Personal interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doggg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Of course Catholics are free to personally interpret Scripture.

I happen to think this verse refers to my DH. 🙂

“You are the most handsome of men” -Psalms 45:2

We just cannot interpret Scripture contrary to the Faith which was given, once for all, to us.

Thus, I cannot read a verse and think, “Huh. This seems to be saying that there are many gods” for I know that the Church has proclaimed that there is only ONE GOD.
 
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!
This is a figment of you imagination, Doggg. This Catholic Church to which you object does not exist, except in your own mind.

The CC does not worship a vicar.

Unless you can provide a document by the Magisterium which proclaims this, I suggest you retract this statement, else you may be reported for contempt for Catholicism.
 
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.
In your personal interpretation of RCC teachings, what is the Catholic position on divorce? What is the Catholic teaching on artificial forms of birth control? What is the Catholic teaching on masterbation? What is the Catholic teaching on abortion?

In view of the perfect RCC UNITY on these teachings, is the RCC less chaotic and more in UNITY than the alleged 30 thousand Protestant denominations? What if Christ really did fulfill His promise to protect His church, but not in the way that you seem to think?
 
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.
As I’ve already pointed out, the apostles we read about in the NT apparently knew nothing about any popes. This, among other things, would certainly disqualify the RCC.
 
Of course Catholics are free to personally interpret Scripture.

I happen to think this verse refers to my DH. 🙂

“You are the most handsome of men” -Psalms 45:2

We just cannot interpret Scripture contrary to the Faith which was given, once for all, to us.

Thus, I cannot read a verse and think, “Huh. This seems to be saying that there are many gods” for I know that the Church has proclaimed that there is only ONE GOD.
Thanks but this just proves how hopelessly ignorant of scriptures you are. I mean… Isn’t it obvious that the verse you use in your example Is speaking of me :D? No…,:p? Seriously though, thanks for your post.
 
In your personal interpretation of RCC teachings, what is the Catholic position on divorce? What is the Catholic teaching on artificial forms of birth control? What is the Catholic teaching on masterbation? What is the Catholic teaching on abortion?
You can find all the Church’s teachings online here.

Unfortunately, there is no unified place we can go to find non-Catholic’s teachings on the above, for they are as varied as the 30,000 or so denominations which claim to be reading the Word of God and coming to their own fallible, personal interpretations of the above.
In view of the perfect RCC UNITY on these teachings, is the RCC less chaotic and more in UNITY than the alleged 30 thousand Protestant denominations?
Oh, to be sure it is!

There is only one Deposit of Faith for Catholics and it can be found in the source I provided.

For all other non-Catholics, what their teaching is is as varied as there are belly buttons, as my favorite poster, guanophore, is wont to say. :sad_yes:

They are their own pastor, pope and magisterium, except for they claim to be fallible. Which is curious indeed!
 
As I’ve already pointed out, the apostles we read about in the NT apparently knew nothing about any popes. This, among other things, would certainly disqualify the RCC.
And why is that? Can you quote any apostles saying using the word “trinity”? Would it not then, by your paradigm, disqualify your church (provided it proclaims belief in the trinity. As there are almost as many churches as there are belly buttons, it’s entirely possible that you, as your own pope, have decided to reject the dogma of the trinity. I wouldn’t know. 🤷)
 
Does the “one universal church” teach contrary doctrines, Doggg? :confused:
Not generally, but the universal church is composed of fallible people who make mistakes.
How can this “one universal church” teach Lutherans that infant baptism is necessary, but teach Baptists that it is only an ordinance?
Infant water baptism is necessary for salvation? All that you’ve proved here is that not every group that call themselves “Christian” or “Protestant” are quite what they say they are.
How can this “one universal church” teach one denomination that Sunday is the day of worship, but another denomination that Saturday is?
Does this trouble you? There isn’t one day that is better than another. Every day should be a day of worship to God.
How can this “one universal church” teach one denomination that women can be ordained ministers, but another denomination that they can’t?
The universal church is composed of fallible people who make mistakes. You also err in attributing infallible teachings to a fallible group of human beings. We live in a fallen world, but the truth is out there. By God’s grace, some blessed people DO come to know what is true. Praise God for His grace! If not for the grace of God, the truth would elude every single one of us.
How can this “one universal church” teach that abortion is morally evil, but teach another that it is a sacrament?
Is it true that the “one universal church” teaches that abortion is a sacrament? I didn’t know that.
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”?
It is true that there are numerous churches that teach nonsense such as drinking alcohol is evil, and various other errors. Does your “church” ever teach any error?
 
