Personal interpretation

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Not sure what you’re saying here, granny.

When Doggg presents his interpretation of “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church” and I present my interpretation, and they are not agreed, what’s the solution in your paradigm?

I don’t have a paradigm. Why do I need one when I am simply saying that one should open the Bible and read it. Jesus doesn’t limit reading Scriputre. In fact, Jesus often touches the soul of the one reading it.

Then maybe you should open your Bible to the Book of Acts, Chapter 8, verses 27-40. It is the story of the Ethiopian eunuch reading scripture but not understanding it. The Holy Spirit sent the Church in the form of Phillip to the eunuch to interpret the scripture passage. This is not to say we should not read scripture. Rather we should read scripture but scripture should be interpreted in the light of the church. As Peter wrote there are somethings in scripture that are hard to understand which people can twist to their own destruction [2Pe 3:16].

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Doggg,

What an interesting question… Let me count off a couple for you.

Which specific truths of Jesus are found only in the CC and not any other churches? How did you come to know that the CC is the one with the correct truths?

First of all, with over 30,000 Protestant groups, assemblies, congregations, sects, cults, etc - anything said here may overlap or may not overlap. So, I will honestly try to stick with so-called ‘main stream’ Protestantism. Here are a half-dozen you may wish to consider. I will be happy to supply references, but, I did not think they would be necessary.

**1.) Baptism is necessary for salvation

2.) Christ founded His Church on Peter and his successors

3.) Peter has primacy over the other Apostles and Peter’s successor (currently Benedict XVI) has primacy over the other Bishops (Apostolic Succession)

4.) Christ gave the power to forgive the sins of men to His Apostles and this power was passed down to today’s ordained priests.

5.) Christ transformed common bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity at the Last Supper.

6.) Christ instituted the priesthood when He told His Apostles to “Do this in rememberance of Me” - so now the ordained priest can take the place of Christ at Mass and transform common bread and wine into the Real Presence **The real problem with personal interpretation is that it asks people unfamiliar with what was going on to make a judgment based on limited knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures. Of course there are errors - at last 30,000+ different organizations all claiming the Scriptures as their base have spun out the traditions of men. Ultimately, “By their fruits you will know them” has real significance here - Protestantism is in chaos… and the effects are in the daily newspapers.

I think the real issue that each of us must confront is that if God is One, then He can not be in conflict. Conflict is obvious with contradictory ‘truths’ being spread by 30,000+ competing groups. The only thing the Protestants agree on is that the Catholics are not the Church founded by Christ - and they get this because their fathers denied the Word of God and now they feel obligated to stay with it and they really know no other way.

Personal interpretation of Scripture leads to denying the Word of God. And, this can be proven by just looking at the six examples I have provided for your above. To the best of my knowledge, most of ‘main line’ Protestants deny these Scriptural statements that are firmly embraced by the Catholic Church.

I hope this provides a beginning for answering your question.

God bless

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinette
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?

Because it is not just this one passage that constitutes the total evidence of Peter’s primacy. In John 21 15-17 we find the threefold confession of Peter. If you read the chapter you will find that this occurs in front of the other Apostles. They witnessed this event personally. And what did they witness? In addition to Peter’s confession of faith they witness three commands from Jesus to Peter. Jesus, who claimed to be the Good Shepherd commanded Peter in verses 15 and 17 to “feed my sheep” But in verse 16 Jesus says something different. In verses 15and 17 the word translated as “feed” is the Greek word bosko and it means “to feed” But in verse 16 the Holy Spirit caused John to write the Greek word poimaino. poimaino does not mean “to feed” although some Bibles may translate it that way. Usually the word is translated as “tend” but its real meaning is “to rule” or to govern" Jesus is telling Peter in the witness of the other Apostles to govern or rule My flock. Jesus, the Good Shepherd is making Peter the shepherd of His church. This was not lost on the other Apostles. In addition there are about 50 proofs in the New Testament for the primacy of Peter and the papacy. The list is too long to list here but you can access them at the following website:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wanner47,

I, too, would be interested in Doggg’s response to Post #241 - it was very nice of you to give him a link to it… How did you do that?

Seriously, Doggg, Wanner47 has some significant items here that need ot be addressed. I, for one, am looking forward to your response.

