Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[Good_Fella]

Yes, there have in fact been Christians who claimed that Anne was a virgin when she gave birth to Mary. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Anne

“Similarly, in the 4th century, and then much later in the 15th century, a belief arose that Mary was born of Anne by virgin birth. [6] Those believers included the 16th century mystic Valentine Weigel who claimed Anne conceived Mary by the power of the Holy spirit. This belief was also condemned as an error by the Catholic Church in 1677.”

Make a note of that: not only is it not an official Catholic teaching, but it has actually been condemned by the Catholic Church.

“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854

Peter, the Catholic Church holds no official position on whether the conception and birth of Mary was virginal and miraculous. The Maigisterium remains officially undecided. Please provide the documents that would support the web site’s claim that this belief was condemned as a heresy. I’ve checked my sources and have found no such papal or conciliar documents.

I’ve skimmed through the writings of Valentin Weigle, a Lutheran minister and astrologist who left his denomination, but find no mention of Jesus or Mary. Yet I could have missed a work of his. His notions of God, spirit, and the body are unorthodox. If he were personally condemned by the Church for having spoken of Mary’s virginal conception and birth, it could have been in connection with his bizarre system of astro-theology. Until now I haven’t been able to find any details of his alleged encounter with the Holy See. Perhaps you can be able to.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s books on the lives of Jesus and Mary have long had the imprimatur. She was blessed with the stigmata and beatified by Pope John Paul ll. I doubt she would have received the blessings she did if her private revelations contained notions which were officially condemned heretical by the Church in the 17th century. If there had been an official condemnation, I suspect Pope Pius lX would have definitively qualified Mary’s conception as natural in his Apostolic Constitution.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Peter_J]

"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."
Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854

Peter, the Catholic Church holds no official position on whether the conception and birth of Mary was virginal and miraculous. The Maigisterium remains officially undecided.

Personally I have to disagree with your statement that “the Catholic Church holds no official position on whether the conception and birth of Mary was virginal”. I don’t claim to have investigated the matter fully, but I’m satisfied by the fact that the claim is made on wikipedia (already quoted) and in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (quoted below).

“In 1677 the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9).”

• newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm

 

[heiscominginthe]

It can be likened to what goes on here. You are quite outspoken in your views on how Christians should believe and have even said to me that you have recieved your beliefs by “Unction” of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that you believe that what you write here is “Inspired” in a “Biblical” sense?
Probably not.
Does that mean that what you write does not contain ANYthing of worth?
Also, Probably not. For in discussions writings by sincere Christians there can be many “kernals” and “seeds” that are of great use.

The point I want to make is that all this inspired through the HG will not be contrary to the Word of God, but will if anything complement it. And as for writings by early Fathers, outside of the apostles, bearing significance in understanding the Word of God could be seen as truth, but yet when you read the writing of them, you begin to see how this man or that man views the faith, but not in the same way. Yet, then take the gospels and all that was included in the bible, nothing contradicts and all complements growth in the faith through God’s truth, not man’s.

 

[heiscominginthe]

heiscominginthe,

Just curious–what does your church teach about divorce?

Just as it is written in the Word of God. It is not suppose to happen. Yet, men sin and it occurs. If a man becomes devorced, can he not be forgiven?

Now the bible does say divorce is allowed if the husband or wife is unfaithful.

 

[heiscominginthe]

heiscominginthe, your blissful innocence at things Catholic is truly refreshing, even as your counterparts take pains in giving you crash education on the Faith. There are to be sure a lot to learn especially how the canon of the NT came to be. Even as so many books and their stories were decided upon as uninspired, their contributions to church literature are immensely valuable, helping us understand the culture of the people God chose to appear to in history. At best, your having participated in a Catholic forum gives you more “truths” than you can ever hope for in whatever denomination you now belong. Why don’t you come home? There is simply so much to learn about the Faith, my finite brain could scarcely hold the so many interesting “truths” there are to be found.

I appreciate your post here. It if always wonderful when all is said and done in the love of our Lord then with angry words.

You ask me about home and that will not occur until my Lord comes to get his saints on the day of resurrection unless the Lord calls me home before then.

I cannot remember a time in my life I was without God, with the exception of when I became aware of the law and died in my spirit. Yet, the Lord did not abandon me.

When I was in school and began to learn to read, I was so excited because I wanted to be able to read the Word of God. Yet, as I learned to read, I still was without understanding. I would go in my room and read regardless, for it made me feel closer to God.

So my home is with the Lord. He is in my heart, he is my rest today and always. I praise his Holy name, for he only deserves all glory. Praise God.

 

[heiscominginthe]

heiscominginthe,

Sorry, my earlier response to this ^^ was rather flippant. I thought you were just pulling something out of thin air.

Yes, there have in fact been Christians who claimed that Anne was a virgin when she gave birth to Mary. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Anne

“Similarly, in the 4th century, and then much later in the 15th century, a belief arose that Mary was born of Anne by virgin birth. [6] Those believers included the 16th century mystic Valentine Weigel who claimed Anne conceived Mary by the power of the Holy spirit. This belief was also condemned as an error by the Catholic Church in 1677.”

