Personal interpretation

[SemperReformada]

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.

You agree then that In context, the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. Yet you say that I am twisting it somehow. How exactly am I twisting it?

Going back to an earlier post of yours, you say that it’s not private judgement when you have truth yet, there are many (the vast majority of them) which have not been defind by your church. For those verses don’t you have to engage in private interpretation? I’m not sure you can say no to this. I didn’t quite get what you were saying earlier.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I have not *ever *maintained that Matt 16:18-19 stands alone.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

It is curious that you are maintaining that knowing Jesus through Scripture is “the other side of the coin.”

If you are referring to my posts, then the above most definitively is NOT the other side of the coin, but instead affirms my position: one cannot know Jesus without the Church.

[SIGN1]If one knows Jesus through Scripture, it is only because the Church has provided him with this Scripture. [/SIGN1]

Without the Church there is no way to know Jesus. Except, skepticism aside, through a personal encounter with a dream I suppose. Or, as I have proferred earlier, through another Christian’s witness. However, that witness could only know Jesus through the Church and thus, by extension, it is still the Church which provides us with Jesus and His revelation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SemperReformada,

I really do not think I used 2Peter 1:20 out of context … but, just for the sake of our discussion, let’s just say that I did not use such a reference - and, then take it from there.

I gather that you have no argument with the defined Canon of Scripture being the product of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration through the Catholic Church in roughly the year 400AD. So, we really need to look at the spread of Christianity (beliefs, traditions, art, burial customs, etc.) through the Roman Empire from 33AD when Christ ascended into heaven and the Jewish persecutions of the followers of Christ began - to the end of organizaed persecutions under Constantine the Great. During this time we see how Sacred Tradition developed - and was truly instrumental in preparing the Early Church for the many murderous persecutions that could have easily have destroyed a human orgaization. It is only afterwards that the Catholic Church provides Sacred Scripture.

You are correct in saying that the Catholic Church has only defined a few texts - and that the majority of the Bible has not been dogmatically defined specific to doctrine. But, in all honesty, I think you have taken this valid point and stretched it significantly out of shape… Since there are only a few items - it does seem odd that each is contested by ‘main-stream’ Protestantism! It appears to me that ‘private interpretation’ has denied the following (same list of six I gave to Doggg…and, am still awaiting a response… ):

**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**

So, while much of Scripture can be interpreted in a personal way - these various interpretations can not contradict established doctrine. While we are free to discuss the creation account in Genesis 1 as having taken place in six 24-hour days - or - it took millions of years - as Catholics we must believe that God created everything out of nothing, that His Act of Creation was freely done and that Creation is part of the Divine Plan that He has made. The reverse is that all that we see around us ‘just happened by the collision of elements’ or some such natural (and not supernatural) explanation is expressly condemned.

The six items listed above are expressly questioned or outright disbelieved by ‘main-line’ Protestants (Baptism may be an exception for some of these groups - but, the necessity for Baptism is not a universal requirement.) isubmmit that, their basis for these denials of Catholic Faith is that their Protestant ‘forefathers’ denied them (Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc) so we will deny them today (Protestant tradition).

Christ identified that He would not leave us orphans, that there was more to tell us but the Apostles could not bear it then, that the Holy Spirit would come and strengthen the Church build on Peter (and He did that on the First Pentecost Sunday - the Birthday of the Catholic Church). Private interpretation simply throws this out as incompatable with Protestantism.

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…

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?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Doggg,

Are you still with us?

You will really need to clarify the following:

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

Please provide an example where the Catholic Church taught error.

Thanks

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GreggAlvarez,



God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

Surely there are less complicated ways of expressing a point of view…

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:

Actually, what PRmerger said was:

**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**

And, while you may find such a post over-zealous, let’s just take a look at it for a moment. (It honestly did not appear to be over-zealous to me … but, I guess now we are into ‘personal interpretation’, eh?

Christ founded His Church on Peter - who would later become the First Pope. Christ gave clear directions that His Church - which would later be called the Caholic Church, was to be spread throughout the world and Baptism was to be given to all. This took place about the year 33AD.

All Christians have their origins in the Catholic Church. To that extent, Protestants have come to know and love Christ through the efforts of the Catholic Church. There simply was no Christian organization prior to the Catholic Church. I think the analogy is that the Cathoic Church represents a very big tent - and all those who claim to be following Christ are somehow inside. But the action is taking place in the middle of the ‘tent’ - and not up against the sides.

 

[Cinette]

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?