God bless

Doggg,

Do you have any response to my questions from post 241?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

What a really great link you provided. I had not seen this before - thank you for including it in your post. I took the liberty of increasing the pitch…

God bless

Because it is not just this one passage that constitutes the total evidence of Peter’s primacy. In John 21 15-17 we find the threefold confession of Peter. If you read the chapter you will find that this occurs in front of the other Apostles. They witnessed this event personally. And what did they witness? In addition to Peter’s confession of faith they witness three commands from Jesus to Peter. Jesus, who claimed to be the Good Shepherd commanded Peter in verses 15 and 17 to “feed my sheep” But in verse 16 Jesus says something different. In verses 15and 17 the word translated as “feed” is the Greek word bosko and it means “to feed” But in verse 16 the Holy Spirit caused John to write the Greek word poimaino. poimaino does not mean “to feed” although some Bibles may translate it that way. Usually the word is translated as “tend” but its real meaning is “to rule” or to govern" Jesus is telling Peter in the witness of the other Apostles to govern or rule My flock. Jesus, the Good Shepherd is making Peter the shepherd of His church. This was not lost on the other Apostles. In addition there are about 50 proofs in the New Testament for the primacy of Peter and the papacy. The list is too long to list here but you can access them at the following website:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

 

[inkaneer]

We are talking about what happens when 2 people read the very same Scriptures and come up with 2 different interpretations.

To wit: Catholics proclaim that Matt 16:18 is when Jesus gave authority to Peter and thus instituted the papacy. Doggg is proclaiming that it isn’t.

In his paradigm there is no recourse. We both read and come up with 2 contrary positions. There is no authority to declare, “Thus says the Lord.”

If Mt 16:18-19 stood on its own then maybe your post would be true. However, Mt 16:18-19 doesn’t stand alone. There is a lot of other evidence for the primacy of the Apostle Peter and the Papacy. Here is a website that lists 50 proofs from the New Testament alone.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

In addition to this there is the Old Testament where the New Testament is prefigured. For instance the prefigurement of Mt 16:18-19 in Isaiah 22:22 as an example. This weight of evidence eliminates any contradictory views of Mt 16:18-19 as being valid.

One more thing. Three people in bible history had their name changed by God. They were Abraham, Israel and Peter. Each of them became a leader of God’s people. In the Old Testament Abraham was the leader of a people that God called His own. Israel, Abraham’s son, whose new name became the name of the people and nation we know today also led those people. They, like their successors, functioned as God’s vicar or shepherd for His people. Likewise in the New Testament Peter becomes the earthly leader, not of an earthly nation, but rather a heavenly kingdom. The prefigurement of the Old Testament in Abraham and Israel is perfected in the New Testament in Peter.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Grannymh,

Maybe we are not seeing the same reality here. Let me explain…

I am guessing that we can all agree that “God is love”… and that “God is one”… and that “Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from sin”! And, Grannymh, you are asking what is/are the problem(s) in understanding these statements. And, while each is a profound mystery - I think we can say that most Christians are in agreement with these statements. And, with limited human understanding, we can understand these three truths.

The snag comes when we realize that the bible is more than three verses. There are real challenges for those who would follow Christ. And, this is where ‘personal interpretation’ not only defies Scripture itself (2Peter 1:20) but is one of the root causes for there being about 30,000+ different Protestant groupings all claiming to have the ‘truth’ of Christ and all claiming contradictory positions. If God is One, how can He be the author of incompatable ‘truths’?

Now, maybe you think God is ‘boxed in’ when one group claims that Baptism is necessary for salvation and another claims it is a mere optional symbol. After all, wouldn’t God have the Power to embrace all these variations? The answer is a surprising: No! And, the reason for this is that God represents order - it is the devil who represents chaos. There is no order in ‘truths’ that objectively contradict themselves. Christ did not found thousands of churches to follow Him - He founded one, and that one was founded on Peter (Matt 16:18).

You simply can not dismiss these thousands of contradictions with the idea that you are doing your own thing and that is all that counts. Let me give you an example … from Matthew 25:1-13, This is the parable of the Ten Virginis - while many focus on the foolish ones, I would like to draw your attention to the ending. Here are the verses:

Note the parable does not end with something like, “Even though I do not know you, you were pretty good girls anyway, so come on in!” Failing to meet the challenge of actually following the real Christ - and not some illusion created by personal interpretation based on SS and SF, has consequences - as these five foolish virgins found out.

