P
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
This is not interpretation of Scripture. This is Revelation. It was not made privately but in the company of the Apostles during a discussion that they were all involved in.
Additinally the statement was made TO the “Word” made flesh who could clearly confirm or reject the statement. Well actually Statements since several of he Apostles offered responses to jesus question.
Therefore it was not “Private Interpretation”.
Would you care to explain how this statement approves doctrinal conflict?
Peace
James
P
PRmerger
Guest
Exactly. In fact, this verse seems to provide great evidence that contradicts praxising’s point. For it was not through reading the Scriptures (which, at that time would have been the OT) and interpreting them privately that Peter knew Jesus was Lord, but through God’s grace.
At any rate, as long as private interpretation does not contradict Divine Revelation, we’re free to “privately” interpret to our heart’s content.
Thus, if my private interpretation of Malachi 1:11 tells me that the Mass is eternal, then I’m in good standing.
If my private interpretation of John 1:1 tells me that there is no Trinitarian Godhead, then, it is I who must change my interpretation.
T
Timonator348
Guest
Exactly! The Catholic Church has never undergone an explanation of every verse of Scripture and allow for exegesis to form the Biblical understanding of the Church. The point I always make is we have to conform ourselves to God’s revealed truth in order to have understanding and love of Him. We cannot expect God to conform to our expectations of what God should be. Our “private interpretation” must be in harmony with the whole of God’s revelation.Exactly. In fact, this verse seems to provide great evidence that contradicts praxising’s point. For it was not through reading the Scriptures (which, at that time would have been the OT) and interpreting them privately that Peter knew Jesus was Lord, but through God’s grace.
At any rate, as long as private interpretation does not contradict Divine Revelation, we’re free to “privately” interpret to our heart’s content.
Thus, if my private interpretation of Malachi 1:11 tells me that the Mass is eternal, then I’m in good standing.
If my private interpretation of John 1:1 tells me that there is no Trinitarian Godhead, then, it is I who must change my interpretation.
P
praxising
Guest
Yet, through Scripture we are exposed to Jesus words and actions, as Peter was. Jesus didn’t tell Peter what to think, the OT Prophets in the form of the Jewish Canon didn’t tell Peter Jesus was Messiah. Peter interpreted Jesus life, acts, words, on his own with Supernatural assistance. The Gospels, are our information about Jesus’ life, acts and words. The Supernatural assistance is still available.
ITT, I have said that the Holy Spirit can speak to us individually through Scripture. This seems to be the point of contention. Jesus approves of private revelation.
You said:
You don’t know when the Revelation was made to Peter. We know a time when he made his personal belief known. You are, in fact, engaging in private interpretation of Scripture. You may find many to agree with you, or not. But there is no Official Church Declaration of Revelation Temporality.
That’s what the “leaven” is. Jesus seemed to be a big fan of doctrinal conflict, considering how He contended with the Phraisees, how He challenged traditions, how He gave rather a long discourse marked by “you have heard it said…but I say to you…” replacing doctrines with Truth.
He also seemed to be convinced that those who did challenge doctrine would be persecuted, yet, He encouraged them to do so, saying to be not afraid to proclaim on the rooftops. They might be killed, but they’ll be in Heaven.
I’m wondering how you can believe Jesus wasn’t a fan of doctrinal conflict? Let’s face it, they threw his followers out of the synagogue.
J
JRKH
Guest
What you say here is all fine and good, except for when this “supernatural assistance” brings Person A to one interpretation and Person B to an opposing interpretation.
I agree that the Holy Spirit can, and does speak to us individually. However, it is in commuity (ekklesia - church) that we verify if it is indeed the Holy Spirit that is guiding us and whether our private revelation is correct.
I agree. I do NOT know when Peter first became convicted that Jesus was the Messiah. I do know when it was Revealed by Peter to the company. Then, by this Revelation and Jesus personal approval of the Revelation, the company accepted it as true.
So - The Revelation came to Peter, was spoken to the company, and then was approved by Jesus while He still walked among us. Because of this public revelation by Peter, and Jesus approval of the Revelation, All of the company agreed it must be true.