Make a note of that: not only is it not an official Catholic teaching, but it has actually been condemned by the Catholic Church.

No problem Peter. That is the way of the Lord. We are to prove and reprove all to determine whether of God or of man. Well done.

 

[heiscominginthe]

It is a sad fact that there are many poorly catechized Catholics.
heiscominginthe;5169592:

That is kinda beside the point, isn’t it? You asked about the origin or source of the Catholic belief that Joseph was previously married, and had a passle of kids. This is one of the early sources.

There were hundreds of books that contained Apostolic Teaching at the time the council met to determine the canon. All but 27 were excluded. This does not mean that some of them did not contain inspired teaching, as they do, but they did not, as whole documents, meet all the criteria for inclusion. They are still valuable as testiments of history and records of belief at the time (some of it early heresies).

The Catholic Church did not just “make it up” at some later date. It was what the Church received from the Apostles.

Yes, there were many documents claiming to be inspired that were to promote heresies. Most of them from that period were Gnostic. However, the documents still have great historical value, and help us to understand how the believers understood and practiced what the Apostles taught.

I am not sure what you mean by “make sure each church contained the same scripture”. The NT did not exist at that time, and the Apostles used the Septuagint as their scriptures. This is a large collection, expensive, and difficult to duplicate. Complete collections took years to complete by candle or oil lamp in with pen on parchment or skin. Most of the Churches did not have their own copy of the Scriptures. This is one of the reasons the Apostolic Succession was so important.

I am not sure what you mean by “make sure each church contained the same scripture”.

It tells us in the bible that the Word of God was published throughout the regions. All that the apostles wrote were deemed as inspired by the HS was given to each church to prevent this church or that church from being spiritually stiffled. In other words, the apostles made sure each church know the gospel of Jesus Christ. Each church received the correct interpretation from the apostles. That is why the letters Paul wrote were so essential to the growth of the church. For when a church had difficulty in understanding, he would write letters to help them understand the things of the spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

Just as it is written in the Word of God. It is not suppose to happen. Yet, men sin and it occurs. If a man becomes devorced, can he not be forgiven?

Now the bible does say divorce is allowed if the husband or wife is unfaithful.

Does your church also teach that if a man divorces his wife and marries another that he commits adultery?

 

[JRKH]

Does your church also teach that if a man divorces his wife and marries another that he commits adultery?

Yes

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

Yes

Peace
James

What? James, you’re Catholic, right?

I was questioning heiscominginthe, whose church, I assume, is a Bible-only church. I’ve never heard any of these churches ever proclaim the teaching about divorce, as mentioned in Scripture. It seems that the Catholic Church is the only one to take Jesus’ words on divorce seriously.

 

[Peter_J]

JRKH and PRmerger,

My experience with Evangelical Protestants is completely different from what PRmerger described. Namely, they don’t ignore those passages, but rather take them far too literally. I’ve had Evangelicals tell me that if a man divorces his wife, even if he doesn’t marry again, he is committing adultery against her.

Thus they miss the true point of those passages, i.e. that the divorced man is really still married to his original wife, and thus commits adultery if/when he sleeps with a “new wife”. (I’m assuming, of course, that the first marriage was a valid sacramental marriage – which is in fact not always the case.)

 

[JRKH]

What? James, you’re Catholic, right?

I was questioning heiscominginthe, whose church, I assume, is a Bible-only church. I’ve never heard any of these churches ever proclaim the teaching about divorce, as mentioned in Scripture. It seems that the Catholic Church is the only one to take Jesus’ words on divorce seriously.

Mea Culpa -

I thought I was answering heiscoming—

Too Early for me I guess.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The point I want to make is that all this inspired through the HG will not be contrary to the Word of God, but will if anything complement it. And as for writings by early Fathers, outside of the apostles, bearing significance in understanding the Word of God could be seen as truth, but yet when you read the writing of them, you begin to see how this man or that man views the faith, but not in the same way. Yet, then take the gospels and all that was included in the bible, nothing contradicts and all complements growth in the faith through God’s truth, not man’s.

I highlighted just the one section in the above since I feel that it really bears greatly upon the OP.
your concern is how the various Early Church Fathers viewed the faith - but not in the same way - and this somhow seems to nullify, in your mind, their value. Yet what do we see here in discussions between yourself and us if it is not two different views on the same faith?
Your comment about the ECF’s differing views is not just in that they view things differently from each other, but also that they view things differently that you do. So the question becomes who is right? OR are there “right and wrong” things in each?