Maybe paradigm is not a comfortable term - but, you really do have one. Just opening the Bible and reading it implies that one can simply open it and understand what is there. And, that is where all the problems come from. This is not to say that Jesus does not touch the soul of one reading Scripture - that is not the issue. The fact that personal interpretation enters into the picture is where we have distortion.

Look at Acts 8:26-35 for a person with true insight into human limitations of such understanding:

I submit that it is this Ethopian eunich that serves as our role model. And, it is the teachings of the Catholic Church explaining the Scriptures, as opposed to personal interpretation, that provides the Light of Christ.

God bless

Note: Due to length, I have omitted the Scripture citations. They can be found in the original post 290

My wish is to offer a 21st century perspective so that Catholics can be open to the universal mission of the Catholic Church in addition to understanding the basic ways the visible Catholic Church has always operated on earth. This is not meant as a criticism of current Catholics. From what I am seeing on CAF, Catholics need to go deeper into the purposes and operating principles of the Catholic Church in order to promote true Catholicism.

For example this sentence. “And, it is the teachings of the Catholic Church explaining the Scriptures, as opposed to personal interpretation, that provides the Light of Christ.” This is true. It is important to believe this sentence. But it is not enough to meet the various serious attacks on Catholicism which I have seen on CAF.

I will simply alter the sentence by changing one word into two very important words for the 21st century. And, it is the teachings of the Catholic Church explaining Divine Revelation, as opposed to personal interpretation, that provides the Light of Christ.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

I have no trouble with the change you have offered. Scripture is only part of the Deposit of Faith - Catholic also believe in Sacred Tradition.

I guess I had misread your previous posts … for some reason I was under the impression that you were championing personal interpretation as the proper way to read Scripture… and essentially ignoring the definitive teachings through the Magisterium.

God bless

Note: Due to length, I have omitted the Scripture citations. They can be found in the original post 290

My wish is to offer a 21st century perspective so that Catholics can be open to the universal mission of the Catholic Church in addition to understanding the basic ways the visible Catholic Church has always operated on earth. This is not meant as a criticism of current Catholics. From what I am seeing on CAF, Catholics need to go deeper into the purposes and operating principles of the Catholic Church in order to promote true Catholicism.

For example this sentence. “And, it is the teachings of the Catholic Church explaining the Scriptures, as opposed to personal interpretation, that provides the Light of Christ.” This is true. It is important to believe this sentence. But it is not enough to meet the various serious attacks on Catholicism which I have seen on CAF.

I will simply alter the sentence by changing one word into two very important words for the 21st century. And, it is the teachings of the Catholic Church explaining Divine Revelation, as opposed to personal interpretation, that provides the Light of Christ.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[grannymh]

I think it is good to have a childlike understanding of Jesus and the scriptures. Still the individual may wish to increase his/her understanding and then, of course, one should know one’s Faith in order to defend it. Especially in the Catholic Church which is constantly under attack.

I am a revert and have only really got to know my faith in the last few years and it delights me and I try to defend it whenever someone goes on the attack.

God bless
Cinette

P S Are you a real Granny?

Yes, I am a real Granny. My daughter named me that. And yes, she was thinking about the old TV show, Beverly Hillbillies.

I may not be a revert, but when a philosophy professor on CAF nailed me on Cartesian extreme dualism, I was truly delighted to find the truth in Catholicism. Thus, in a way, I understand your feelings. For me, receiving Jesus in Holy Communion, is now more wonderful and more amazing than before.

In post 300, I danced around my real concerns regarding defending Catholicism.
I may or may not expand. Hopefully, I will be able to answer a previous post by PRmerger.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I was playing off all the use of fallible in the posts… Maybe you missed those.

That doesn’t mean that Jesus hanging from a cross can’t be understood.

I am not sure how much terrirtory you are covering. No matter. I would say that approaching the Gospels with love is also good.

Of course.

And does all that take the Bible away from simple people?

History does not change the need for people to read the bible.

I know everyone means well. But life is usually “both-and” People are entitled to a personal understanding of what they read at the same time that the Catholic Church is the authority regarding the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

As a Catholic Christian, I read the Bible daily. I love Scripture!

But as a Catholic Christian, I also know that the Bible is an incredible treasure that is not ‘self-interpreting’. I know that I can read a passage such as John 6:66 and understand it one way, and that many Protestant readers would read it and come to a completely opposite understanding.