*I think that you cannot define as “personal or private interpretation” what individuals might see in a verse. The same person will read a verse many times and then one day the same verse will jump out and mean something new to them.That can and will happen to everybody. It is the beauty of scripture which is so deep and so beautiful.

At Mass only the Priest or the Deacon can read the Gospel reading of the day. Catholics have the Cathecism to define and explain and the Priest in the homily will interpret the teachings of the day. I tend to see the interpretation of the Church when I come across a difficult verse.

When we say that different denominations each have their own interpretations we refer to radical core beliefs. I am sure that we will all keep discovering new things in the scriptures which will thrill and delight us.

*

 

[Cinette]

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.
…

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.

*The death bed conversion reminds me of the thief next to our crucified Jesus and the labourers in the field who were all paid the same amount even though some had worked for only one hour. Although this might seem unfair, to those of us who might come late it is an absolute act of mercy. So yes, we should rejoice that Jesus rewards all even the late comers.

God bless you all
Cinette*

 

[grannymh]

It is curious that you are maintaining that knowing Jesus through Scripture is “the other side of the coin.”

If you are referring to my posts, then the above most definitively is NOT the other side of the coin, but instead affirms my position: one cannot know Jesus without the Church.

[sign1]If one knows Jesus through Scripture, it is only because the Church has provided him with this Scripture. [/sign1]

Without the Church there is no way to know Jesus. Except, skepticism aside, through a personal encounter with a dream I suppose. Or, as I have proferred earlier, through another Christian’s witness. However, that witness could only know Jesus through the Church and thus, by extension, it is still the Church which provides us with Jesus and His revelation.

With all the back and forth with Dogg, it certainly sounded like posters were talking about the current Catholic Church. After all, there is a current Protestantism.
And there was a lot of heavy-handedness with the idea that no way could Protestantism, with personal interpretations, make the grade. I have been replying to the discussion as current.

It finally occurred to me that what you are talking about is what we used to call – the birthday of the Catholic Church on Pentecost. The Pentecostal Church which came forth from the Upper Room to preach to the gathered people would of course be necessary for people born after the Ascension of Jesus.

While what I have posted does not apply to your reference to the establishment of the Catholic Church, it does apply to the period following the Reformation and especially to the last 50 or so years. At least as it has been presented on CAF which is my frame of reference. If I have guessed wrong about the focus on Pentecost, you are welcome to have the last word.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[PRmerger]

Since all does mean all, I believe that the Holy Spirit reaches out to Protestants while they are reading Scripture.

Of course. Were you under the misapprehension that Catholics ought believe otherwise?

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.

Exactly.

While it definitely is our responsibility to proclaim the authority of the Catholic Church, some posters seem to paint Catholicism in exclusive extremes.

I am mystified by your criticism, granny.

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.

If you do not proclaim Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, then you are diverging from the teaching of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

]Please put paragraph 846 in the 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.

Indeed. Which is exactly why I stated that without the Church, one cannot know Jesus.

Tis a mystery indeed what you are objecting to in my posts.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

When it comes right down to it … we ae ALL late-comers. While some may be a shade bit later than others - but, this is of no consequence when looked at through God’s Grace to each of us.

God bless

*The death bed conversion reminds me of the thief next to our crucified Jesus and the labourers in the field who were all paid the same amount even though some had worked for only one hour. Although this might seem unfair, to those of us who might come late it is an absolute act of mercy. So yes, we should rejoice that Jesus rewards all even the late comers.

God bless you all
Cinette*

 

[PRmerger]

It finally occurred to me that what you are talking about is what we used to call – the birthday of the Catholic Church on Pentecost. The Pentecostal Church which came forth from the Upper Room to preach to the gathered people would of course be necessary for people born after the Ascension of Jesus.

Huh? Pentecost? No…I’m not talking about the birthday of the Church.

While what I have posted does not apply to your reference to the establishment of the Catholic Church, it does apply to the period following the Reformation and especially to the last 50 or so years. At least as it has been presented on CAF which is my frame of reference. If I have guessed wrong about the focus on Pentecost, you are welcome to have the last word.

Pentecost is the farthest thing from my mind.

I am talking about ALL who know Jesus know Him through the benefit of the Catholic Church.

“Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church.” source

The Catholic Church is the necessary instrument by which one can know Jesus. Thus, without the Catholic Church no salvation is possible. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

See my full response to the question of ECNS on my blog here.

 

[Cinette]

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.

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.

*SempreReformada - do you not see the value and the gift that a central authority represents? It was Jesus’ idea and a very good one. There would be no Church without it - just a confused denomination.