Hold on a minute, there, Doggg. That statement is totally in error.

Not only have numerous posters given the answer being the Catholic Church - they have also provided you with references. Please note - with 30,000+ Protestant groups, assembliles, communons, associations, cults, clicks and what-have-you as they all claim to be the church that will lead people to Christ - yet they all contradict one another.

Now, just thing about that for a minute. Just how could they be right if they all claim to be ‘true’ to scipture, but deny what the other is saying. Seriously, the only thing that they do agree on - is that the Catholic Church is not the True Church. And, this get this by their false claim to personal interpretation, SS, SF and whatever makes their particular view the ‘right’ view.

You were already given a Protestabnt link, and a secular link in Googel. Obviously, these are not compelling enough - so, my inviation is to use your heard. Do you really think the Holy Spirit would lead Christ Church is such contradictory ways - with each clamoring that the others are wrong? This is really the definition of chaos - and bears no similarity to the unity that Christ prayed for.

Give it some thought. Christ founded His Church on Peter - it is your personal interpretation - combined with Protestant Tradition (which is surely not Apostolic Tradition and looks a whole lot like the Traditions of Men!) Open your heart - and then open your bible to Matthew 16. Read the entire chapter and get a better view of what Christ actually did for all of us.

God bless
Yes, you have “answered” it many times with the same unsupported assertion.

Agreed.

If Christians had the complete certitude that God has, what need is there for faith?
 
And why is that? Can you quote any apostles saying using the word “trinity”? Would it not then, by your paradigm, disqualify your church (provided it proclaims belief in the trinity. As there are almost as many churches as there are belly buttons, it’s entirely possible that you, as your own pope, have decided to reject the dogma of the trinity. I wouldn’t know. 🤷)
Sorry, I’m not following your logic. Can you explain what the trinity has to do with the papacy?
 
Sorry, I’m not following your logic. Can you explain what the trinity has to do with the papacy?
Papacy not mentioned by the apostles.

Trinity not mentioned by the apostles, either.

If you say the papacy has no merit because it’s not mentioned by them, then you must reject the trinity as well.

Do you?
 
Is it true that the “one universal church” teaches that abortion is a sacrament? I didn’t know that.
Exactly my point. *Your *“one universal church” does not exist.

Else, if it does, it proclaims contrary doctrines as detailed by my post.
 
There is only one Deposit of Faith for Catholics and it can be found in the source I provided.
One RC deposit, numerous RC personal interpretations. That sounds just like the alleged 30,000 denominations of the Protestants!

How is your ‘one RC deposit’ and your numerous RC personal interpretations better than the one Protestant deposit (the bible) with the numerous Protestant personal interpretations?
 
Hi, Doggg,

Your gift for simply ignoring both the obvious and where your line of argumentation is taking you is nothing short of astounding. Take a moment and read your own post and see how it simply says - "No, it’s not, no, it’s not and no, it’s not because I say so!’ Now, let’s see how that summary plays out across your posts… :rolleyes:
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.

Ultimately, God did determine the Canon - and He did this by using men who were leaders in the Catholic Church during hte 5th Century (not the 16th Century) who were under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit to make such a selection. Except for the seven OT books removed by the Protestants - our Bibles are the same. This means that you believe what the Caholic Church did over 1,500 years ago!

Don’t be so dismissive and patronaizing - this ‘…merely recognizing…’ aspect was able to separate the Word of God from Gnostic mischief intended to deceive Christians.

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.

