Personal interpretation

[Doggg]

You have proven nothing here which would create even a second of questioning about the teachings of the Catholic Church among your respondents. What you have proven is that you do not want answers, as they have been given ad nauseum; you do not want true dialogue, you want to agitate. This thread should be closed, as (in my own opinion, of course) you have run the well dry of charity, patience, and answers.

God bless.

As I’ve shown here, it is not possible for anyone to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus. The bride of Christ is founded on Christ, and it will not follow the voice of a stranger (John 10:5). The sheep do not find a “vicar of Christ” anywhere in Scripture, and they don’t find an infallible religion founded on one particular apostle that they insist is more authoritative than the others. His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him. Jesus said, “I am the way.” Jesus could have taught us to follow an unbroken succession of men, but He didn’t. He founded one universal church as His bride, and His bride isn’t devoted to a religion. His bride is devoted to, and follows, Him, and only Him. By the power of the Holy Spirit, His sheep know Him and they love Him for all that He has done to save them. They will never follow after a vain and prideful religious institution.

 

[grannymh]

As I’ve shown here, it is not possible for anyone to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus. .

That means that it is time to go to Plan B.

If I were searching for Jesus’ Church, I’d read the entire Chapter Six of John.

Verse 20: "But He said to them, “It is I. Do not be afraid.” This is the verse which speaks to me. Then I would seriously study the whole chapter. I would question myself. Is this Jesus speaking throughout? Chapter Six begins with two key miracles which tell us Who Jesus is. Then Jesus says some pretty tough things about Himself – “I am the Bread of Life.” At this point, there is a choice. Do I stay with Jesus or do I leave? If my choice is stay, then I would look for the church which fulfills Jesus’ teachings in Chapter Six. This is the Catholic Church.

All that matters is that I have found the Jesus of Chapter Six.
John 6:20 “It is I. Do not be afraid.”

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[Doggg]

That means that it is time to go to Plan B.

If I were searching for Jesus’ Church, I’d read the entire Chapter Six of John.

Verse 20: "But He said to them, “It is I. Do not be afraid.” This is the verse which speaks to me. Then I would seriously study the whole chapter. I would question myself. Is this Jesus speaking throughout? Chapter Six begins with two key miracles which tell us Who Jesus is. Then Jesus says some pretty tough things about Himself – “I am the Bread of Life.” At this point, there is a choice. Do I stay with Jesus or do I leave? If my choice is stay, then I would look for the church which fulfills Jesus’ teachings in Chapter Six. This is the Catholic Church.

All that matters is that I have found the Jesus of Chapter Six.
John 6:20 “It is I. Do not be afraid.”

Blessings,
granny

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

Great post, granny! I like what you’re saying! Of course I’d use the small c instead, but other than that, I like what you said.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Great post, granny! I like what you’re saying! Of course I’d use the small c instead, but other than that, I like what you said.

Proper names like “Catholic Church” are required to have capital letters.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

As I’ve shown here, it is not possible for anyone to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus.

No, you have not shown that. You have just demonstrate that you can say it. Not demonstrate. We have been giving you evidence and all you do is say, “Nope, all the evidence is there and I have no way of objecting so I will back up and say, ‘you have given no support.’”

The bride of Christ is founded on Christ, and it will not follow the voice of a stranger (John 10:5).

Revelations 21:14 - “The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Matthew 16:18 - “And so I say to you, ***you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build ***my church.”

Peter, the Apostles and their successors are hardly strangers.

The sheep do not find a “vicar of Christ” anywhere in Scripture, and they don’t find an infallible religion founded on one particular apostle that they insist is more authoritative than the others.

Neither do you find “30,000 Protestant denominations”.

Give us proof why we are wrong and perhaps you have a legitimate argument.

His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him. Jesus said, “I am the way.” Jesus could have taught us to follow an unbroken succession of men, but He didn’t.

Look above at Revelations 21:14 and then look how Jesus builds His Church in Matthew 16:18. According to these two, the walls of His Bride, the Church, are being built on top of that solid foundation of apostolic succession. God does not make mistakes.

He founded one universal church as His bride, and His bride isn’t devoted to a religion.

Agreed.

His bride is devoted to, and follows, Him, and only Him. By the power of the Holy Spirit, His sheep know Him and they love Him for all that He has done to save them.

Agreed.

They will never follow after a vain and prideful religious institution.

I assume you are making the unjustified speculation that this is what Catholics do. When you make a speculation, you make a speck of u and some guy named lation.

You have to do better that just accusing of things. We are providing proof!

I am going to post my argument until you actually give me legitimate reasons WHY this is not the Catholic Church. Instead of just, “you are wrong.” Look at my next post.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

As I’ve shown here, it is not possible for anyone to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus.