*

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Grannymh,

Surely there are less complicated ways of expressing a point of view…

Actually, what PRmerger said was:

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

And, while you may find such a post over-zealous, let’s just take a look at it for a moment. (It honestly did not appear to be over-zealous to me … but, I guess now we are into ‘personal interpretation’, eh?

Christ founded His Church on Peter - who would later become the First Pope. Christ gave clear directions that His Church - which would later be called the Caholic Church, was to be spread throughout the world and Baptism was to be given to all. This took place about the year 33AD.

All Christians have their origins in the Catholic Church. To that extent, Protestants have come to know and love Christ through the efforts of the Catholic Church. There simply was no Christian organization prior to the Catholic Church. I think the analogy is that the Cathoic Church represents a very big tent - and all those who claim to be following Christ are somehow inside. But the action is taking place in the middle of the ‘tent’ - and not up against the sides.

I finally figured out that I was replying to what I have seen over and over again on CAF. I posted a reply to PRmerger. And it is terribly complicated. More so because of the rudeness.

It is terribly complicated because there is a significant amount of people on CAF who have either misconceptions about Catholicism or they lack knowledge of Catholicism. I’ve traced one misconception back to Calvin, another to Matthew Fox and another to Francisco Ayala. Obviously, there have been hundreds of writers who have written in the same vein as these men.

It is also complicated because of the personal agendas and I don’t necessarily mean trolls. It is complicated because many think with an “either-or” perspective. It is complicated because many are affected by current relativism to the point that it is difficult to talk about objective truth. It is complicated because our Church is being attacked from both within and without.

With all these complications, there are more wonderful people on CAF than there are difficult people.

Special note to Tqualey. I just read your post 317. It takes me a long time to write a post so I miss a lot of the new ones and have to go backwards after I post. I find it interesting that we both thought of the birthday of the Church.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[grannymh]

I am mystified by your criticism, granny.

.

It looks as if you missed post 323.

 

[PRmerger]

I finally figured out that I was replying to what I have seen over and over again on CAF. I posted a reply to PRmerger. And it is terribly complicated. More so because of the rudeness

I can’t help but wonder, as my name is juxtaposed with the word “rudeness”, if you are referring to me.

If so, what would give you this perception?

I have described *your *posts as “eloquent”.

I have acknowledged another poster who questioned me as having a fair point, and that I was to be corrected.

What is the source of this perception, granny?

 

[grannymh]

I can’t help but wonder, as my name is juxtaposed with the word “rudeness”, if you are referring to me.

If so, what would give you this perception?

I have described your posts as “eloquent”.

I have described another poster who questioned me as having a fair point, and that I was to be corrected.

What is the source of this perception, granny?

Please accept my sincere apology. That should have been two distinct paragraphs.

In addition to serving as a source of my perceptions, CAF posters have validated many of my previous perceptions of what is happening in the Catholic Church – both good and bad. On the whole, I find CAF to be an excellent benefit to Catholicism.

Thank you all for your discussions.

Blessings,
granny

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

Not to belabor the point … but, I had a hunch that complicated posts stem from complicated reasonings … and they come from complicated experiences … and, well, you know this is getting just too complicated for me…

The real art of effective communications is to simplify the complicated - most get these two confused … especially when they are writing instruction manuals that begin with “Some assembly required…”!

So, tell me, Grannymh, what is your view of personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture? I ask because I the various explanations in these many posts have left me somewhat confused…

God bless

God bless

I finally figured out that I was replying to what I have seen over and over again on CAF. I posted a reply to PRmerger. And it is terribly complicated. More so because of the rudeness.

It is terribly complicated because there is a significant amount of people on CAF who have either misconceptions about Catholicism or they lack knowledge of Catholicism. I’ve traced one misconception back to Calvin, another to Matthew Fox and another to Francisco Ayala. Obviously, there have been hundreds of writers who have written in the same vein as these men.

It is also complicated because of the personal agendas and I don’t necessarily mean trolls. It is complicated because many think with an “either-or” perspective. It is complicated because many are affected by current relativism to the point that it is difficult to talk about objective truth. It is complicated because our Church is being attacked from both within and without.

With all these complications, there are more wonderful people on CAF than there are difficult people.

Special note to Tqualey. I just read your post 317. It takes me a long time to write a post so I miss a lot of the new ones and have to go backwards after I post. I find it interesting that we both thought of the birthday of the Church.

Blessings,
granny

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