Personal interpretation

[Doggg]

If I were to answer your question, I would say that I choose the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church because when it comes to understanding human nature, what it is and what is its ultimate purpose,Catholicism is the most logical.

Blessings,
granny

This doesn’t make the weak link any stronger. You are still relying on your own fallible understanding and your own fallible logic.

 

[grannymh]

This doesn’t make the weak link any stronger. You are still relying on your own fallible understanding and your own fallible logic.

Absolutely. So what?

I do have a mind which can think and I can decide accordingly and freely. I am not you; I am me. My choice of Catholicism is independent of what anyone thinks. Furthermore, I don’t have to explain my choice to anyone. My choice is my responsibility, not anyone else’s. It is my choice not to worry about any kind of weak links which might be proposed. My choice is to enjoy Catholicism and live it as best as I can and ultimately to die within it.

Blessings,
granny

THE HOLY EUCHARIST
IS THE LIGHT, STRENGTH, AND LIFE OF OUR SOULS.

 

[Doggg]

Doggg, are we to assume, from your silence, that you had never considered where the Bible came from, prior to this thread?

No, I have studied this issue somewhat in the past. But the study of the history of the bible, like the study of church history, is a topic on which the best respected scholars disagree on numerous details. Historical facts are incomplete, and are often interpreted differently by scholars for a variety of reasons. It appears that even in the study of ancient history, personal interpretation is a problem that won’t go away any time soon.

Did you really just think it came together “somehow through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, but that no church produced it?

Even if the bible was “produced” by the early church, it would still be your own (and my own) personal interpretation whether that church was the RCC.

 

[Doggg]

Absolutely. So what?

I do have a mind which can think and I can decide accordingly and freely. I am not you; I am me. My choice of Catholicism is independent of what anyone thinks. Furthermore, I don’t have to explain my choice to anyone. My choice is my responsibility, not anyone else’s. It is my choice not to worry about any kind of weak links which might be proposed. My choice is to enjoy Catholicism and live it as best as I can and ultimately to die within it.

Blessings,
granny

Thanks granny, for your honesty. You seem to be the only Catholic here that has admitted the truth about personal interpretation as it pertains to the RCC claims to infallible teaching.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

How do Catholics, who, like all of us, have fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the CC)?

This is a good question and as one with very little understanding of history, I am going to try to answer it. Ahem…

Because it makes sense… That is my honest answer. I was atheist so I already established that God exists. What “God” is the true one? I found that in the Judeo-Christian-Islam God. Which of those is true? I found it to be Christian. From there it is just a matter of comparing and contrasting beliefs and looking at reality in addition to the Bible.
Here is a small portion of the average non-Catholic vs. orthodox Catholic practices:

Faith Alone vs. Faith and Works

Sola Scriptura vs. Scripture and Tradition

Heaven-Hell vs. Heaven-Hell-Purgatory

No communion of saints vs. Communion of Saints (Mary, the Angels, Saints and Martyrs as our perfected friends in Christ)

2 Sacraments (Marriage and Baptism) vs. 7 Sacraments

66 books vs. 73 books (including the parts missing in Daniel and Ruth)

Holy and Apostolic vs. One, Holy, Catholic AND Apostolic

There are clearly many many more compare and contrast practice between non-Catholic and Catholic practices… And I realize that these may not coincide with ALL non-Catholic Christians but that is why I said “Average”.

But, this my answer to your question: Because it makes sense. I know that is not a great answer but I say that because the Catholic Church is much more complete. The thing is also that the Church CAN and DOES defend itself from attacks to any of these differences. Another thing is that it seems more that people are taking away from denominations which took away from the Church teachings in the first place. The Church’s teachings on its doctrine makes sense and is NOT contradictory to any of Scriptures. It only seems contradictory if we either do not understand the doctrine or do not take the whole of Scriptures into account.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

God bless!

 

[PRmerger]

In your reply, you just repeated the exact same assertions involving exactly the same bible verses…

Yes, Doggg. I will keep repeating the truth as often as you need me to.

It’s like a Muslim coming up to you and saying, “How can God become a man?” and you give him an expository on how this has been revealed.

Then he returns the next day and says, “Yeah, well, you never answered how God could become a man.”

And then you repeat and add and provide wonderful apologia.

And then the Muslim says, “Yeah, well I can see that you have no answer to my question. It proves that God could not become a man.”

Clearly, the Muslim has not been listening, eh?

which, as you’ve already agreed, can be wrongly interpreted by us because we are fallible people!

When you interpret it apart from the faith that gave you these verses, then you can interpret wrongly.

However, thanks be to God, we have the guidance of the Church to provide us with the lens with which we can interpret these verses infallibly.

 

[PRmerger]

It wouldn’t take a philosophy professor to recognize that your claim to KNOW that the RCC is your infallible teaching authority is hanging upon and dependent upon a chain with a very weak link–your own fallible reasoning from your own fallible interpretation of words.

And how does this reasoning put YOU in any different category?

Do you rely on your pastor’s fallible reasoning? What about your own fallible reasoning?

 

[PRmerger]

No, I have studied this issue somewhat in the past. But the study of the history of the bible, like the study of church history, is a topic on which the best respected scholars disagree on numerous details.

Please provide your sources, then, which contradict the statement that it was the CC which provided you with the Bible. Online sources much appreciated.

Even if the bible was “produced” by the early church, it would still be your own (and my own) personal interpretation whether that church was the RCC.

Well, Doggg, what church was it? There is no denying that it was a church that had bishops, popes and met in ecumenical councils.

It was also a church which celebrated the Eucharist, venerated Mary, prayed to the saints.

What Church today does that look like?

 

[inkaneer]

Perhaps you didn’t understand (correctly interpret) my question, which is:

Quote:
How do Catholics, who, like all of us, have fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the CC)?

Well, let me ask you the same question? How do you know with your fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the scriptures)?

You accept the scriptures as being that infallible source but why? The scriptures never say that they are infallible. The best that scripture can do is say that it is proifitable for teaching and reproof, etc. That is a long way off from saying they are infallible. Yet the scriptures call the church the pillar and foundation of truth. Why is that? The scriptures tell us that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all the Apostles not just to the ones who would later write scripture. The scriptures tell us that Jesus would establish a church and the forces of hell would not prevail over it. How can hell prevail over the church? Hell can prevail over the church if it can cause the church to fail in its mission. What then is the mission of the Church? Jesus gave the church its marching orders (its mission) in Mt28:19-20. It’s mission was to go and teach the nations the Gospel and to baptize in the name of the Trinity. If then the church did not teach the correct gospel, if it taught error, then hell prevails over the church and Jesus lied.

So then we, even with our fallible reasoning, can be assured that Jesus is no liar and what he said about His church is true and the church is the pillar and foundation of truth that scripture says it is. Because if it is not then the atheists are right and both you and I are wasting our time. That is how we know. How about you. How do you know that the Bible you hold as inspired is really inspired? Nowhere in scripture is there a list of inspired books. So I ask you the same question, “How do you know with your fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the scriptures)?”

And your answer is…?

 

[Doggg]

Incidentally, Doggg, as a Christian you ought to believe that you “have obtained infallible knowledge”, too.

If you don’t then you cannot evangelize to, say, the Muslim or to the atheist, that you have received God’s revelation.

My faith is not in myself. I believe that our infallible source of truth is the word of God. But as I’ve pointed out, it is possible that there are certain things in the bible that I don’t correctly interpret. Why shouldn’t I evangelize to unbelievers? Aren’t you saying, in effect, that only people who can teach infallibly (such as Jesus) ought to evangelize?

 

[Doggg]

I’m going to piggy-back this with another question that falls in the same line. What did the earliest Christians do before there was a Bible?

Those who were diligent searched the Scriptures to see if the teachings they were hearing were true.

 

[Doggg]

And how does this reasoning put YOU in any different category?

Do you rely on your pastor’s fallible reasoning? What about your own fallible reasoning?

I do compare my own personal interpretation of the pastor’s teaching with my own personal interpretation of Scripture just as the Boreans did. I have never tried to claim that my own personal interpretation of the bible is infallible. My reasoning, my interpretation of words, and my logic are very imperfect. So, you and I are in the same category. We are using our own fallible minds to attempt to reason our way to the truth. The main difference, as I see it, is that YOUR faith (and it is tremendous faith) seems, for the most part, to be in your religion–your religious institution, while my faith is in God.

 

[Shannon9791]

Those who were diligent searched the Scriptures to see if the teachings they were hearing were true.

Why would they have done this? Are you saying that the earliest Christians were also sola scripturists?

 

[Doggg]

Please provide your sources, then, which contradict the statement that it was the CC which provided you with the Bible. Online sources much appreciated.

It is obvious that not all church historians interpret church history the exactly same way. You don’t need me to provide any sources to tell you what you already know.

Well, Doggg, what church was it? There is no denying that it was a church that had bishops, popes and met in ecumenical councils.