As to everything in the Bible complimenting each other, I would point out just one example of where it could be seen as in conflict. In one Gospel Jesus says, “he who is not with me is against Me”, yet in another Gospel Jesus says, “Those who are not against us are for us”.
Of course we, as Christians see this and look for the reason for the apparent contradiction. But another person may not - but rather look and find even more “apparent contraditions”. We see it regularly here on the board.
My point in this being that in reading anything, including the Bible, we bring certain preconceptions as well as differing life experiences to it. Out of this can come differing views and ways of expressing our understandings. This is yet another reason why we are blessed with Holy Mother Church to help us sort through all the “hubbub” and get to a common and correct understanding of ALL the writings from ages past as well as today.

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

Does your church also teach that if a man divorces his wife and marries another that he commits adultery?

Yes it does teach this since it is written in the Word of God. Yet, if the man divorces a woman who committed adultry, he can remarry since the divorce was justified in the eyes of God. So in other words, if the man remarries, he will not be committing adultry.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I highlighted just the one section in the above since I feel that it really bears greatly upon the OP.
your concern is how the various Early Church Fathers viewed the faith - but not in the same way - and this somhow seems to nullify, in your mind, their value. Yet what do we see here in discussions between yourself and us if it is not two different views on the same faith?
Your comment about the ECF’s differing views is not just in that they view things differently from each other, but also that they view things differently that you do. So the question becomes who is right? OR are there “right and wrong” things in each?

As to everything in the Bible complimenting each other, I would point out just one example of where it could be seen as in conflict. In one Gospel Jesus says, “he who is not with me is against Me”, yet in another Gospel Jesus says, “Those who are not against us are for us”.
Of course we, as Christians see this and look for the reason for the apparent contradiction. But another person may not - but rather look and find even more “apparent contraditions”. We see it regularly here on the board.
My point in this being that in reading anything, including the Bible, we bring certain preconceptions as well as differing life experiences to it. Out of this can come differing views and ways of expressing our understandings. This is yet another reason why we are blessed with Holy Mother Church to help us sort through all the “hubbub” and get to a common and correct understanding of ALL the writings from ages past as well as today.

Peace
James

Being right or wrong often times can be misinterpreted in itself. It may not have anything to do with right and wrong, but in immaturity and maturity of faith. For what is true for one on the milk of the Word may one day not bear the same truth when on the meat of the Word. For as a new born babe in the faith grows, a truth can grow bringing far more understanding then when first conceived through the HS. God reveals that of himself on what we can handle. A newborn babe cannot take meat, but is nurtured by the milk.

 

[Good_Fella]

Personally I have to disagree with your statement that “the Catholic Church holds no official position on whether the conception and birth of Mary was virginal”. I don’t claim to have investigated the matter fully, but I’m satisfied by the fact that the claim is made on wikipedia (already quoted) and in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (quoted below).

“In 1677 the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that** St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin** (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9).”

• newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm

St. Anna wasn’t a virgin when she conceived and bore Mary. Our Blessed Mother had an elder sister, *Mariam *(daughter of Heli). Our Lady’s mother wasn’t barren before she conceived Mary.

If in fact Pope Benedict lV had condemned the belief in the miraculous conception of Mary, he could have erred in his judgment. There are seven infallible papal documents in existence according to the criteria infallibly set by Vatican l Council. De Festis is not one of them. Nor did Pope Benedict lV ever issue an infallible encyclical.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Steave]

God loves everyone

 

[MDK]

God loves everyone

And to love Him, we obey Him, and not go our own way, putting our own words in place of God and telling others that He said this and that… when this and that is not true.

 

[MDK]

Yes it does teach this since it is written in the Word of God…

Is the written word equal to or does it encompass completely the Word of God made flesh? Are there things that Jesus said and did which His Apostles witnessed which are not recorded in the written word? Could the other things and explanations of meanings have been discussed and handed down from Apostle (Bishop) to others verbally with the protection of the Holy Spirit?

Since there are so many different interpretations which conflict directly with each other, who is authorized to teach the word of God since they all can’t be right, even though almost all claim that they have the Holy Spirit? How can this be that many who interpret differently claim to have the Holy Spirit? Are they misled, or is the Holy Spirit teaching different things? For instance, do you have authority from God to interpret His written word?

 

[PRmerger]

Since there are so many different interpretations which conflict directly with each other, who is authorized to teach the word of God since they all can’t be right, even though almost all claim that they have the Holy Spirit?

Exactly!!

So when one church teaches that the Lord’s Day must be celebrated on Saturday and another says it’s Sunday–both reading the same Scriptues and coming to different understandings–who’s correct?

And when one teaches that baptism saves you, and another says it’s an ordinance–both reading the same Scriptures and coming to different understandings–who’s correct?

And when one church teaches that receiving blood transfusions is prohibited and another allows it–both reading the same Scriptures–who’s correct?

In the Bible-alone crowd, when disagreements on Scripture interpretation occur, there’s no authority to which they can appeal. They can simply “agree to disagree”. However, in the Catholic church, we have the “pillar and foundation of truth”–the church, i.e. the Magisterium, which is the final authority and guardian of the truth. :extrahappy: