Personal interpretation

[PRmerger]

First consider these facts:
1- One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers;

Indeed!

2- Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit;

Of course.

None of us (Catholics) here has said anything which contradicts the above, yes?

3- The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation;

To be sure.

My following conclusions are based on the facts above; summarized below:

1- the Church recognizes there are non-Catholic Christians;

Yes!

2- a non-Catholic uses the Word of God to know God;

Yes!

3- God desires to communicate with His children;

Yes!

4- the Holy Spirit illuminates God’s Word;

Yes!

A Christian can know what is essential in Scripture to know God as a Christian because our Heavenly Father wants them to know.

Yes, of course!

But only when it is in convergence with that which the Catholic Church teaches.

One can not know, as John Martignoni, has so eloquently elucidated, what is essential by Scripture alone.

The divisions result from a misunderstanding of authority, from human weakness and by not being in submission to the Church.

Indeed.

They are a Christian community but they are not a Church. They make mistakes in defining doctrine because they were not given that authority.

Yes, because they have divorced themselves from that authority. :sad_yes:

The debate should not be about knowing essentials but about authority.

With all due respect, the CAFs is big enough to discuss both these things, plus a whole lot more.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

This is not a thread about so-called ‘essentials’ you know, the imaginary list of things all Protestants believe but somehow can not reduce them to writing in such a way that everyone signs onto the ‘essetials’. This is a thread about the ‘personal interpretation’ of Scripture, you know, taking the Words of Christ and nullifying them so as to fit a personal bias.

There is salvation outside of the Catholic Church! But, there are real qualifications that must be acknowledged… and, that is not part of this thread. May I suggest that you address the OP’s thread? Thanks.

God bless

First consider these facts:
1- One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers;

2- Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit;

3- The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation;

My following conclusions are based on the facts above; summarized below:

1- the Church recognizes there are non-Catholic Christians;
2- a non-Catholic uses the Word of God to know God;
3- God desires to communicate with His children;
4- the Holy Spirit illuminates God’s Word;

A Christian can know what is essential in Scripture to know God as a Christian because our Heavenly Father wants them to know.

The divisions result from a misunderstanding of authority, from human weakness and by not being in submission to the Church.

They are a Christian community but they are not a Church. They make mistakes in defining doctrine because they were not given that authority.

The debate should not be about knowing essentials but about authority.

 

[gtrenewed]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

This is not a thread about so-called ‘essentials’ you know, the imaginary list of things all Protestants believe but somehow can not reduce them to writing in such a way that everyone signs onto the ‘essetials’. This is a thread about the ‘personal interpretation’ of Scripture, you know, taking the Words of Christ and nullifying them so as to fit a personal bias.

There is salvation outside of the Catholic Church! But, there are real qualifications that must be acknowledged… and, that is not part of this thread. May I suggest that you address the OP’s thread? Thanks.

God bless

Tom, I was responding to a direct challenge by you to produce fact and not opinion, what gives

You felt it ok to talk about this, on this thread, and now you are suddenly concerned it is off thread

This was Doggs 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?”

From that start the thread went back and forth through many topics about private interpretation and protestantism in general including the essentials discussion started by someone else.

Then it was said that no one can know essentials from the scriptures alone. That is when I gave my (name removed by moderator)ut progressing in the thread until now.

No reason to start the discussion again since we explored it long enough, you believe what you believe and so do I. I gave you the facts to support my thinking. By the way, I have also submitted my reasoning to a Catholic theologian for their thoughts on my thinking. Don’t know if I’ll hear back, it seems all are very busy.

 

[gtrenewed]

But only when it is in convergence with that which the Catholic Church teaches.

One can not know, as John Martignoni, has so eloquently elucidated, what is essential by Scripture alone.

Their essential may converge with the Church; however, they don’t use the Catechism they use the Bible.