So - No - I don’t see Jesus approving of Privte interpretation in the way that Sola Scripturists practice it today since Protestants don’t feel that they must all agree in order to be acceptable.
You are confusing standing up for truth with approving doctrinal conflict.
Perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps I was not clear.
Yes Jesus confronted the Pharisees. But He did not say that it was OK for the Pharisees to believe one thing and the Sadducees another. He did not approve of “agreeing to disagree”
When a Lutheran says that Jesus is really and truly and substantially present in the Bread and Wine and that they ARE the body and blood of Christ, while the Baptist says that the bread and wine (or juice) is just a memorial…this is a substantial disagreement because of Christ’s words, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you”.
Yet the Lutherans and the Baptists must “agree to disagree” on the matter and to accept each other as Christians because Both Claim guidance by the Holy Spirit, and “Bible based” teaching (Sola Scriptura)
Contrast this with what happened in Acts, when one group within the Church was preaching one way and another group was teaching another. I speak here of the Judaizers and the Gentiles. In this case, there was no “agree to disagree” there was no acceptance of doctrinal conflict. Instead, there was a coming together and talking it out and reaching a consensus among the Church leadership as to what was right and proper.
The NT is rife with calls for unity, for peace, for being of one mind, one belief etc.
Here are some examples:
John 17:20-21
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Rom 15:5-6
5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.
Php 1:27
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,
1 Pet 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
Given this preponderance of calls for unity given to the Church By the Holy Spirit in Scripture…I don’t see How you can think that Christ approves of doctrinal conflict within the body of believers.
Peace
James
P
PRmerger
Guest
Catholic doctrines *are *truth. You have created a false dichotomy here.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yeah, I have run into that myself and the result was the two articles on my blog linked below.
THE PAGANIZATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UNDER CONSTANTINE
What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?
P
praxising
Guest
All of the first followers of Jesus were Jews. They were in doctrinal conflict with other Jews. That’s conflict within a body of believers. Jesus was a Jew in conflict with the leaders of the church. After the Resurrection, the Disciples of Jesus were Jews in conflict with other Jews, with the leaders of their church. They didn’t go to the leaders and say, “Resolve this.” They got kicked out. Killed. They left and formed their own schismatic group of Jews.
First there must be discord and doctrinal conflict before anything can be resolved. And if it can’t be resolved, people go their own way in accordance with their conscience. And if that didn’t happen and wasn’t approved by God, then the Church we belong to wouldn’t exist.
Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but a sword. I believe Him. Peace and Oneness come through Christ alone.
P
praxising
Guest
I will be the “protestant” in this debate. I can’t answer everyone, so I will chat with these two posters, based on these posts, (I’ve just excerpted, but provided the post numbers ITT if anyone wants to go back and read.) But everyone should chime in because we post as much for the lurkers reading as one another.
I’m going to use the NAB, since it’s the one the USCCB has given us as an “official” NT for American Catholics. And, I’ll use whatever resources for Greek text I can find online, but we have to all remember that we don’t know what the very first Scriptures said and the texts can vary somewhat and when we are arguing based on a single word’s definition, we cannot know what the Sacred writer intended.
To avoid things becoming hostile, I may post something obnoxiously cute from time to time. I thought first we should get the Gospel or other Scriptures together that are claimed to support the Church Authority side. Maybe like, five examples to start, something like that?
post 69 and 78 by JRKH
Here is one reference that you claimed to substantiate the is authority:
From the second post:
Timonator 348 post 80
I have to go to a prayer thing now, so, is this okay or do you want to establish some other parameters?
I’m going to use the NAB, since it’s the one the USCCB has given us as an “official” NT for American Catholics. And, I’ll use whatever resources for Greek text I can find online, but we have to all remember that we don’t know what the very first Scriptures said and the texts can vary somewhat and when we are arguing based on a single word’s definition, we cannot know what the Sacred writer intended.
To avoid things becoming hostile, I may post something obnoxiously cute from time to time. I thought first we should get the Gospel or other Scriptures together that are claimed to support the Church Authority side. Maybe like, five examples to start, something like that?
post 69 and 78 by JRKH
So, the issue to be resolved is this Authority that the Leaders of the Church in the persons of Popes and Bishops claim for themselves is or is not something intended by Christ.