I will give this evidence until you make a legitimate reason. If you make an excuse, I will continue to degrade myself and repeat until you make a plausible argument as to why the Catholic Church is wrong and one of the thousands of Protestant denominations is right.

Revelations 22:17 - The Spirit AND the bride say, “Come.” Let the hearer say, “Come.” Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water.

The Bride is the Church. As Saint Paul explains in one of the Corinthians, wives must be subordinate to their husbands as the Church is subordinate to Christ. Husbands must be willing to lay down their life for their bride as Christ did for the Church. The Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable.

The Catholic Church is the only one who recognizes this and actually lives by it!

This is even MORE proof that the Church is FOR us and not us for the Church.

Need more proof?

Revelations 21: 14 - The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles, of the Lamb.

This city is the New Jerusalem. Revelations 21:2 says “I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”

This is even more proof for the “alleged” papal doctrine that Peter is the “rock” on which Christ built the Church. We consider Peter and the Apostles as the foundations of the Church.

Need more proof?

 

[inkaneer]

As I’ve shown here, it is not possible for anyone to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus. The bride of Christ is founded on Christ, and it will not follow the voice of a stranger (John 10:5). The sheep do not find a “vicar of Christ” anywhere in Scripture, and they don’t find an infallible religion founded on one particular apostle that they insist is more authoritative than the others. His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him. Jesus said, “I am the way.” Jesus could have taught us to follow an unbroken succession of men, but He didn’t. He founded one universal church as His bride, and His bride isn’t devoted to a religion. His bride is devoted to, and follows, Him, and only Him. By the power of the Holy Spirit, His sheep know Him and they love Him for all that He has done to save them. They will never follow after a vain and prideful religious institution.

Well this is pure hogwash. God’s people always had an earthly vicar and always got into trouble when they disregarded that earthly vicar. Does the story of the golden calf ring a bell with anyone? The people disregarded Moses, who was God’s earthy vicar and suffered the consequences. How about the prophets? When did the OT church prosper and when did it suffer? I tink if you search the scriptutres you will find the OT church prospered when it followed God’s vicar and suffered when it did not.

I am in agreement with the prior poster that this thread has run its course. Time to lock it up as we are not plowing new ground here but going over and over the same things as before. WHY?

 

[grannymh]

I am in agreement with the prior poster that this thread has run its course. Time to lock it up as we are not plowing new ground here but going over and over the same things as before. WHY?

To end a thread, simply stop posting. Everyone has presented her or his case.
The only new ground is post 374.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You are really helping me prove my whole point about personal interpretation.

Yeah… You cannot do it. This has been our point ever since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was invented around the time of the Reformation. We NEED Tradition handed down by the Apostles. We need to look at Scriptures in light of what is Truth. That is Sacred Tradition. And we NEED at divinely appointed authority to teach us! Otherwise, Christianity would not be one as Jesus and His Father are one. The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Jesus built it. Jesus is the Truth. Protestants build their own churches according to certain Scripture verses. Jesus builds His Church and uses Peter and the Apostles as the foundation. I highly doubt Jesus would make a mistake. It is us that makes the mistake when it comes to bad things in the Church.

The fact that people wrongly interpret documents is no argument against the reliability of the Holy Spirit.

That is not the argument. You are misunderstanding. The fact that people wrongly interpret documents should impute the notion that perhaps Christ did fulfill His promise that we will be kept in Truth. This promise is fulfilled in the Catholic Church. Unless you have good reason to believe that one of the thousands of the denominations of Protestantism is the Truth also.

It isn’t the Holy Spirit that leads people to the knowledge that a woman has a right to abortion…

Indeed. It is people who rationalize killing a person to save another.

 

[PRmerger]

As I said earlier, the canon is determined by God, who, by the Holy Spirit, breathed the Scriptures into the church by causing certain writers to write exactly as the Spirit led them. The church merely recognized God’s “voice” speaking through the written word.

Of course, Doggg. Were you under the misapprehension that the CC claims it discerned the canon of Scripture without God?

If this discussion is all about your thinking the above, then, again, you are objecting to a CC that exists only in your imagination.

[SIGN]The CC recognized God’s voice speaking through the written word and proclaimed that it was theopneustos.[/SIGN]

Now, you acknowledge that it was a church that God used to proclaim His Word.

And, I ask again, what Church was it? Was it a Church that had bishops? Was it a Curch that had a pope? Was it a Church that met in ecumenical councils?

If it was the above, then it was, no doubt, the CC.

If you believe this church that discerned the canon of Scripture did not have bishops, popes and councils, then please provide documentation that it was a different type of ecclesial body.