Mr. Martignoni, at least the link you gave me, elucidation is in response to a person who is defending denominational doctrine by scripture alone which I do not defend, and which is different from what I am proposing. By applying his specific answer to a specific situation to our discussion, you have engaged in private interpretation of his work.

I have said they cannot produce doctrine because they do not have the authority and that is why there is differences in their doctrines. However, since the Church recognizes non-Catholic christians; I proposed they learned the essentials of Christianity from scripture since that is what they use.

I knew that baptism was essential when I was in protestantism, from my interpretation of scripture. Since most protestants disagreed, I returned to the Church because there was agreement with this and the real presence; although my interpretation was not fully in agreement with the Church until I returned and submitted to the Catechism.

Unfortuneately, Mr. Martignoni is not taking anymore questions at this time so I cannot present my specific proposal to him but I will when he is able to take more questions. Until then I have submitted my proposal to a Catholic theologian and will to others as time permits. I hope to hear from them but I am done with this topic with you since each of us keeps repeating our arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Their essential may converge with the Church; however, they don’t use the Catechism they use the Bible.

Again, no they don’t gt.

If they do, you (as an apologist for this paradigm) would be able to provide us with a verse, using Scripture alone, which says whether Acts 3:17 is essential or not.

So here’s my challenge to you, gt:
Please answer this as an apologist for the “Scripture has essentials and we can know what they are from Scripture alone” paragigm:

-Is Acts 3:17 essential?

-Please, USING ONLY SCRIPTURE, tell us how you know. Please cite book, chapter and verse.

 

[PRmerger]

Mr. Martignoni, at least the link you gave me, elucidation is in response to a person who is defending denominational doctrine by scripture alone which I do not defend, and which is different from what I am proposing. By applying his specific answer to a specific situation to our discussion, you have engaged in private interpretation of his work.

Perhaps you missed my post in which I quoted Mr. Martignoni, clearly countering your view that Scripture tells us what are essential?

“They won’t say it explicitly, but a lot of Christians believe that it is acceptable to have conflicting doctrines. “Well, even though we disagree on some of the non-essential doctrine, but we agree on essential doctrine” Sounds good, right?** Open your Bible. WHICH doctrines does the Word say are essential/non-essential? That table/index does not exist**. So who is deciding? It’s simply a way to justify contradictory and conflicting doctrine and not make an attempt at total reconciliation.”

I proposed they learned the essentials of Christianity from scripture since that is what they use.

Then please back up your proposal, and using Scripture alone, tell us what verses indicate what’s an essential and what’s a non-essential.

 

[gtrenewed]

Perhaps you missed my post in which I quoted Mr. Martignoni, clearly countering your view that Scripture tells us what are essential?

“They won’t say it explicitly, but a lot of Christians believe that it is acceptable to have conflicting doctrines. “Well, even though we disagree on some of the non-essential doctrine, but we agree on essential doctrine” Sounds good, right?** Open your Bible. WHICH doctrines does the Word say are essential/non-essential? That table/index does not exist**. So who is deciding? It’s simply a way to justify contradictory and conflicting doctrine and not make an attempt at total reconciliation.”

Then please back up your proposal, and using Scripture alone, tell us what verses indicate what’s an essential and what’s a non-essential.

Obviously you did not read my post which you quoted. Martignoni is talking about denominational doctrines not what I am proposing.

Apparantly all you can do is quote him but you are using the quote incorrectly. Too bad you cannot understand this discussion. You are responding to key words instead of the context of the complete post.

I knew baptism was an essential doctrine from scripture. That knowledge was confirmed by the Catechism after the fact. The Catechism confirms that the Holy Spirit illuminates scripture for our understanding. The Church judges whether our understanding is correct or the Church teaches us if we did not go to scripture. Since a non-Catholic christian only uses scripture they know essential Christianity from scripture yet they cannot create complete doctrine because that authority was not given to them.

 

[PRmerger]

Obviously you did not read my post which you quoted. Martignoni is talking about denominational doctrines not what I am proposing.

