the Catholic Church is wrong. As I see it - that is the only element they all hold in common… but, that too is not scriptural!

Hope you had a nice week end.

Actually, I* never* said that at all. :nope:

This is what I asked:

 

[inkaneer]

Hi, PRmerger.

I really do not know why to are doing this … he really has dug in his heels on this most un-Catholic position. When challenged he simply says that the topic on Persnal Interpretation had gone to nothing so he brings this ‘essentials’ up. While waiting for a ‘theologian’ to sort this out, it would appear that a lot of time will be lost.

To me the ultimate argument against this really Protestant argument is that there is no ‘Essential List’ - it is a theoretical construct to enable Protestants to feel good about themselves - “Yes, there are differences, but we agree on the ‘essentials’ of Christianity”… and, as long as those 'essentials remain vague and undefined then everyone is on the ‘same page’. And that is the reality - and, at least to me, that is what makes it so sad… because it is a meaningless exercise. All of these groups contradict each other… on their ‘essentials’!

It may really be best to try and move back to the OPs question - actually, it is ‘Personal Interpretation’ that opened the door (via Luther) to everyone claiming to have the Holy Spirit directly inspire them - leading to 30,000+ ways that truth can be turned upside down.

God bless

You bring up a very good point in your second paragraph. There is no list of essentials. It is a ploy of protestantism, sort of like their “big tent” concept where they can call each other brother despite vast differences in doctrine because each of them believes in Christ Jesus! In short it is an acknowledgement that none of them has the authority to claim the others are wrong on matters of doctrine so its a Rodney King, “Can’t we all get along?” Christianity. But through it all “extra ecclesia nolo salus” still rings true.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

Without a doubt, old Rodney King could be this groups spokesman! We all don’t “…get along…” because 30,000+ groups come up with anything that either sounds good or feels good… and can be justified by either taking Scripture out of context or just giving it the personal interpretation touch with a sprinkel of "God is love’.

And, while I know there are sincere and dedicated Protestants who simply are doing what they have been told and never questioning why the Scriptures say one thing but their groups preaches something different - ultimately, we are all responsible for the choices we make. And, this is a big one. For example Christ told us that

1.) Baptism is essential (Matt 16:15) :- yet personal interpretation rules it out

2.) The Apostles had the authority to forgive sin (John 20:21) - yet personal interpretation has excluded this

3.) We are to eat His Flesh if we are to have life in us (John 6:56) - yet personal interpretation says this was just a figure of speech and is not required or is just a symbol or is only a memorial - whatever… but, not what Christ said it was.

I have no answer for this - clearly written sentences saying one thing and anyone can say whatever they think it means is what it means. When the 5th Grade English teacher assigns a story to be read and then asks the students what it means - those who have read and understood what was written will pass the assignment. Anyone claiming ‘personal interpretation’ will fail. And, within the context of this post - failure here means condemnation before the Throne of God.

Unless someone has another view, ‘personal interpretation’ sounds a lot like license to me.

God bless

You bring up a very good point in your second paragraph. There is no list of essentials. It is a ploy of protestantism, sort of like their “big tent” concept where they can call each other brother despite vast differences in doctrine because each of them believes in Christ Jesus! In short it is an acknowledgement that none of them has the authority to claim the others are wrong on matters of doctrine so its a Rodney King, “Can’t we all get along?” Christianity. But through it all “extra ecclesia nolo salus” still rings true.