Private Interpretation of Scripture

[jomoco]

Speaking of Paul, 1Corinthians chapter 6 verse 19 states:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Now I have an interesting interpretation of that particular verse myself. However I’d like to hear from the experts and traditionalists on what they believe Paul is trying to get across to us, prior to imparting my own thoughts and beliefs on the verse.

Respectfully,

jomoco

 

[praxising]

Interesting conversation…
How about when we combine the authority of “Bind and Loose…Whatever” with “Listen to The Church”, which is the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”, as support for the Church’s infallible interpretation?

Now you claim that others can come along and, “interpret differently, and just as logically or compellingly…”, but frankly I have yet to see any other interpretation that is “as logical or compelling”…

Peace
James

I have. That’s a very very long thread, though, and I’d have to go see if I saved those notes in some file someplace on this computer. Might have gone to cyberheaven with the info on my old computer when it was strangled by the Blue Screen of Death. I suppose I can reconstruct from what I remember, not sure of the point, though. What might seem compelling or not to one of us, can still be understood to be completely convincing to someone else, esp a Protestant.

If you want to have the conversation as a sort of exercise, I can play Devil’s Advocate, so to speak, but there’s a rule. I made this rule when debating with Protestants on another Catholic forum years ago. You have to argue Truth from the Gospels only. This came about when they would not accept anything outside their 66 books and kept them from throwing endlessly mis-understood quotations from Revelations and the OT at what were basic Christian understandings. They wouldn’t accept Tradition and I refused to accept anything not verified by the Christ we were all claiming to follow. So we agreed on what they liked to call “perfect Revelation” even though most of them never seemed to have read much of anything unless Paul wrote it.

The “compelling alternate interpretations” happen inside this set of parameters. Do you think you can argue for the Church Authority and infallibility from the Gospels? I’ll have time to delve into it next week. I am taking most of Sunday for JPIIs beatification and most of tomorrow for real life chores.

 

[praxising]

He was speaking about the different functions of the members of the Body of Christ. Since you choose to rationalize what Paul said in about these different functions – I’ll give you a much more direct passage – and maybe you will see the light… .

I didn’t get past here. I’m perfectly happy with the Light I a have found. I hope you are happy with yours. I think Peace is best served if I don’t engage with you.

 

[elvisman]

I didn’t get past here. I’m perfectly happy with the Light I a have found. I hope you are happy with yours. I think Peace is best served if I don’t engage with you.

And that is the last refuse of the truly desperate - abandon the conversation when you’re proven wrong or worse yet - you run out of ammo. **Refusing to see the truth in favor of your own subjective version of the “truth” is called spiritual pride.

Really - I don’t see why you continue to identify yourself as "Catholic" . . .

 

[elvisman]

Speaking of Paul, 1Corinthians chapter 6 verse 19 states:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Now I have an interesting interpretation of that particular verse myself. However I’d like to hear from the experts and traditionalists on what they believe Paul is trying to get across to us, prior to imparting my own thoughts and beliefs on the verse.

Respectfully,

jomoco

**It means that the Holy Spirit dwells within the faithful which is from God - to whom we belong. We were paid for (redeemed) by Christ.
It’s fairly self-explanatory - why do you ask?

 

[praxising]

I’ve found anyone who has thinks of this as a circular argument thinks the Church claims the authority it has for itself. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Catholic teaching. This isn’t even a matter of Biblical interpretation as this authority the Church has was granted by Christ and was practiced for hundreds of years before the New Testament was complied and the Bible came into existence. The Biblical examples merely support the authority already given her by Christ when he actually lived on earth. One must prove that Christ did not found the Church and that somehow a merely human institution was strong and unified enough to grow and expand even during violent persecutions for 300 years without the divine protection of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ while simultaneously leading hundreds of thousands of people away from the “true faith”. NOT LIKELY!!! Actually many non-Catholics who have actually gone to the effort to really understand the Church teaching and Church history have found the evidence of early Christianity to be overwhelmingly Catholic. The Catholic Church is the only Church that actually goes by the whole Bible and yet is in the unique position to not have to point to the Bible for her authority. The Church’s authority comes from Jesus, not a book, and she certainly does not claim this authority for herself. As I recall it was Jesus himself who said: “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” ~ Luke 10:16

Well, there may be a discussion of these issues next week.

