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

[SteveGC]

Great post, MrS

Well, if someone said Jesus is not God himself, I’d conveniently point them to the Scriptures that say otherwise. You don’t even need the New Testament for that. The Arian controversy only proves one thing; at some time in the early centuries, Bishops started thinking too highly of themselves and stopped relying on the Scriptures; they further complicated matters when they seemed to prefer to hear themselves speak rather than being silent where God had not revealed anything to us on certain matters.

What a convenient watering down of one of the most controversial, significant heresies in the history of Christianity. One that still has remnants today. Arius didn’t go outside of Scripture to support his false theology. He “proved” it biblically, and was so convincing that he amassed a significant amount of mainstream Christians, in various levels of influence. Let me ask you. What do you think would’ve happened if there was no Church to defend the Truth, and proclaim heretical belief? How about the dozens of other heresies that plagued Christianity? The Church, each time, convened to defeat falsehood. Could you have just pulled out your Bible and defeated all of them on your own? Hardly. It wasn’t just that The Church could reveal a false teaching as false from Scripture…it was that the Church had the recognized authority to do so. And here’s a little newsflash…they didn’t just denounce it from Scripture…they collectively KNEW the handed-down teaching (Tradition). And when they proclaimed heresy, false teaching crumbled. I guarantee you that your view (and mine) of Christianity would be vastly different from what it is now if The Church had not been granted divine authority (and yes, Inspiration) to preserve Truth. It’s arrogant and insulting to downplay the role of The Church during our small span of existence in the world after 2000 years of laborious efforts to not only deliver Scripture to the world, but also protect us from complete and utter heretical beliefs…beliefs that would certainly have led us down a destructive path.

I personally believe everything about Jesus that’s written in the Scriptures, and as I’ve pointed out in other posts, Nicea seemed to come to a reasonable conclusion, but it wasn’t an inspired one, no matter how good we think it is.

So, Nicea I and II, Constantinople I - IV, Ephesus I and II, Chalcedon, Lateran I - V, Lyon I and II…and on and on…all these were just good and reasonable…able to defeat all the heresies the world has amassed and tried to pass off as Christianity…but it’s just a coincidence that they collectively have preserved the authentic teaching of Christ throughout all ages. No inspiration, there…nope

I’m sorry, but this is delusional. If Truth doesn’t grow, then all the extra doctrines the Catholic church has aren’t it, because its “truth” has been growing for hundreds of years.

There are no new truths. What has been, and still is, proclaimed publicly has always been believed, and been a part of the Deposit of Faith in The Church. Doctrines are the means of making deposited truths known to the world. They come across as NEW truths to you, because you reject the full Deposit of Faith. You have every right to do so.

 

[heiscominginthe]

This can be a bit of a sticky wicket.
First of all a person would need to determine if those in authority are, in fact, teaching caontrary to God’s Word and Will as given to The Church. Then the person should determine the best course of action.
Actually the Church has in place processes for dealing with those who are found to be teaching contrary to Magesterial teachings. usually it would involve writing to the Bishop, and if not getting satisfaction there, writing the Vatican itself.
One would hope that, through the use of these channels, some satisfactory solusion can be reached by either, the offending authority being fraternally corrected or, the person making the complaint being convinced of the correctness of the teaching.

The upshot of using this approach is that one is not relying on their own ideas/interpretation, but rather utilizing the full knowledge and authority of the Church to come to a correct understanding.
It is not just a situation where one must just - keep their mouth shut.

Yet, if satifaction is not reached, couldn’t this cause a split in the faith? Isn’t this exactly what has occured time and time again, resulting in the multide of different beliefs today?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Outside the Catholic Church, one can only hope to catch the crumbs from the table.

I believe we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under the table.

I’ll trust God’s mercy, Mrs.

O+

 

[Howie01]

Protestants rely on whose Bible. The only one introduced came from the Catholics…

You’re truly, and anachronistically, a romantic, MrS.

 

[SD_Catholic]

You’re truly, and anachronistically, a romantic, MrS.

I asked you this before… Do you think the Bible came before the Church or are you just hoping to claim that the CC wasn’t the Church that compiled that Bible?

SD

 

[MrS]

I asked you this before… Do you think the Bible came before the Church or are you just hoping to claim that the CC wasn’t the Church that compiled that Bible?