We are both reading the very same scripture, but come to an OPPOSITE understanding? Well, the Holy Spirit obviously cannot teach complete opposites and have them each be true --so ONE understanding must be true and the opposite must be false. Because the Holy Spirit doesn’t teach relative or half truth.

But both the Protestant reader and I are ‘sure’ that the Holy Spirit is guiding us to our understanding. How can that be? Knowing that ONE of us is wrong and the other is right, how can you, Granny, looking at both of us and hearing both of us, determine, yourself, correctly, who is right?

 

[fhansen]

We had this question come up in an RCIA class recently and the consensus was that God can and does speak to us personally through Scripture-think of Proverbs alone-but that, in order to understand the fullness of the Gospel, God’s will and plan of salvation for man, there is absolutely no way it can be done on a personal level. We need the authority that’s been granted to the Church in order to preclude the errors of Protestantism-as well as many Catholic scholars for that matter!

 

[grannymh]

We had this question come up in an RCIA class recently and the consensus was that God can and does speak to us personally through Scripture-think of Proverbs alone-but that, in order to understand the fullness of the Gospel, God’s will and plan of salvation for man, there is absolutely no way it can be done on a personal level. We need the authority that’s been granted to the Church in order to preclude the errors of Protestantism-as well as many Catholic scholars for that matter!

 

[SemperReformada]

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…

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

Thanks for your response but you are taking 2Peter 1:20 out of context.

As Ben Douglass (Catholic apologist, now discerning the priesthood) has pointed out…
Ben Douglass:

Citing 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. **He (Peter) then exhorts his readers to heed the “prophetic word.” He continues, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” In context, the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. That is, St. Peter’s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. **The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority. 2 Peter 1:20-21 perhaps admits of a legitimate secondary application against private judgment, but this will not be convincing to an astute Protestant.

The other thing about personal or private interpretation is that Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. all do it. Your church has only defined a handful of verses so when you buy a bible study from Jeff Cavins, Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Robert Sungenis, Patrick Madrid, etc. you are going to get a fair amount of their private interpretation when it comes to those verses which do not touch upon a defined dogma. When you pick up the bible and start your own study you too are going to engage in personal or private interpretation, at least to some degree.

If you disagree with what I am saying, what do you do w/ those verses in scripture which have no dogmatic definition attached? Specifically, how do you know your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20 is correct?

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Grannymh,

I have no trouble with the change you have offered. Scripture is only part of the Deposit of Faith - Catholic also believe in Sacred Tradition.

I guess I had misread your previous posts … for some reason I was under the impression that you were championing personal interpretation as the proper way to read Scripture… and essentially ignoring the definitive teachings through the Magisterium.

God bless

Actually, I was very ambiguous.
The heavy-handedness of some posters started me thinking about the other side of the coin which is the value of knowing Jesus through Scripture no matter what religious label is worn.
I posted my first thoughts.

What especially disturbed me was that in posters’ zeal, exclusive extremes were being used. Consider this comment from post 253: “At face value it appears she is saying that only Catholic’s can love God.” And this amended comment from post 254:

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.

These comments did not sound right so I checked the following paragraph 1260 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Please put paragraph number in search bar.

The first sentence is key. Please see footnote 63 as to where this comes from.

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Emphasis mine.

The rest of paragraph 1260 addresses those who are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of His Church. In my humble opinion, this paragraph does not exclude those who know the Gospel and Catholicism but who do not completely comprehend their meanings and significance. I go by the first sentence which says the Holy Spirit offers to all

Since all does mean all, I believe that the Holy Spirit reaches out to Protestants while they are reading Scripture. While both the Protestant reader and I are sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding us to our understanding, I am not sure the Holy Spirit is doing that in the same way for both of us. In keeping with paragraph 1260, it is easy to imagine that the Holy Spirit is calling a Protestant reader of Scripture to come home to Catholicism.

When I was a child, I was aware of the bad feelings toward death bed conversion of a lapsed Catholic relative. This lack of charity must have been a problem in our parish. To counter this, there was at least one homily in Advent and Lent, when the Priest would express his joy from giving absolution to someone who had not been to Confession for many years. Of course, the Priest never spoke about the sins confessed. It was the words and manner of the Priest which made me picture the joy in heaven when a sinner returns home.

Looking back, I’m sure some of my disgruntled relatives had the right interpretation of Catholic teaching. The lapsed Catholic had been wrong for years.
As for me, I was on the side of the joy filled priests. The priests won. When a few more old black sheep returned to the Church, the bad feelings, most likely jealousy, disappeared.