This is like claiming that there are thousands of ‘correct’ answers for the question “2 + 2 = ?” Where there can be only one right answer, Doggg. Claiming that all of the contradictory statements made by the thousands of competing groups are all true is folly. PRmerger hit the nail on the head by identifying specific doctrines within the context of your wishful thinking premis.

There are numerous false “churches” who are extremely authoritarian, heavy handed, and legalistic, that all end up practicing self-glorification because they MUST. 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.

You know, Doggg, it is getting a bit tedious listening to your rants about how no one has presented the facts when it really appears that you have not read the material so generously presented to you! Now, that truly is not only a shame - but, a neglectful act that you will have to answer for.

False religions always have an uphill battle. They MUST continually persuade their followers and their potential followers that their own claims to authority are genuine. The real followers of Jesus don’t worry about such things. 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.
Well, you got part of this right! So, maybe there is still hope, Doggg! Error abounds and can only be refuted by the Truth. Your statement about this so-called ‘universal church’ lacks everything begining with reality. What proof do you offer that Matt 16 was not just for Peter - but to the thousands that lay dormant until the 16th - 17th Centuries and them exploded with contradictory claims and counter-claims. Just where were these guys - you know, the founders of your ‘…universal church…’ when the Roman Empire was murdering Christians who all claimed to follow the Bishop of Rome (the Pope!)

At the very least, you need to get your facts straight when talkikng about what the Catholic Church teaches. If you present false-hood and claim that you have refuted it - when in fact you have not even gotten the argument straight - they you are simply fighting a ‘straw man’ who will fall wherever you send him. Try some real argumentation - and even a reference or two that substantiates your claim - instead of the “I don’t believe!” approach. When Christ founded His Church on Peter in about the year 32-33AD, there were numerous individuals who refused to believe Christ, what He said, and the miracles (signs) He performed. This is not the group to chose as your role model.

God bless
 
The CC does not worship a vicar.

Unless you can provide a document by the Magisterium which proclaims this, I suggest you retract this statement, else you may be reported for contempt for Catholicism.
There is no document that will convince you to believe what you are not willing to believe.

You are accusing me of contempt for YOUR religion. If you were a Muslim extremist, how would your attitude toward your religion be any different? Is religion–any religion, what we ought to worship? If so, why?
 
One RC deposit, numerous RC personal interpretations. That sounds just like the alleged 30,000 denominations of the Protestants!
There is no “numerous RC personal interpretations”. You are simply projecting your own Protestant viewpoint onto Catholicism.

There is the teaching of the CC, and then there are those who have divorced themselves from this teaching–they are called Protestants.
How is your ‘one RC deposit’ and your numerous RC personal interpretations better than the one Protestant deposit (the bible) with the numerous Protestant personal interpretations?
Firstly, do you mean the Catholic deposit? For it was the CC which has given you this Bible.

You have not yet provided us with any resources which are contrary to this.

At any rate, it was a church that had bishops, popes and ecumenical councils.

Does your church have these?

If not, it cannot claim to have given us the deposit of faith called the Bible.
 
There is no document that will convince you to believe what you are not willing to believe.
You are claiming that the Catholic Church proclaims we worship the vicar of Christ?

Is this your position, Doggg?

I just want to be clear about this.

Yes, or no. It’s a simple question.
 
Papacy not mentioned by the apostles.

Trinity not mentioned by the apostles, either.

If you say the papacy has no merit because it’s not mentioned by them, then you must reject the trinity as well.

Do you?
Your wording. You might have misunderstood me when I said:
the apostles we read about in the NT apparently knew nothing about any popes.
I wasn’t merely trying to say that the words “pope” and “papacy” were apparently unknown by the apostles, I meant that the concept of a papal office was apparently unknown to the apostles.
 
I wasn’t merely trying to say that the words “pope” and “papacy” were apparently unknown by the apostles, I meant that the concept of a papal office was apparently unknown to the apostles.
Office of the Papacy Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson.

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.
 
You are claiming that the Catholic Church proclaims we worship the vicar of Christ?

Is this your position, Doggg?

I just want to be clear about this.

Yes, or no. It’s a simple question.
No. I do not believe (not yet) that the CC proclaims that Catholics worship the “vicar of Christ.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top