Personal interpretation

[PRmerger]

So the Jews neither love or know God?

That is a fair point, Semper. Jews certainly had God’s revelation.
Thus, I stand corrected. I amend my statement to:

You cannot love -]God/-] Jesus without the Church. For you do not know -]God /-]Jesus without the Church.

You cannot know -]God /-]Jesus without the Church. For you do not know -]God/-] Jesus without the Church.

 

[SemperReformada]

That is a fair point, Semper. Jews certainly had God’s revelation.
Thus, I stand corrected. I amend my statement to:

You cannot love -]God/-] Jesus without the Church. For you do not know -]God /-]Jesus without the Church.

You cannot know -]God /-]Jesus without the Church. For you do not know -]God/-] Jesus without the Church.

Thanks for the response. To drill down a little further…are you saying that no one other than a Catholic can know or love Jesus? Or, are you saying something else? Perhaps you mean we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus without the Catholic church?

If you don’t mind, please clarify.

 

[PRmerger]

At face value it appears she is saying that only Catholic’s can love God.

Those who have the Fullness of Truth, who have the Sacraments, who have the Mass, who have Scripture and Tradition, who have the One Flesh Union can love God with the fullness of intimacy He intended for humanity.

Others, of course, can know God through the Scriptures, through creation, through the love of others. But, sadly, they have no way to consummate this love. They have no authority which speaks for God but themselves. They have only their fallible selves to be the arbiter of this.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the response. To drill down a little further…are you saying that no one other than a Catholic can know or love Jesus? Or, are you saying something else? Perhaps you mean we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus without the Catholic church?

If you don’t mind, please clarify.

See the next post, #256.

 

[Doggg]

Dogg, I am rejoining thread after posting early on. I have read much of this and have gotten turned around. Could you please answer the following so I know how to proceed:

1. Do you believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth?

Yes.

1. Do you believe in Jesus Christ , his only begotten Son, our Lord?

Yes.

1. Do you believe Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary?

Yes.

1. Do you believe Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried?

Yes.

1. Do you believe Jesus descended into hell, and on the third day He rose again?

Yes.

1. Do you believe Jesus ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father?

Yes.

1. Do you believe Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead?

Yes.

1. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

1. Do you believe in the holy Catholic Church?

I believe in the holy catholic church.

(you have said no to this already, but let me ask instead, Do you believe in the body of Christ? If so, who is in it?)

Those who, by the grace of God, trust in Jesus, the Messiah.

1. Do you believe in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting?

Yes.

This Apostles’ Creed is very ancient. While based on the oral and written tradition of the apostles, it is not the complete Christian doctrine but it is the essential doctrine. Would you agree?

Yes.

Since the Apostles were witnesses to and chosen by Jesus, what did He teach them?

Jesus taught them all that is necessary for salvation, sanctification, and the spread of His kingdom.

It is told in scripture that Jesus taught the Apostles more than the other followers. Why?

Because He gave the apostles authority that He chose not to give to the rest of His disciples.

It is told in scripture that the Apostles selected others and passed on what Jesus taught them. Do you trust that the Apostles taught correctly?

Yes, when they taught what Jesus revealed to them, they taught correctly.

It is told in scripture that churches were founded based on the Apostles preaching and teaching. It is said that men were chosen to lead these churches and to pass on what the Apostles taught. If these churches taught incorrectly, scripture says that letters were written and councils made up of Apostles and elders corrected them. Do you believe that the Apostles and Jeruslem elders had the authority to correct them and to make doctrine?

I don’t believe that any of them made doctrine. I do believe that the apostles had the authority to correct errors that were being taught.

Since error was introduced in the first churches and it took the authority of the Apostles guided by the Holy Spirit to correct them, doesn’t it seem likely they passed on their authority to selected disciples to correct error after they passed on?

No.

If the Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit and they set up churches ordered in a hierarchal way, wouldn’t those church elders also be guided by the Holy Spirit?