 

[PRmerger]

As for the proof of which church God founded, and has protected by His word, there is only one universal church which consists of hundreds of denominations and so-called “non-denominations” that seek to worship God alone, draw close to Him through His word, under the guidance of His Holy Spirit, and desire to live by faith in the completed work of Jesus.

Does the “one universal church” teach contrary doctrines, Doggg?

How can this “one universal church” teach Lutherans that infant baptism is necessary, but teach Baptists that it is only an ordinance?

How can this “one universal church” teach one denomination that Sunday is the day of worship, but another denomination that Saturday is?

How can this “one universal church” teach one denomination that women can be ordained ministers, but another denomination that they can’t?

How can this “one universal church” teach that abortion is morally evil, but teach another that it is a sacrament?

How can this “one universal church” teach one denomination that the Lord condemns drinking of alcohol, but another denomination that we must drink wine to celebrate the “Lord’s Supper”?

 

[SemperReformada]

I think one thing that Ben missed is that Peter spoke of the “prophecy OF SCRIPTURE” not prophecy by itself. So Ben’s take on this is actually flawed.

So therefore the argument holds. Prophecies of Scripture are not to be interpreted personally.

I don’t follow your reasoning at all. Can you explain?

Also, is the above your personal interpretation of the verse ?

 

[wanner47]

I’m not sure that intentional abortion is directly addressed in the bible, but it is indirectly mentioned under the commandment against murder. And murder, as I understand it, is the unjust taking of a human life.

You are avoiding my question, Doggg. Who are you to say that their interpretation of scripture is wrong, if they claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Why does that matter?

It matters tremendously.

The US Supreme Court, in its reasoning FOR abortion (Roe v Wade) claimed to have Constitutional grounds for its ruling that women have a right to an abortion. There are others who will claim that the second amendment doesn’t provide for any right to own firearms.

The Supreme Court is actually a good analogy. It is the final authority for interpreting the Constitution. If the Supreme Court were infallible, they would be very similar to the Magesterium of the Church. (Sadly, the Supreme Court is *very *fallible, as Roe v. Wade aptly proves.)

What would life be like in the U.S. if all citizens could live by their own interpretation of the Constitution?

All that you’ve proven here is that people who have an agenda can, and often will, make some rather bold and unsupportable statements and “prove” such things from a document that says nothing like what they say it says.

By whose standards?

You are really helping me prove my whole point about personal interpretation. The fact that people wrongly interpret documents is no argument against the reliability of the Holy Spirit. It isn’t the Holy Spirit that leads people to the knowledge that a woman has a right to abortion, it is a sinful mind with a sinful agenda that leads a person to “know” what isn’t true.

How do you know that? By what authority do you tell Christians that they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit when they think that they are? How can you tell?

 

[wanner47]

Regarding the Eucharist.
I noticed that my question in post 368 – Does the interpretation of John Chapter Six lead to the Catholic Church? – was avoided. Was that because I asked a flat out question instead of referring to authority?

My sincere apology.
granny

John 3:16 & 17

Yes, it very much does lead to the Church. But many Protestant denoms interpret that passage as Jesus speaking symbolically or metaphorically, if they teach about it at all.

I’ve read and re-read post 368, and I see nothing in there that answered the questions I asked you. Let’s try going back to this basic one:

Can God lead two different people to two different and oppositional Truths? (That is, for example, can God lead one person to believe that abortion is right, and the other to believe that abortion is wrong?)

 

[SemperReformada]

You are rationalizing the context to put it in terms that allows one to create their own “eternal truths” by a private interpretation/understanding of Scriptures. A 30,000-verse book is not something one can interpret on a whim.

Ok… To answer the question, NO. Now, you are sure I CAN say “no” to it.

You misunderstand Tradition. There is a difference between an official declaration of a belief handed by the Apostles and the definition of it.

Before I start, I will say that I am NOT a historian. My knowledge of exact years and such is quite limited. But, Let us use Christ’s Divinity for an example because it is something we both agree on. For the first few centuries or so, it was believed through Tradition handed down by the Apostles that Christ was in fact, both Man and God. Most, if not all Christians, believed this. Later, when heresies emerged that contradicted what was believed, they set up a council to officially proclaim it and made it official doctrine. The DEFINITION was already there. That is the definition of Christ’s Divinity was already understood as true in the Church since the time of the Apostles. Now, during the council, they had to use Scriptures to scripturally support the belief.

Kind of like God had written the Law (Ten Commandments) in our hearts (Tradition), but later gave the Law in stone (Scriptures). This is similar to Tradition and Scriptures.