Apparantly all you can do is quote him but you are using the quote incorrectly. Too bad you cannot understand this discussion. You are responding to key words instead of the context of the complete post.

I knew baptism was an essential doctrine from scripture. That knowledge was confirmed by the Catechism after the fact. The Catechism confirms that the Holy Spirit illuminates scripture for our understanding. The Church judges whether our understanding is correct or the Church teaches us if we did not go to scripture. Since a non-Catholic christian only uses scripture they know essential Christianity from scripture yet they cannot create complete doctrine because that authority was not given to them.

Mr. Martignoni is talking about essentials, just like we’re talking about.

And, it’s quite trenchant that you have quoted not a single verse of Scripture in order to provide apologia for this Protestant paradigm. Not. A. Single. Verse. For. Apologia.

[SIGN1]You cannot use Scripture alone to determine what is an essential doctrine, otherwise you would have used Scripture alone to defend the above. [/SIGN1]

I rest my case. :curtsey:

 

[SemperReformada]

Again, no they don’t gt.

If they do, you (as an apologist for this paradigm) would be able to provide us with a verse, using Scripture alone, which says whether Acts 3:17 is essential or not.

So here’s my challenge to you, gt:
Please answer this as an apologist for the “Scripture has essentials and we can know what they are from Scripture alone” paragigm:

-Is Acts 3:17 essential?

-Please, USING ONLY SCRIPTURE, tell us how you know. Please cite book, chapter and verse.

PR,

Do you believe the scriptures contain all that one needs to be saved? In other words do you believe in the material sufficiency of scripture?

As you already know there is no list of the “essentials” and there is no way to answer your question adequately. But, what is the Catholic alternative for this? Is there a list of infallible declarations? I don’t think there is.

So I suppose the catechism would be about as close as there is for the Catholic side. What do you think? How would you direct someone who asks where the list of the “essentials” are?

Edit: I just noticed you are taking a Lenten break from CAF so perhaps someone else will answer in your absence. See you after Easter.

 

[davidv]

PR,

Do you believe the scriptures contain all that one needs to be saved? In other words do you believe in the material sufficiency of scripture?

As you already know there is no list of the “essentials” and there is no way to answer your question adequately. But, what is the Catholic alternative for this? Is there a list of infallible declarations? I don’t think there is.

So I suppose the catechism would be about as close as there is for the Catholic side. What do you think? How would you direct someone who asks where the list of the “essentials” are?

Edit: I just noticed you are taking a Lenten break from CAF so perhaps someone else will answer in your absence. See you after Easter.

To me this reveals the fallacy in the question. There are no nonessential truths. All truths are true. So just as there can be no list of infallible teachings, there can be no list of essentials.

 

[SemperReformada]

To me this reveals the fallacy in the question. There are no nonessential truths.

I doubt you believe that there are no nonessential truths. Is it essential that you know who the author of Hebrews was? Is this something that the fate of your soul hinges on?

All truths are true. So just as there can be no list of infallible teachings, there can be no list of essentials.

Why can’t there be a list of infallible teachings?

 

[davidv]

I doubt you believe that there are no nonessential truths. Is it essential that you know who the author of Hebrews was? Is this something that the fate of your soul hinges on?

Since the author of Hebrews isn’t taught as a truth, the question is not relevant.

Why can’t there be a list of infallible teachings?

Because all that will, or can, be taught infallibly has yet to be taught.

 

[SemperReformada]

Since the author of Hebrews isn’t taught as a truth, the question is not relevant.

Okay, so you don’t believe that all truths are essential, only the revealed truths are essential. I assume by revealed truth you are talking about dogmatic statments?

Because all that will, or can, be taught infallibly has yet to be taught.

Good point.

 

[davidv]

Okay, so you don’t believe that all truths are essential, only the revealed truths are essential. I assume by revealed truth you are talking about dogmatic statments?

I think you are putting your words in my mouth. Please don’t.