Now, if you don’t want to use Scripture in the form of the Gospels, even though they are reporting what happened before their final compilation and what happened is where you say the authority comes a from and even though some of what is in them is thought to have been written contemporaneously with Jesus’ earthly ministry, what documents from these preCanonical times will you use to support your position?

See, here’s the issue a well-educated Protestant will point out: the modern Church, in ancient times, actually derived it’s authority to declare it’s authority from Constantine who made it the state Church. So, if we, as Catholics, want to say it’s been this way from times all the way back to Jesus, we have to find something from before Constantine to support that. What we have seems to be mostly Scripture, as all of the Canon was in place over 100 years before Constantine.

This is the Catholic Apologetics dilemma: you can’t prove Church Authority by saying the Church says so. You also have to deal with the fact that that postConstantinian Church repressed all dissent from it’s authority, but before Constantine, all those churches and priests and Bishops and monks were as much Church as anyone else.

We can’t argue the whole of history here, we aren’t qualified and don’t have the resources and it’s pointless. But we can look at the Gospels and see what they seem to say and how they are alternatively interpreted and stop just thinking Protestants are ignorant or not as smart as we are or whatever and start understanding and respecting their position on this.

There’s another thread about a purportedly infallible declaration of recent origin, how much can we expect a Protestant to listen if we say that the Truth of the Eucharist is on the same level as that priests should be celibate?

 

[jomoco]

It means that the Holy Spirit dwells within the faithful which is from God - to whom we belong. We were paid for (redeemed) by Christ.
It’s fairly self-explanatory - *why *do you ask?

Interesting, you believe that Paul was speaking of the mind and not the body.

I certainly appreciate and respect your opinion on the verse Elvis.

However, since the preceding verses dealt with weaknesses of the body and sexual matters, exhorting us not to defile our bodies, I am of the belief that he meant body literally.

Is it the traditional Catholic belief that Paul was speaking of the mind and faith in that particular verse?

Respectfully,

jomoco

 

[JRKH]

I have. That’s a very very long thread, though, and I’d have to go see if I saved those notes in some file someplace on this computer. Might have gone to cyberheaven with the info on my old computer when it was strangled by the Blue Screen of Death. I suppose I can reconstruct from what I remember, not sure of the point, though. What might seem compelling or not to one of us, can still be understood to be completely convincing to someone else, esp a Protestant.

Agreed - when arguing with a protestant they are coming from a completely different “biblical world view” and it can be nearly impossible to bridge the gap.
Don’t worry if you can’t reconstruct. It’s not that big of a deal.

If you want to have the conversation as a sort of exercise, I can play Devil’s Advocate, so to speak, but there’s a rule. I made this rule when debating with Protestants on another Catholic forum years ago. You have to argue Truth from the Gospels only. This came about when they would not accept anything outside their 66 books and kept them from throwing endlessly mis-understood quotations from Revelations and the OT at what were basic Christian understandings. They wouldn’t accept Tradition and I refused to accept anything not verified by the Christ we were all claiming to follow. So we agreed on what they liked to call “perfect Revelation” even though most of them never seemed to have read much of anything unless Paul wrote it.

The “compelling alternate interpretations” happen inside this set of parameters. Do you think you can argue for the Church Authority and infallibility from the Gospels? I’ll have time to delve into it next week. I am taking most of Sunday for JPIIs beatification and most of tomorrow for real life chores.

No need for a “devils advocate” discussion. Frankly I’ve had plenty of them in situations quite similar to what you describe above. I like your parameter of using the Gospels only…I too have found that some protestants can go on endlessly quoting Paul and completely (or nearly completely) ignore the Gospels. I have one alteration I’d like to suggest though…Include Acts. It is the one “history” of the early Church that is actually part of the Bible. It has something good to say about Church authority…
If you’d like to catch up with me on it next week, that’s fine. Right now I’m getting into a conversation on another board relating to some things from Trent on Justification. So I’ll be doing some other reading this weekend.
Just let me know…

Peace
James

 

[elvisman]

Interesting, you believe that Paul was speaking of the mind and not the body.

I certainly appreciate and respect your opinion on the verse Elvis.

**What?? **
Where did I say that I was not speaking of the body?
Methinks you assume too much, friend . . .

However, since the preceding verses dealt with weaknesses of the body and sexual matters, exhorting us not to defile our bodies, I am of the belief that he meant body literally.