Here is one reference that you claimed to substantiate the is authority:
This is followed by an example that you have interpreted as substantiating what you claimed was the meaning of the first citation:
While I disagree with this as a logical construct, the real issue is that the first citation has to mean what you say it means before the second citation can be used as substantiating it. And I disagree with your interpretation. But I’ll get to that in detail later after you decide what citations you’d really like to focus on. Maybe you want to use a different one?
From the second post:
Please provide the Scripture citations for these things in quotes.
Timonator 348 post 80
How do you know? Please provide proof that this is a statement of fact.
I have to go to a prayer thing now, so, is this okay or do you want to establish some other parameters?
T
Timonator348
Guest
I’m not sure what proof your looking for regarding historical fact within the parameters you’ve set as the Gospels and the Bible as a whole were not solely intended as a historical narrative.
P
praxising
Guest
I’m sorry, that was stupid of me, wasn’t it? I was in a hurry to get to church - what I mean is, if you say this:
Then we are prior to and outside of Scripture, and we need some evidence of it. In the Scriptural discussion, I meant to keep things within the Gospels and Acts, but if you are asserting a fact that predates Scripture, then there must be some sort of evidence for why you believe this, that also predates Scripture. Or at least is contemporaneous with it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Of course we have that. It’s called Sacred Tradition.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t believe this is true. Most were, but some weren’t.
To wit: the centurions were Roman, not Jewish, yes?
J
JRKH
Guest
I would say Intended" or is a logical flow and development from what Christ initiated…That being one unified ekklesia
I see no reason to use any other citations at this time to demonstrate the authority of the Ekkleisa as a whole (or the representatives/elders thereof) over the authority of Private Interpretation.
The term “Church” (ekklesia) is used only twice in the Gospels and both times it is used by Jesus and both times in the context of granting authority to “Bind and Loose”. (Mt 16: 18-19; Mt 18:15-18)
The Church is refered to by St Paul as “The Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” in 1 Tim 3:15
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Constantly demonstrating that doctrinal conflict occurs, and indeed is inevitable, does NOT demonstrate that God apporves of it. Otherwise He would not have told us to listen to the Ekklesia. He would not have given us the Church with authority to bind and loose.
I have given you a long list of teaching and exhortaion to unity by Christ and the Apostles. You have given me examples of failures of that unity.
What you have NOT provided is an example or an instruction where Jesus or the Apostles said, “Oh its OK for the Church in Corinth to believe differently than the Church in Antioch…They will just have to agree to disagree.”
Peace
James
P
praxising
Guest
I don’t think He did. I am going to assume as you didn’t specify here, that you are referring to Matthew 18 for the part I bolded.
To understand that, we have to go back and look at the book as a whole. It’s full of Jesus replacing the ideas people have from their Church Leaders, easily set up in the Sermon on the Mount with His “you have heard it said…but I say to you…” Throughout the book, Jesus feeds the multitudes and contends with the Pharisees and scribes, He behaves as an independent person of authority, touching the untouchable, dining with sinners, healing pagans, declaring a Roman Centurion more faithful than any Israelite. He calls a tax collector to follow Him.
In the part we are concerned most with in what has been designated Chapter 18, the disciples want to know who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus calls over a child and says if you don’t become like a child, you won’t get in. He advises humility and lets them know that His Father doesn’t want to lose even one sheep. Then, in an echo of the “you have heard it said…so I say to you…” and His arguments with the Pharisees, “you say we should do this…but I say we do this other…” consistent with the way the whole book is written, Jesus says. “If someone sins against you, this is what you do…” and He outlines what the procedure presently is in the Jewish Church for dealing with “trespass.” The confrontation, the escalating pressure to get the one accused to admit a fault, the ultimate taking before authorities and then, his expulsion from the ecclesia.