With that said, it is not private interpretation when it comes to something already believed and defined (not to be confused with something officially proclaimed). Scriptures are just seen in the light of what has been believed and defined by the Apostles and perhaps, private judgment to give support to what was believed is acceptable because it is not interpretation. It just provides more support to the definition.

Everything the Apostles taught is believed and defined in the Church. But, perhaps everything is not officially proclaimed. Well, this is our belief anyway. Whether or not it is right or wrong is irrelevant. Although I certainly believe it to be true, the point of this post was to educate you on the meaning of Tradition and that it is not private interpretation when it comes to scripturally supporting what has been known in the Church. Tradition and Scriptures are believed to be mutually complimentary. Personally, I see it.

Did this clear up your confusion?

Unfortunately, it didn’t.

I appreciate your try but I am still left wondering why Catholics, or at least some Catholics refuse to admit they too practice personal interpretation from time to time.

The fact of the matter is most of scripture hasn’t been interpreted by your Church so let’s say you are reading a verse with no Church teaching attached to it. How do you discern it’s meaning without using your personal interpretation?

 

[PRmerger]

The Mormons and the JW’s, like the RCC, MUST waste most of their time in the vain task of apologetics because so many of their bold claims lack any objective support, exactly as I’ve so thoroughly demonstrated here in this discussion.

Do you have a bible verse that declares that apologetics is a “vain task”?

I seem to remember a verse from Peter that declares that we are commanded to provide apologetics.

Thus, it seems that the Catholic position is Scriptural, but that yours is not.

Unless you can provide a verse that backs up your point about apologetics being a “vain task”. Chapter and verse, please.

 

[PRmerger]

False religions always have an uphill battle.

Indeed.

They MUST continually persuade their followers and their potential followers that their own claims to authority are genuine.

Well, really, Doggg, this is not a criterion of the falsity of a religion.

At any rate, if the above is true, then *your pastor *falls into this category, eh?

It isn’t a religion that they worship and serve, it is Christ Himself that they worship and serve. The bride of Christ worships Christ alone, and not herself.

This is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[grannymh]

Yes, it very much does lead to the Church. But many Protestant denoms interpret that passage as Jesus speaking symbolically or metaphorically, if they teach about it at all.

So what? Just because people walked away in the time of John Chapter Six and still do so today does not change the fact of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

I’ve read and re-read post 368, and I see nothing in there that answered the questions I asked you. Let’s try going back to this basic one:

…and I have gone back to post 370 and have done the best I could in answering it.
If one is not satisfied with my answers, then one is not satisfied.

Can God lead two different people to two different and oppositional Truths? (That is, for example, can God lead one person to believe that abortion is right, and the other to believe that abortion is wrong?)

I don’t understand how there can be two different and oppositional truths. Certainly there can be different kinds of truth, but I don’t understand how God’s truth can be oppositional to God’s truth.

Besides this is the OP
“It has been explained on this forum that it is wrong to interpret the bible on our own. Why is that wrong? What is the correct way to interpret the bible?”
:banghead:

Why is that wrong? It depends on a lot of individual factors. Here are some statements which can be adapted to individual circomstances. What is the correct way to interpret the bible? It depends on which book and which passage is being interpreted. Personally, I check the footnotes. I also check the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

God created our human nature with an intellect and will. This means that we can seek God through Scripture. Common sense says that it is possible to make both wrong and right interpretations. In humility, one should seek out Catholic Church teachings in order to receive the right interpretations regarding doctrinal issues of faith and morals. The Catholic Church is the guardian of Divine Revelation.

 

[wanner47]

So what? Just because people walked away in the time of John Chapter Six and still do so today does not change the fact of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

I agree with you.

I don’t understand how there can be two different and oppositional truths. Certainly there can be different kinds of truth, but I don’t understand how God’s truth can be oppositional to God’s truth.

Nor do I.

God created our human nature with an intellect and will. This means that we can seek God through Scripture. Common sense says that it is possible to make both wrong and right interpretations. In humility, one should seek out Catholic Church teachings in order to receive the right interpretations regarding doctrinal issues of faith and morals. The Catholic Church is the guardian of Divine Revelation.

We are agreed here, as well.

 

[Doggg]

Well this is pure hogwash. God’s people always had an earthly vicar and always got into trouble when they disregarded that earthly vicar. Does the story of the golden calf ring a bell with anyone? The people disregarded Moses, who was God’s earthy vicar and suffered the consequences. How about the prophets? When did the OT church prosper and when did it suffer? I tink if you search the scriptutres you will find the OT church prospered when it followed God’s vicar and suffered when it did not.

Whether we humans abandon the teachings of God to worship as our “vicar” a golden calf or the magisterium of the RCC, it is still earthly, sinful, and it is idol worship. This is not a tiny sin!