Is it the traditional Catholic belief that Paul was speaking of the mind and faith in that particular verse?

Respectfully,

jomoco

**Would you mind explaining where you got the idea that I was speaking of the mind? **I would appreciate an explanation instead of bearing false witness.

 

[PJM]

=Timonator348;7778723]The heart of what I’m trying to get at is if we are baptized and remain in a state of grace as strengthened by God and we are made a new creation and we then have the mind of Christ can we not properly understand Scripture on our own? Are there only certain parts like Paul’s letters which remain hard to understand? If Christ opens the Scriptures to us as in Luke 24:27 are we then able to interpret Scripture without error as a Christian? I think this is a matter of the 'ol “both/and” Catholic perspective as I think we can both understand much of God and our salvation through private reading of the Bible and we need guidance from the Church to come to full understanding. Help me out on this if someone can add anything different.

My dear friend in Christ: Scripture should be interpreted ONLY by those actually qualified to do so: **Rom.10: 17 **“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ”

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

The REASON the CC did not permit lay-folk to read the bible on there own until it became necesary because of the Protestant Revolt, is that it is a PROFOUND book, that requires TAUGHT understanding. the PRUDENCE of this action lies in the MANY THOUSANDS of Protestant faiths that not only permit; but encourage their flocks to read and interpret it yourself. It simply is NOT God’s WILL. So misunderstanding ought to be expected.

As I have shared at least a hundred times on The Forum: The NT has over 100 reference to ONLY One Church…meaning ONLY one Faith [set of beliefs]… so either Chrsit was wrong our the Protestant community has the “blind leading the blind.”

**Eph. 4: 1-7 **“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, **Meaning only One set of beliefs] **one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

And for nearly 1,600 YEARS there was Just One… Look what happens when mortal men think they know better or know more than God.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[jomoco]

It means that the Holy Spirit dwells within the faithful which is from God - to whom we belong. We were paid for (redeemed) by Christ.
It’s fairly self-explanatory - *why *do you ask?

I certainly had no intention of bearing false witness against you, or misquoting you.

Your post above says “within the faithful”, I guess it was my mistake to equate faithful with mind.

I’m still a bit confused as to what traditional Catholics believe Paul meant in that verse?

And I suspect I’ve committed an error in bringing up this subject in someone elses post despite its title.

My apologies to all.

Thanks,

jomoco

 

[elvisman]

I certainly had no intention of bearing false witness against you, or misquoting you.

Your post above says “within the faithful”, I guess it was my mistake to equate faithful with mind.

I’m still a bit confused as to what traditional Catholics believe Paul meant in that verse?

And I suspect I’ve committed an error in bringing up this subject in someone elses post despite its title.

My apologies to all.

Thanks,

jomoco

**No need to apologize. It was just a miscommunication. **

You asked about 1 Cor. 6:19 and I responded to that verse.
He (Paul) is speaking of how the Body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and that we shoud treat it as such. He is not speaking of being physically fit so much as he is saying that we should not defile our bodies with sinful acts.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t care how many muscles we have. He cares about what we are doing with ourselves and to ourselves because he dwells within us.

 

[praxising]

I have one alteration I’d like to suggest though…Include Acts. It is the one “history” of the early Church that is actually part of the Bible. It has something good to say about Church authority…
If you’d like to catch up with me on it next week, that’s fine. Right now I’m getting into a conversation on another board relating to some things from Trent on Justification. So I’ll be doing some other reading this weekend.
Just let me know…

Peace
James

Oh, good idea adding Acts. I wouldn’t do it with a Protestant but a great idea if we do this. Saint Luke will be pleased!

 

[Timonator348]

Well, there may be a discussion of these issues next week.

Now, if you don’t want to use Scripture in the form of the Gospels, even though they are reporting what happened before their final compilation and what happened is where you say the authority comes a from and even though some of what is in them is thought to have been written contemporaneously with Jesus’ earthly ministry, what documents from these preCanonical times will you use to support your position?

See, here’s the issue a well-educated Protestant will point out: the modern Church, in ancient times, actually derived it’s authority to declare it’s authority from Constantine who made it the state Church. So, if we, as Catholics, want to say it’s been this way from times all the way back to Jesus, we have to find something from before Constantine to support that. What we have seems to be mostly Scripture, as all of the Canon was in place over 100 years before Constantine.

This is the Catholic Apologetics dilemma: you can’t prove Church Authority by saying the Church says so. You also have to deal with the fact that that postConstantinian Church repressed all dissent from it’s authority, but before Constantine, all those churches and priests and Bishops and monks were as much Church as anyone else.

We can’t argue the whole of history here, we aren’t qualified and don’t have the resources and it’s pointless. But we can look at the Gospels and see what they seem to say and how they are alternatively interpreted and stop just thinking Protestants are ignorant or not as smart as we are or whatever and start understanding and respecting their position on this.

There’s another thread about a purportedly infallible declaration of recent origin, how much can we expect a Protestant to listen if we say that the Truth of the Eucharist is on the same level as that priests should be celibate?

The truth of the Eucharist and priestly celibacy are not on the same level. The Eucharist is Apostolic Doctrine or Dogma, celibacy for priests is a Church discipline or practice which could, theoretically, be changed by a council or Pope. I have had that very problem when discussing the faith with Protestants who believe the “Roman” Church was created by Constantine and early Christianity was different. The issue is hen they get into a circular argument because I provide material from Church fathers prior to 300 AD but then they argue that only Scripture is inspired so none of that stuff matters. Truth is truth. Period. The same truth of the early Church fathers is the same truth which authored the Gospel and the rest of the New Testament. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that CONTRADICTS the Bible. All denominations have EXTRA-Biblical teachings and practices but only the Catholic Church’s are in full harmony with what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Others simply do their best to go by what the Bible says to them when it should be “What is God trying to convey?”

 

[praxising]

I have had that very problem when discussing the faith with Protestants who believe the “Roman” Church was created by Constantine and early Christianity was different.

It was different. The Gospel was not different, but the Church was very much different. IMO, the most dramatic change in the evolution of the Church came about with the elevation of Christianity to a state religion.

The issue is hen they get into a circular argument because I provide material from Church fathers prior to 300 AD but then they argue that only Scripture is inspired so none of that stuff matters. Truth is truth.

I agree. And being Catholic and having read so many of the oldest writings, I know they are entirely validating to our theology and spirituality. But I also know not all those early writings are available to us. So, we have the works that agree, by design. We are denied works from Church Fathers that disagree, also by design.

Period. The same truth of the early Church fathers is the same truth which authored the Gospel and the rest of the New Testament. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that CONTRADICTS the Bible. All denominations have EXTRA-Biblical teachings and practices but only the Catholic Church’s are in full harmony with what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Others simply do their best to go by what the Bible says to them when it should be “What is God trying to convey?”

I think that literalists do that, but I never met one who really was literal, anyway. Or really very well-acquainted with Scripture, to be honest. But I also think it’s a disservice to many Protestant religions to say they don’t seek to hear what God wants to convey through Scripture. There are Protestant Saints and Mystics, too, and extraordinary theologians and lay people of great depth. But we don’t end up debating them on message boards, usually.

 

[Timonator348]

Speaking of Paul, 1Corinthians chapter 6 verse 19 states:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Now I have an interesting interpretation of that particular verse myself. However I’d like to hear from the experts and traditionalists on what they believe Paul is trying to get across to us, prior to imparting my own thoughts and beliefs on the verse.

Respectfully,

jomoco

Reference this passage Paul goes on to say if we destroy our bodies, God will destroy us. This speaks to the sanctity of life and respect for each human person since our bodies actually belong to God as his dwelling place.

 

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by praxising
… go back to the original statement I questioned:

…are you sure you are not Protestant?

…as I’ve read you throughout this thread your posts seem to be very very Protestant (‘show me where it says that word by word… show me the text… there’s no actual historical Church unless you account for those writings which have been selectively kept to shed a good light on Catholicism… no that’s your take on Scriptures…’) *

…this said, my original thought stands! Protestants (and others such as you) read Scriptures claiming to understand them through personal interpretation, reject the Catholic Teachings, and claim the same exact status that the Church is denied.

Did Jesus expressed word by word what I stated? No!