Jesus doesn’t say “you should,” He says “you do.” The word is hypago, in 2nd person present tense, “you go and do such and such” Jesus says. Then someone gets lost. He isn’t talking to a few apostles, He is speaking to the disciples who approached with the question, a group diverse enough to have a ready child at hand when He needed one.
Then He tells them the danger of the practice:
what you bind here is bound in heaven, what you loose is loosed in heaven. That is, if they refuse to forgive the trespasser, that will follow them to heaven, if they do forgive, forgiveness follows them. Keep in mind that part of what Jesus said was, “You treat him as a gentile or a tax collector.” Jesus just healed a Gentile and called a tax collector to be one of His followers. He is saying that the way they have been doing it is not His Way.
What to do instead? He says something that makes it clear they don’t need the church to decide anything “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” Jesus will be the one to turn to.
So Peter, the “stubborn,” comes up and asks, Well, how many times do I have to forgive him? and Jesus says essentially “forever” and then launches into a parable about forgiveness where the master forgives the servant but the servant doesn’t forgive the debtor, so the master has the servant tortured until his debt is paid. Jesus ends with: “So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”
Your interpretation is out of sync with what is around those few verses and out of sync with the rest of the book of Matthew up to that point. He isn’t giving instructions for how to handle dissenters in a Church, He is saying “you do this…instead do what I say.” It doesn’t make sense for Jesus to say, “Father doesn’t want anyone to be lost” and then immediately say. “Here’s a procedure where they can be lost.”
po18guy
Well-known member
As well the Samaritans near Jacob’s well (John 4:1-42).
T
Timonator348
Guest
Signing up for an account on Catholic Answers Forums? Free.
Debating core Catholic principles with someone claiming Catholic as their religion? Free.
Showing an am authoritative, unified Catholic Church before the 300’s? Priceless.
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).
“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).
Need I go on? I honor the authoritative Church Jesus founded. The Church that gave us the Bible because clearly it existed before the Bible.
P
praxising
Guest
:tiphat: LOL! Excellent, even if you do insist on questioning my veracity. I once had someone online say to me, “For all I know you are a 400 pound bouncer a biker bar named Bubba!”
I was over at the church tonight for a novena to the Miraculous Medal. Srsly, dude, ya don’t get more Catholic than that! We used to get fake Catholics at the forum I used to post on years ago and the question, so simple, we asked to validate them was: "What is your response when the Celebrant gives you the body of Christ and says, “The Body of Christ?” They never knew. I dunno, maybe you can look it up someplace now. But I cannot “prove” to you I am Catholic without violating my own strictures about guarding my privacy online. I did stay up until 4am waiting to see Blessed JPII’s beatification. Then when we finally got there…I fell asleep!
These are great quotes, what a nice job you did. I could only wish for links in them, which I’m sure everyone would like. Could we have one or two, please? So, here’s the problem with them, here is your original statement which these quotes are supposed to support (my bold):
But these quotes don’t prove or give evidence that Christ did anything, just that people in positions of power in the early Church were claiming and asserting their power. Nor can we assume these quotes predate the Gospels and they certainly post-date the Letters of Paul. The oldest Gospel frag we have is from St John’s gospel and dated well before 200A.D. There are lists of books that include all of the Canonical NT before 170A.D. So while the Canon was made official after 200A.D., all the writings in it existed for quite some time before that and were used authoritatively.
Here’s something interesting:
Did you notice that Cyprian says the Church is bound together by priests who agree with one another? Not Jesus Christ, not the eccelsia, the Body of Christ on earth, but the Church is cemented by the agreement of priests.
Then, regardless of what he says in the first sentence about Bishops, the Church was divided. But the division happened at a time when no group was powerful enough to condemn the other and have them killed. “the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop”
Still, all you have is guys with power insisting on power. You have no mandate from Christ. What we need is something extra-Canonical that is a letter or something from a 1st generation or 2nd generation disciple attesting to Jesus doing such a thing. I think other forum members would have found such years ago, though.
The “Church” existed as soon as Mary assented and affirmed at the moment Peter and Andrew abandoned their nets. That isn’t the issue. The ecclesia predates the Gospels and the NT obviously. The derived authority of the Pope and the Magisterium is the issue.
- Status