That is not a necessary conclusion. It doesn’t have to follow, that all of the church elders were always teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And couldn’t we trust the doctrine of those elders?

No, not always. Error did find its way into the churches.

We learn in church history from the early and latter church fathers that some churches had problems not fixable internally and so they appeal to other churches to help correct doctrine. It seems that these early churches felt the bishop of Rome was an important elder and should be listened to. At other times all the bishops of all the churches got together in council to judge doctrine. Do you feel they were guided by the Holy Spirit as a group like the council of Jerusalem in scripture?

No, not always.

Also from the church fathers we learn that the worship service looked very similiar to the Catholic service today. The Catholic Church is set up very similiar to the early church. The Catholic Church can trace its bishops back to the Apostles. Isn’t likely that it has the authority passed on from the Apostles?

No, in fact it is quite likely that the apostles knew nothing of a ‘papal office.’

 

[Doggg]

I think this question has been answered by another poster. Matt 16:18-9 - its all there. Jesus founded His Church on Peter the Rock, gave him the keys of the Kingdom, and assured him that He would be with us always and that the H Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. Surely that is clear and does not require further interpretation? That Church was the only Christian Church for 1500 years until Luther and the reformation. Does this not tell you something?

Is it your own personal interpretation that Jesus is making Peter the first pope in this passage? Why is it that your interpretation of this passage is reliable and correct but not mine? How can you be certain?

 

[PRmerger]

Is it your own personal interpretation that Jesus is making Peter the first pope in this passage? Why is it that your interpretation of this passage is reliable and correct but not mine? How can you be certain?

Don’t you see, Doggg? In your paradigm, in which there is no infallible authority on Scripture you have no leg to stand on when your interpretation of Scripture differs from the next guy’s.

Catholics can state that your interpretation is wrong.

Those without an infallible authority cannot. For are Catholics not using the same criteria you use? So how can you tell us that we’re wrong when we’re doing the very same thing you are?

 

[Doggg]

Don’t you see, Doggg? In your paradigm, in which there is no infallible authority on Scripture you have no leg to stand on when your interpretation of Scripture differs from the next guy’s.

Catholics can state that your interpretation is wrong.

Those without an infallible authority cannot. For are Catholics not using the same criteria you use? So how can you tell us that we’re wrong when we’re doing the very same thing you are?

I must admit, once again, that since I’m a fallible person, with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, I could be wrong in practically all of what I believe. The difference between your view and mine is that I have never claimed that what I believe MUST be true because I have an infallible teaching authority that can only teach infallible truth. As you know, a chain cannot be any stronger than its weakest link, and the weak link in your chain, is your own fallible personal interpretation, your own fallible reasoning, your own fallible logic, etc.

It is, of course, possible that there is one church somewhere on the planet that has an infallible teaching authority. I can’t prove that such a church doesn’t exist. But the big question (that no one apparently will answer) is, how can you reason your way to this alleged infallible teaching authority by way of your own fallible personal interpretation, your own fallible reasoning, your own fallible logic, etc.?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Doggg,

We have answered that question with logic, reason, rationale and scriptural foundations. We are fallible people but God gave us reasoning for a reason which reason itself cannot reason. God gave us this so we can use it to discern truth from untruth. But, according to you, we cannot do this, yet you hold fast to your beliefs

You have this pessimistic view that we cannot know the infallible Truth based on the premise that we are fallible. This is very surprising considering you are a Christian, yet you speak like an agnostic. You know without a doubt that the Incarnation was a real event, the Resurrection, Ascension, etc… This proves you wrong

Yet, you just answered yes to most of those questions that someone presented to you. So you believe them, but do not really know if they are true? My friend, THAT is blind faith, which is not believing in the first place.

The fact that fallible you answer yes to infallibly taught Truths should shed light on your own misconceptions of humanity and God’s ability to keep us in Truth.

AND there is every reason to suppose that those at the Jerusalem council were guided by the Holy Spirit to protect from untruth. You seem to look at “truths” as only probablities. You yourself said it was “quite likely” there was no “papal system”. You believe in the likelihood of its falsehood? In that case, how much do you trust God if all reality is just based on the astute identification of probabilities? God’s existence according to your statements is only probable. If that is the case, then God does not exist or why call Him God if even He is based on chance? We believe in absolute reality. We believe that God protects His sheep from untruth. THIS is reality. We can know infallible truths despite being fallible. You seem to be defending nothing but attacking everything. There is absolute truth and we can know it and do it by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit!

And about Peter being the Pope… The Bible confirms it. History confirms it. Reality confirms it. You can check for yourself in any of those 3.

I will answer these question for Cinette (to satisfy your curiosity until he/she gets back):

1. “Is it your own personal interpretation that Jesus is making Peter the first pope in this passage?” No.
2. “Why is it that your interpretation of this passage is reliable and correct but not mine?” This is not Cinette’s personal interpretation so this question is not applicable. Why are you making “personal interpretations” anyway? Pope Peter himself tells us not to do it in his first letter!
3. “How can you be certain?” We do not have a pessimistic view of humanity or God. We believe that God continues to keep His sheep from untruth. You do not. You seem to think that it is every man for himself.

God bless and know that the Holy Spirit can and does protect us from untruth.

P.S. - your “I am a fallible person with fallible logic, fallible reasoning, etc…” argument is irrelevant to this conversation by your convictions. So, stop using it because you are proving yourself wrong and wasting time

 

[Doggg]

You have this pessimistic view that we cannot know the infallible Truth based on the premise that we are fallible. This is very surprising considering you are a Christian, yet you speak like an agnostic. You know without a doubt that the Incarnation was a real event, the Resurrection, Ascension, etc… This proves you wrong

You have misinterpreted and mischaracterized my words. I’m not saying, and I never said, that we (fallible people) can’t receive the truth and believe it.

 

[grannymh]

That is a fair point, Semper. Jews certainly had God’s revelation.
Thus, I stand corrected. I amend my statement to:

You cannot love -]God/-] Jesus without the Church. For you do not know -]God /-]Jesus without the Church.

You cannot know -]God /-]Jesus without the Church. For you do not know -]God/-] Jesus without the Church.

Please don’t box up Jesus.:tsktsk:

 

[grannymh]

Don’t you see, Doggg? In your paradigm, in which there is no infallible authority on Scripture you have no leg to stand on when your interpretation of Scripture differs from the next guy’s.

Catholics can state that your interpretation is wrong.

Those without an infallible authority cannot. For are Catholics not using the same criteria you use? So how can you tell us that we’re wrong when we’re doing the very same thing you are?

What has gone wrong here?

Of course, one can read the gospels and get to know Jesus. How hard is it to interpret Jesus when He says: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.”

 

[grannymh]

I must admit, once again, that since I’m a fallible person, with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, I could be wrong in practically all of what I believe. The difference between your view and mine is that I have never claimed that what I believe MUST be true because I have an infallible teaching authority that can only teach infallible truth. As you know, a chain cannot be any stronger than its weakest link, and the weak link in your chain, is your own fallible personal interpretation, your own fallible reasoning, your own fallible logic, etc.

It is, of course, possible that there is one church somewhere on the planet that has an infallible teaching authority. I can’t prove that such a church doesn’t exist. But the big question (that no one apparently will answer) is, how can you reason your way to this alleged infallible teaching authority by way of your own fallible personal interpretation, your own fallible reasoning, your own fallible logic, etc.?

With all these fallibles crawling around, how can one even touch the cover of a Bible? No one has to be infallible to understand Jesus bleeding on a cross.

 

[Cinette]

Is it your own personal interpretation that Jesus is making Peter the first pope in this passage? Why is it that your interpretation of this passage is reliable and correct but not mine? How can you be certain?

*You know Doggg, had I lived in the time of Jesus I am sure I would have been among the Disciples who turned their backs on Jesus when he said “Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you” (paraphrasing) (see John 6 - read it carefully). I would also have thought “this is crazy” and joined those who turned their back on Jesus…

I have the benefit of 2000 years of history. I see how the Church has developed throughout that time. I see the many saintly and wonderful people who have given their lives to God and His Church, some extremely well educated who have left all behind to dedicate themselves to the Church, those who have died for the Faith - the many martyrs. I see the wonderful teaching, the Cathecism, I see how the Catholic Church has steadfastly stuck to these teachings in the midst of severe criticism - The CC is the only Church that has remained strictly pro-life, the only Church not to compromise - faith is not a matter of opinion. The Church has accompanied the times without selling its soul. The Church spreads the good news and looks after the flock without wanting to be popular. Why? Because it cannot change the truth, it cannot change the core teachings, it must follow Christ.

I see how the Church has had to put out fires, fighting heresy, fighting corruption, fighting sin by people within the Church. I walk into the Church and I see its splendour, I feel Christ in the tabernacle… I KNOW I am home.

God bless all
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

Those who have the Fullness of Truth, who have the Sacraments, who have the Mass, who have Scripture and Tradition, who have the One Flesh Union can love God with the fullness of intimacy He intended for humanity.
**
Others, of course, can know God through the Scriptures, through creation, through the love of others. But, sadly, they have no way to consummate this love. They have no authority which speaks for God but themselves. They have only their fallible selves to be the arbiter of this.

*The Catholic Church belongs to all people of faith - it has the fullness of truth. Why settle for less?

There are many, who through no fault of their own, have never been exposed to the Catholic Church. Instead they have been exposed to prejudice and lies. It takes courage to break that tradition and seek the truth. I can understand that to an outsider, the CC may appear foreign and “strange”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SemperReformada,

I just joined the thread … read some of the posts, and if PRmerger does not mind… I would like to make a small contribution to respond to your question…

Thanks for the response. To drill down a little further…are you saying that no one other than a Catholic can know or love Jesus? Or, are you saying something else? Perhaps you mean we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus without the Catholic church?

If you don’t mind, please clarify.

The way I see it, there are at least two ways we can know and love Jesus.In the first way, we believe what He said, we follow what He told us to do and we honor Him in our throughts and deeds.

In the second way, we love the image we have created of Jesus. We are now free to disregard what He said, free to create not only traditions of men but churches of men and we feel obligated to pass our creation of Christ onto others. It is the image or the illusion of Christ that some feel they love - this illusion conforms to our reasoning, mades no demands and ultimately is free to reverse whatever proves difficult, inconvenient or socially unacceptable.

For example, in about 400AD, the Catholic Church approved the Canon of Scripture, so that there is the assurance that EVERY word in EVERY BOOK is the Word of God. And, this remained has remained the belief of the Catholic Church to this very day. Yet, certain groups that chose to leave the Church founded by Christ on Peter took it upon themselves to not only remove certain Books from the OT, but to ignore the Word of God in 2Peter 1:20 and interpret Scripture by whatever menas that suits them. Look how the various denominations are now wresteling with allowing practicing homosexuals into their ministry, into their clergy, and into their hierarchy - when such immoral and unnatural behavior is expressly condemned in both the OT and NT.

For example, in Matthew 16 we find Christ asking the Apostles questions about Himself and none could answer correctly - UNTIL God gave teh correct answer to Peter - and Christ acknowledged the source of Peter’s answer and then told Peter that he would be the foundation for Christ’s Church - and gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom to signifiy Peter’s authority. Note, Christ did not have eleven other sets of keys to give out to the other Apostles. We trace the succession of Benedict XVI straight back to Peter

For example, in John 6 we find Christ telling all assembeled around Him that unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood you have no life in you. And, then the Synoptics each report that Christ took bread and wine, blessed them and gave them to His Apostles and told them to take and eat for this (Bread and Wine) are His Flesh and Blood. But, to do this requires a priesthood with Apostolic Succession - and this traces its roots in the Catholic Church. Personal interpretation would not allow us to believe Christ’s Word if we needed ordained priests to consecrate the common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

As I see it, personal interpretation of Scripture has totally corrputed the Word of God, taught others to corrupt and as long as personal interpretation continues there will be further division in the Body of Christ.This is not only a major scandal to the peoples of the world, but is an on-going pain to the Body of Christ.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

Yes.

…

Because He gave the apostles authority that He chose not to give to the rest of His disciples.

Yes, when they taught what Jesus revealed to them, they taught correctly.

I don’t believe that any of them made doctrine. I do believe that the apostles had the authority to correct errors that were being taught. If the Apostles had the authority to correct errors why would those appointed, ordained and consecrated not have the same authority? Do you not think that the Apostles had the authority to pass on their authority? Do you belong to those who believe that Christ gave authority to the Apostles for the duration of their lives only? Honestly! Does that make sense to you? That the Church should end with the Apostles?

No.

That is not a necessary conclusion. It doesn’t have to follow, that all of the church elders were always teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would not be fulfilling the promise if He guided those in authority… sometimes…!

No, not always. Error did find its way into the churches. What exactly do you mean by that? There were individuals who erred but the Church identified their error and put it right. The Church is human and Divine - it is its function to stamp out error and corruption and will continue to do so until the end of time.

No, not always.

No, in fact it is quite likely that the apostles knew nothing of a ‘papal office.’ *Do you think the Apostles believed in the Doctrine of the Trinity immediately after Jesus died? Do you not think that this Doctrine was developed? Much of our beliefs were developed over time, prayer, study and guidance of the Holy Spirit. As the Church grew it developed its structures. Jesus told the Apostles “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…”

*

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With all these fallibles crawling around, how can one even touch the cover of a Bible? No one has to be infallible to understand Jesus bleeding on a cross.

Um, I believe you mistake ‘infallible’ for ‘impeccable’. Infallibility is a charism that is used only in very specific circumstances. A Pope can exercise infallibility in his office but that doesn’t mean that he can’t stumble, mispronounce words, or even in his own ‘personal’ (non-teaching) understanding be wrong.

And really, some do NOT understand ‘Jesus bleeding on a cross’ at all if you’ve read even a fraction of posts here at CA. Quite a few seem to think that his ‘being God’ meant that he didn’t suffer like a ‘regular person’ would, or that it wasn’t as HARD for him to die as it would have been for a ‘normal human’ because ‘he knew he’d come back’ etc. Actually in order to understand any tenet of Scripture doesn’t require that we personally be either infallible OR impeccable --but it does require that we have an authority to consult that IS infallible.

Think about it. . .there were many things (such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermes) that were written at the time of the New Testament, that were taught as authoritative, that were even seriously considered as inerrant Scripture. . .and then it was determined (through the Holy Spirit’s guidance of those Catholic Christians who were doing the consideration) that these were NOT inerrant Scripture.

Now, if we were only to determine Scripture itself on your criteria of ‘personal understanding’, you’d have people who said that the Didache was Scripture and Job was not; that The Gospel of Thomas was Scripture but the Gospel of Mark was not, etc. etc. etc… . .because you wouldn’t have any authority which could say, infallibly, what was what.

But people accept that somehow what we know as “The Bible’ (more or less) was authoritatively decided around AD 386, well after any ‘eyewitnesses’ had died. The Church had the authority to determine Scripture well enough that even for 300 years after the unfortunate split in Christendom, most Protestants would not have murmured about the Gnostic gospels or considered that the Bible was divinely inspired AND its canon was infallibly determined. And the curious thing is that those making the decision weren’t ignorant hicks who weren’t ‘aware’ of all the other manuscripts and teachings etc. floating around. They were in fact quite aware, . . and even the most rabid anti-Catholic Protestant around ranting about the WOB and pagan practices still accepts that 'WOB’s” authority in determining what was Sacred Scripture. . .