I said that classifying Christ teaching as essential and nonessential is a fallacy, because they are improper categories.

Good point.

 

[SemperReformada]

I think you are putting your words in my mouth. Please don’t.

I said that classifying Christ teaching as essential and nonessential is a fallacy, because they are improper categories.

Actually you said “There are no nonessential truths. All truths are true.” You didn’t specify or place any limits on what “truths” you were referring to.

 

[inkaneer]

All this talk of essentials did any of you stop and think that one recittes the essentials of the faith every time they attend Mass? It is called the Creed And it goes:

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That Creed comes to us from the early Church. It is the Nicene Creed and is similar to the other creed known as the Apostles Creed. The Catholic Encyclopedia states this about the Apostles Creed:

“A formula containing in brief statements, or “articles,” the fundamental tenets of Christian belief, and having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles.”

And of the Nicene Creed:

“… is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations.”

So if you want the essentials, there they are.

"

 

[SemperReformada]

All this talk of essentials did any of you stop and think that one recittes the essentials of the faith every time they attend Mass? It is called the Creed And it goes:

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That Creed comes to us from the early Church. It is the Nicene Creed and is similar to the other creed known as the Apostles Creed. The Catholic Encyclopedia states this about the Apostles Creed:

“A formula containing in brief statements, or “articles,” the fundamental tenets of Christian belief, and having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles.”

And of the Nicene Creed:

“… is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations.”

So if you want the essentials, there they are.

"

Good morning,

As a Catholic can you really say that the creed contains the “essentials”? For example there is no mention of the Assumption of Mary which is a declared dogma, one which would be a mortal sin for you as a Catholic to reject. I don’t mean to nit pick, just curious as to what you will say.

 

[inkaneer]

Good morning,

As a Catholic can you really say that the creed contains the “essentials”? For example there is no mention of the Assumption of Mary which is a declared dogma, one which would be a mortal sin for you as a Catholic to reject. I don’t mean to nit pick, just curious as to what you will say.

The Creeds say nothing of Transubstantiation either. That does not stop the Catechism from saying these things about them:

“194 The Apostles’ Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles’ faith.”

"167 “I believe” (Apostles’ Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer, principally during Baptism. “We believe” (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled in council or more generally by the liturgical assembly of believers. “I believe” is also the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith as she teaches us to say both “I believe” and “We believe”.

 

[SemperReformada]

The Creeds say nothing of Transubstantiation either. That does not stop the Catechism from saying these things about them:

“194 The Apostles’ Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles’ faith.”

"167 “I believe” (Apostles’ Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer, principally during Baptism. “We believe” (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled in council or more generally by the liturgical assembly of believers. “I believe” is also the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith as she teaches us to say both “I believe” and “We believe”.

But earlier you said the Creed contais the essentials and my point is that a Catholic can’t really say the Creed contains the essentials, at least not all of the essentials.

If you have been following this thread you know that PR has asked if scripture somewhere contains a list of the “essentials”. As you know, there is no such list. I am curious as to what the Catholic answer to this question would be. I think the closest you would get to a list of the essentials would be the catechism.

The Creed doesn’t seem to be a candidate, at least not a good one, because there are too many holes in it at least from a Catholic perspective (no mention of the evils of ABC, no mention of the Assumption, etc.).

 

[inkaneer]

But earlier you said the Creed contais the essentials and my point is that a Catholic can’t really say the Creed contains the essentials, at least not all of the essentials.

If you have been following this thread you know that PR has asked if scripture somewhere contains a list of the “essentials”. As you know, there is no such list. I am curious as to what the Catholic answer to this question would be. I think the closest you would get to a list of the essentials would be the catechism.

The Creed doesn’t seem to be a candidate, at least not a good one, because there are too many holes in it at least from a Catholic perspective (no mention of the evils of ABC, no mention of the Assumption, etc.).

But is the Assumption an essential? And what essentials are we speaking off? Is it those essentials for salvation or those essentials to be Catholic?