True, but the church does change over time. Does your “church” have a few expensive cathedrals with hand-painted ceilings? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that it does. Where are those fancy cathedrals that existed during the days of the apostles?

It was also a church which celebrated the Eucharist, venerated Mary, prayed to the saints.

What Church today does that look like?

Only the Catholic Church looks like that!

 

[wanner47]

The main difference, as I see it, is that YOUR faith (and it is tremendous faith) seems, for the most part, to be in your religion–your religious institution, while my faith is in God.

It’s not either/or, Doggg. It’s both/and.

Do you believe that God is incapable of setting up a religious institution to correctly interpret Scripture?

 

[Doggg]

Why would they have done this? Are you saying that the earliest Christians were also sola scripturists?

No, I’m not necessarily saying that the earliest Christians were sola Scripturists, but I am suggesting that it was thought to be more “noble” to search the Scriptures daily to see if these things (the preachings they were hearing) were true. Unlike lots of Catholics today, the Boreans didn’t simply assume that the teachings they were hearing from their church were infallible. They at least made some effort to compare what was preached to the Scriptures to see if the preaching was true.

 

[Shannon9791]

I do compare my own personal interpretation of the pastor’s teaching with my own personal interpretation of Scripture just as the Boreans did. I have never tried to claim that my own personal interpretation of the bible is infallible. My reasoning, my interpretation of words, and my logic are very imperfect. So, you and I are in the same category. We are using our own fallible minds to attempt to reason our way to the truth. The main difference, as I see it, is that YOUR faith (and it is tremendous faith) seems, for the most part, to be in your religion–your religious institution, while my faith is in God.

I’m not going to coment on anything but the bold part here. To have faith in God is to have faith in His church. Consider the questions that have been asked to you already which you either can’t or refuse to answer and ask yourself which church is God’s church.

Is it the one that can trace it’s apostalic succession back to Jesus or is it the Second First Street Full Gospel Open Your Eyes To Christ On Fire Baptist Assembly of God started by “Brother” Jesse because he disagreed with something someone at his former church said?

 

[Shannon9791]

No, I’m not necessarily saying that the earliest Christians were sola Scripturists, but I am suggesting that it was thought to be more “noble” to search the Scriptures daily to see if these things (the preachings they were hearing) were true. Unlike lots of Catholics today, the Boreans didn’t simply assume that the teachings they were hearing from their church were infallible. They at least made some effort to compare what was preached to the Scriptures to see if the preaching was true.

So it was less “noble” for people to accept what was being preached to them at face value? What about those who were not Jewish?

 

[Doggg]

Do you believe that God is incapable of setting up a religious institution to correctly interpret Scripture?

Of course God is capable of doing that, but it isn’t a question of whether God is capable of doing it. God is capable of causing every person on the planet to know and to believe all that is necessary to obtain salvation. But that doesn’t mean that God HAS caused every person on the planet to know and to believe all that is necessary to obtain salvation. God set up the whole plan (God’s plan of salvation) in such a way that He alone will be glorified, and not for the purpose of sharing His glory with a religious institution, popes, Mary, or the saints. To God alone be all the glory forever!

 

[wanner47]

Of course God is capable of doing that, but it isn’t a question of whether God is capable of doing it. God is capable of causing every person on the planet to know and to believe all that is necessary to obtain salvation. But that doesn’t mean that God HAS caused every person on the planet to know and to believe all that is necessary to obtain salvation. God set up the whole plan (God’s plan of salvation) in such a way that He alone will be glorified, and not for the purpose of sharing His glory with a religious institution, popes, Mary, or the saints. To God alone be all the glory forever!

The Church, the popes, Mary, and the saints reflect God’s glory. There’s a wonderful quote from one of Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclicals that explains this:

Human life is a journey. Towards what destination? How do we find the way? Life is like a voyage on the sea of history, often dark and stormy, a voyage in which we watch for the stars that indicate the route. The true stars of our life are the people who have lived good lives. They are lights of hope. Certainly, Jesus Christ is the true light, the sun that has risen above all the shadows of history. But to reach him we also need lights close by—people who shine with his light and so guide us along our way. Who more than Mary could be a star of hope for us? With her “yes” she opened the door of our world to God himself; she became the living Ark of the Covenant, in whom God took flesh, became one of us, and pitched his tent among us (cf. Jn 1:14).

Also, if God is capable with giving a religious institution the ability to correctly interpret Scripture, then you cannot infallibly proclaim that He did not.