How dare I claim that that is what He meant? Simple, I listened to Him:

12 I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now. 13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes ***he will lead you ***to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told; and he will reveal to you the things to come. 14 He will glorify me, since all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine. 15 Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine. (St. John 16:12-15)

…yet, you would claim that Jesus did not just mean the Church, His Community, Iklesia… well, let’s see:

15 If you love me you will keep my commandments. 16 I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you for ever, 17*** the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you***. 18 I shall not leave you orphans; I shall come to you. 19 In a short time the world will no longer see me; but you will see that I live and you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you. 21 Whoever holds to my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me; and whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I shall love him and reveal myself to him.’ 22 Judas – not Judas Iscariot – said to him, ‘Lord, what has happened, that you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?’ 23 Jesus replied: Anyone who loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make a home in him. 24 Anyone who does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not my own: it is the word of the Father who sent me. 25 I have said these things to you while still with you; 26 but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you. (St. John 14:15-26)

…to which you would object… with something akin to ‘but Jesus did not mean that; He is the God of Love, He would not reject anyone!’

…not so; He is very clear about the Church and those outside the Church:

4 I have glorified you… 6 I have revealed your name to those whom you took from the world to give me. They were yours and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word… 9 It is for them that I pray. I am not praying for the world but for those you have given me, because they belong to you. 10 All I have is yours and all you have is mine, and in them I am glorified… 13 But now I am coming to you and I say these things in the world to share my joy with them to the full. 14 I passed your word on to them, and the world hated them, because they belong to the world no more than I belong to the world. 15 I am not asking you to remove them from the world, but to protect them from the Evil One. 16 They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. 17 Consecrate them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world, 19 and for their sake I consecrate myself so that they too may be consecrated in truth. 20 I pray not only for these but also for those who through their teaching will come to believe in me. (St. John 17:4-20)

I hope this helps you!

Maran atha!

Angel (fyi: not female)
PS: …you too should select the “quote” function to reply instead of combining replies.
PPS: …I did reply to your query on my post… just trace back to your original query!*

 

[JRKH]

I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding going on about who the Holy spirit is sent to…Individuals or to The church.
In truth He is sent to Individuals who, together, make up the Church - ekklesia.
It is on this, and not on some supposed deliniation between individuals vs an “institution”, that the Idea of Private interpretation fails.

The Holy Spirit cannot be sent to an “institution” but He can be sent to individuals. However individuals, just acting on their own, cannot know for sure if the Spirit guiding them is Holy or not. Only by “Testing the Spirit” can this be discerned, and this testing is done in community.
Christ recognized this and gave us the instructions contained in Mt 18:15-18.

So we can readily see that any private understanding of Scripture must be subordinated to the understanding of the group (reached in humility through prayerful discussion).
Of course this does not mean that the entire “universal ekklesia” is called in for council. Rather learned men, representatives and leaders, are used (look at Acts 15 for an example) to speak for the ekklesia as a whole.

Once the proper determination is made by the ekklesia, this proper teaching is disseminated to all for acceptance. As the number of teachings grow, there grows a need for the proper and orderly care and dissemination of the teachings…And up grows the intitution of the Magisterium and the curia.

Nowhere in the NT is the idea of Private Interpretation approved. Nowhere in the NT is the idea of doctrinal conflict approved.

We are One Church. One Ekklesia - to be One as the Father and Son are one.
In this there is little room for “private interpretation”.

Peace
James

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timonator348
I have had that very problem when discussing the faith with Protestants who believe the “Roman” Church was created by Constantine and early Christianity was different.

Ooohhhhh…indeed the notorious belief Constantine founded the “Roman” Catholic Church. FALSE! It was not called the “Roman” Catholic Church until the 16th century by those who left the Catholic Church and did not want to identify themselves with the Roman bishop. As for Constantine the Catholic Church? I always ask them to show me historical evidence of when this so-called “Roman” Catholic Church was founded and who joined it? I am sure there would have been plenty of clergy and laity mentioning they just joined this new “Roman” Catholic Church? Where are those ancient writings confirming such a huge event?

 

[PRmerger]

But I also know not all those early writings are available to us. So, we have the works that agree, by design. We are denied works from Church Fathers that disagree, also by design.

This is curious. One has to wonder who is keeping all these other writings? And why haven’t the Protestants taken them and run with them?

Incidentally, aren’t there extant writings of heresies? This seems to contradict praxising’s premise.