This story is why I believe that it is important to look beyond the “Knowing that ONE of us is wrong and the other is right.” from post 303. While it definitely is our responsibility to proclaim the authority of the Catholic Church, some posters seem to paint Catholicism in exclusive extremes.
Getting stuck in the mentality of “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” leads to serious misunderstandings of the universal mission of the Catholic Church.

Please put paragraph 846 in the Catechism search bar in the above link.
The actual Catholic position is – All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Thanks for your response but you are taking 2Peter 1:20 out of context.

As Ben Douglass (Catholic apologist, now discerning the priesthood) has pointed out…

The other thing about personal or private interpretation is that Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. all do it. Your church has only defined a handful of verses so when you buy a bible study from Jeff Cavins, Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Robert Sungenis, Patrick Madrid, etc. you are going to get a fair amount of their private interpretation when it comes to those verses which do not touch upon a defined dogma. When you pick up the bible and start your own study you too are going to engage in personal or private interpretation, at least to some degree.

If you disagree with what I am saying, what do you do w/ those verses in scripture which have no dogmatic definition attached? Specifically, how do you know your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20 is correct?

You misunderstood him Ben. He was talking about the eternal truths dwelling in Scriptures. Those other apologists you mentioned make interpretations on lifestyles and living and doctrinal support from eternal truths taught by the Church. Read 22:17 and tell me why the Protestants have separated the Holy Spirit from our Lord’s Bride?

One would think a Catholic would know more about Catholics talking about Catholic doctrine.

In any case, read also Revelations 21:14 and the part where Jesus calls Peter the rock and tell me we are wrong about authority. Tell me the Holy Spirit does not protect the Church according to Jesus breathing the Holy Spirit on Peter and the Apostles and according to Revelations 22:17

The Bible is irrefutable.

 

[gtrenewed]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my long list of faith questions. Now I have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

Scripture says that the apostles did make doctrine known to the rest of the church. For me it follows that Jesus wanted them to do this and gave the Holy Spirit to help as Scripture says.

However, unless Jesus was coming right back, He knew that generations would follow beyond the original. I don’t think He left us an unsure mechanism in which to receive all that the Apostles taught. In fact scripture says blessed are those who have not seen Me but believe your testimony.

For me to start at the beginning makes sense. It also makes sense that the first doctrines would be passed on and that heresy would have to be fought as time went on and it would be necessary to have the authority of the Apostles to pronounce correct doctrine.

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.

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

For this very reason Jesus made the way to believe doctrine. The example of Jesus teaching a group and giving them authority to teach and correct teaching is carried on by the Apostles teaching others and passing on their authority.

We even see this in our government and the orderly transistion of government based on the founders wisdom. Later governments can make clarifications of the original but it has to follow the original.

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

They knew of a council of elders to keep the faith sound as guided by the Holy Spirit. They also knew that one elder was the president of the council. James had this role at the coucil of Jerusalem in scripture.

The early church fathers recorded that the first churches acknowledged the bishop of Rome as being this president. This early church recognition validates the scriptural interpretation that Jesus anointed Peter as this leader.

You must remember that the early church was a persecuted church and was in hiding much of the time. After being legitimized by Constantine did it take on a more formal structure. Jesus gave Peter and the Apostles authority to make doctrine binding on earth which in turn is bound in heaven. The apostles passed that authority on and all the bishops with the power of the holy Spirit fulfill that teaching role such as deciding what was scripture.

We live many hundreds of years after a massive church split. Many don’t see why we need anything but scripture in order to be saved. Why do we need an institution to guide us? Many want to have a church like the first church. The first church was Apostolic. So is the Catholic Church today. Just as the first church needed the Apostolic institution, so we need it today.

 

[SemperReformada]

You misunderstood him Ben.

I am not Ben. Ben was the Catholic apologist I quoted. His website is www.pugiofidei.com. He used to work with Robert Sungenis but left during the trouble Sungenis had with the Jewish issues.

He was talking about the eternal truths dwelling in Scriptures. Those other apologists you mentioned make interpretations on lifestyles and living and doctrinal support from eternal truths taught by the Church. Read 22:17 and tell me why the Protestants have separated the Holy Spirit from our Lord’s Bride?

One would think a Catholic would know more about Catholics talking about Catholic doctrine.

In any case, read also Revelations 21:14 and the part where Jesus calls Peter the rock and tell me we are wrong about authority. Tell me the Holy Spirit does not protect the Church according to Jesus breathing the Holy Spirit on Peter and the Apostles and according to Revelations 22:17

The Bible is irrefutable.

Let’s assume for our discussion that your church is everything it says it is. That still doesn’t justify using 2 Peter out of context nor does it change the fact that as a Catholic, you still have to use your private judgement in matters pertaining to scripture study as well as discerning what various papal bulls, encyclicals, and council documents mean.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I am not Ben. Ben was the Catholic apologist I quoted. His website is www.pugiofidei.com. He used to work with Robert Sungenis but left during the trouble Sungenis had with the Jewish issues.

Typo… Sorry

Fair enough.

Let’s assume for our discussion that your church is everything it says it is. That still doesn’t justify using 2 Peter out of context nor does it change the fact that as a Catholic, you still have to use your private judgement in matters pertaining to scripture study as well as discerning what various papal bulls, encyclicals, and council documents mean.

It is not private judgment when you have a truth. For example, I can check Scriptures for Faith and Works privately. That does not contradict Scriptures. Scriptures itself says that it is good for figuring out what Traditions are and what traditions are as far as doctrines go.

That is judgment. Not interpretation. We already know from Tradition what is true. We do not make up doctrines as is claimed by anti-Catholics. All doctrines (proclaimed and not yet proclaimed) are truths believed from the time of the Apostles.

With that said, we do not have to “justify using 2 Peter out of context” because we do not. The rest of that sentence is not even applicable to 2 Peter because we are not interpreting. We are looking at Scriptures in light of Truth. No interpreting going on.

2 Peter just talks about eternal truths. Yet, some people still “prophesize” that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” in Revelations. Why? Because they wish so bad that the Church be wrong, so they will even disobey Scriptures.

Your second sentence is unjustified and unjustifiable. Actually, the contrary is justified and justifiable. It is simple enough.

 

[SemperReformada]

Typo… Sorry

Fair enough.

It is not private judgment when you have a truth. For example, I can check Scriptures for Faith and Works privately. That does not contradict Scriptures. Scriptures itself says that it is good for figuring out what Traditions are and what traditions are as far as doctrines go.

That is judgment. Not interpretation. We already know from Tradition what is true. We do not make up doctrines as is claimed by anti-Catholics. All doctrines (proclaimed and not yet proclaimed) are truths believed from the time of the Apostles.

With that said, we do not have to “justify using 2 Peter out of context” because we do not. The rest of that sentence is not even applicable to 2 Peter because we are not interpreting. We are looking at Scriptures in light of Truth. No interpreting going on.

2 Peter just talks about eternal truths. Yet, some people still “prophesize” that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” in Revelations. Why? Because they wish so bad that the Church be wrong, so they will even disobey Scriptures.

Your second sentence is unjustified and unjustifiable. Actually, the contrary is justified and justifiable. It is simple enough.

Greg,

My very first point on this thread was that the other poster took 2Peter 1:20 out of context. You seem to disagree. Specifically, what do you disagree with the following on?
Catholic Apologist Ben Douglass:

Citing 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He (Peter) then exhorts his readers to heed the “prophetic word.” He continues, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” **In context, the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. That is, St. Peter’s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. **The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority. 2 Peter 1:20-21 perhaps admits of a legitimate secondary application against private judgment, but this will not be convincing to an astute Protestant.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Greg,

My very first point on this thread was that the other poster took 2Peter 1:20 out of context. You seem to disagree. Specifically, what do you disagree with the following on?

I disagree with nothing on that post.

I disagree with the way you are twisting it. That is all.

The posters here did not take it out of context.

The “prophets” already had the Truths and wrote down what they could write down. (Obviously, that could not have been everything they were taught.) If those Truths later written in Scriptures were not up for personal interpretation by the “prophet”, then how are we to assume that we could interpret Truths out of Scripture that were Truths that were not supposed to be interpreted privately from the beginning? Especially when we see that there are contradictory interpretations?

Those two questions need to be answered by those who do not believe in the Church’s Sacred Tradition (capital T).

This is just a different view from what he said. Again though, I disagree with nothing he said. I just disagree with your use of it. And the posters here are not taking it out of context. They might be trying too hard to force it, but it is not out of context. It is actually in context.

Clarity… It is a wonderful thing.