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Doggg,

Let me follow up on the idea that PRmerger introduced. As human being, “…conceived in sin…” as David anounced (Psalm 51:5) we are all prone to errors of judgment, logic and understanding. Look at Peter in Matthew 16 - immediately after Christ selects Peter to be the foundation for Christ’s Church - Peter scolds Christ for talking about the upcoming death He will soon suffer. And, what does Christ call His #1 Apostle - the guy with the Keys - Christ calls Peter a Devil!

As an individual each man that has held the Chair of Peter was bor in sin, has shown poor or clouded judgment and has repeatedly fallen into sin. But, it does not stop there. These men prayed to God for strength, received the Sacrament of Confession and continued to do their best to follow Christ as the leader of His Church on earth. So, with all of these all-too-human failings, why is it that they can not teach error? Because Christ Himself promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail. This means that if error would be taught, many would be misinformed about the Truths of the Catholic Church and they stand the chance of losing their immortal soul. The Holy Spirit protects the Pople for teaching error in matters of Faith and Morals. The proof of that pudding is that the Catholic Church has never said, “Back in year ‘x’ we taught such-in-such, but today we see that this is wrong and we are now teaching ‘y’ to replace teaching that was in error!”

Now, look what personal interpretaion creates. The fact that there are 30,000+ denominations, sects, assemblies, cults, groups, tabernacles, etc - all basing themselves on their own interpretation of the Bible - and all contradicting themselves on some point or another. God is one. Personal interpretations are like noses - it looks like everyone has one! God would not tell one group that Baptism is necessary for salvation - and then tell another group that Baptism is optional.

There is an infallible church on the Planet - and you do not have to go far to find it. Just go to ANY Cathlic Chruch and you will have found THE CHURCH that does not change person interpretation, does not teach sin is not to be worried about and does not teach that you are saved by SS and/or SF (both are simply traditions of men).

Ultimately, you either Christ at His Word, or you don’t. There really is not middle ground on this. You either believe He founded His Chruch on Peter, gave Him the Keys, made a special prayer for Peter and told him to strengthen his brothers and after the resurrection instructed Peter to feed the lambs and sheep of Christ (remember Christ was a carpenter by trade, not a herdsman - there was no flock of bleeping sheep over the next hill!)

One last note, literature students in high school and college are usually required to read Melville’s 'Moby Dick" as a class assignment. Now, after reading this classic fiction thriller that is also loaded with symbolism - they are expected to answer questions, write narratives and be able to get up and discuss various parts of this novel. “Moby Dick” is not a story about a big fish. Any student who would say such a thing would fail the course - and, he could not claim, ‘personal interpretation’ of the novel as his defense aganst a failing grade. There really are right and wrong answers to Scripture. In all honestly, you can not look to Protestantism for these right answers because their personal interpretation totally distorts the response.

God bless

I must admit, once again, that since I’m a fallible person, with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, I could be wrong in practically all of what I believe. The difference between your view and mine is that I have never claimed that what I believe MUST be true because I have an infallible teaching authority that can only teach infallible truth. As you know, a chain cannot be any stronger than its weakest link, and the weak link in your chain, is your own fallible personal interpretation, your own fallible reasoning, your own fallible logic, etc.

It is, of course, possible that there is one church somewhere on the planet that has an infallible teaching authority. I can’t prove that such a church doesn’t exist. But the big question (that no one apparently will answer) is, how can you reason your way to this alleged infallible teaching authority by way of your own fallible personal interpretation, your own fallible reasoning, your own fallible logic, etc.?

 

[PRmerger]

Please don’t box up Jesus.:tsktsk:

How is proclaiming that which Jesus said Himself (He* is* the way, is He not?) boxing up Jesus?

Certainly, Jesus is the Eternal Logos and exists without the Church…and there is no doubt that those who through no fault of their own have not been exposed to the Gospel can know Him through shadows and images…

but one cannot know Jesus as He has revealed Himself except through the Church.