SD

Makes me wonder too…

Not sure if it is pride or stubbornness to deny that the Bible - the inspired Word of God - was given to the world only through the Catholic Church.

• Every NT writer was a member of only ONE Church.
• Every member of the councils who canonized the Scriptures in the 4th century was a member of only ONE Church.
• Every member of the Council of Trent which clarified things for the dissenting Reformers was a member of the Catholic Church.
• Scripture attests to the reality of a visible, living, growing, teaching Church.
• Scripture attests to the reality of One and only One Church started by Christ.
• Scripture attests to the reality of the promises made by Christ to His Church.
• Scripture attests to the reality of those who would interpret to their own demise
• Scripture attests to the reality of those who would preach a different Gospel.

To know history is right is to know protestantism is wrong.

.

 

[MDK]

If a Catholic has a question of interpretation, how does he resolve it. He can ask his priest but then the priest cannot guarantee that his interpretation is right. Neither can an individual bishop. How often do people complain about liberal priests or bishops? You disagree with them but the Church keeps them in office. Do you listen to them or try to find a priest or bishop more to your taste.

How does an ordinary Catholic access the Magisterium or an infallible ruling by the Pope? You are stuck with a personal interpretation whether it is yours or someone else’s. Even where something is set out in the Catechism you must interpret how to apply it. Mortal sin is defined but individuals are constantly asking here if something is a mortal sin or even if it is a sin at all. They must interpret the definition for themselves.

What is an infallible decision. Does it require a canon from a council? How many scriptures have been infallibly interpreted by the Church? Catholics can’t seem to agree how many or even how many past papal decrees are infallible. Unless it has been infallibly established, whatever you get is someone’s personal interpretation and you must decide if you agree with it or not.

Ignorance of the Church keeps many people out of it. Assuming that you truly love God, you are unfortunately no exception.

The guarantee is for the pope, and all the Bishops in union with the pope. Priests can err. Bishops can err, if not in communion with the pope (or doctrine, or dogma). There can be error in members of the Church if they don’t follow official teachings. I’ve already told you that. In this way, they are being Protestant, even though a formal member of the Church. The idea of Protestantism isn’t limited to those outside the Church. No matter where it is practiced, though, it leads people astray.

 

[heiscominginthe]

“Bishop”, that’s where. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

1 Tim. 3: 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So is it okay then that your pope marry? Or is this just for bishops in other denoms?

 

[MrS]

1 Tim. 3: 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So is it okay then that your pope marry? Or is this just for bishops in other denoms?

Actually, as the Early Church Fathers explained, and as the Church has maintained all these centuries…

husband of one wife

means that if the man was married and was worthy of elevation to bishop he was assuming awesome responsibilities. If his wife (if he had one) were to die, he should not remarry, which would limit his bishop abilities.

Nowhere does Scripture encourage or require a bishop to marry. On the contrary, we see the example of St Paul who encourages those in such authority to “be as I am…”

.

 

[SteveGC]

1 Tim. 3: 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So is it okay then that your pope marry? Or is this just for bishops in other denoms?

Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church’s celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop. Scripture Catholic.com

 

[JRKH]

If a Catholic has a question of interpretation, how does he resolve it. He can ask his priest but then the priest cannot guarantee that his interpretation is right. Neither can an individual bishop. How often do people complain about liberal priests or bishops? You disagree with them but the Church keeps them in office. Do you listen to them or try to find a priest or bishop more to your taste.

How does an ordinary Catholic access the Magisterium or an infallible ruling by the Pope? You are stuck with a personal interpretation whether it is yours or someone else’s. Even where something is set out in the Catechism you must interpret how to apply it. Mortal sin is defined but individuals are constantly asking here if something is a mortal sin or even if it is a sin at all. They must interpret the definition for themselves.

What is an infallible decision. Does it require a canon from a council? How many scriptures have been infallibly interpreted by the Church? Catholics can’t seem to agree how many or even how many past papal decrees are infallible. Unless it has been infallibly established, whatever you get is someone’s personal interpretation and you must decide if you agree with it or not.

There are a couple of aspect to this. First of all is the fact that the Catholic church has published the Catechism and therefore Every Catholic has direct access to the official teachings of the Church on virtually every subject complete with the necessary footnotes to scripture and various other official church documents. If a person has a question about scripture they certainly can check in the catechism to see if the issue is addressed there. In actuality this should be the preferable method.
So - Just as every Catholic has access to the Bible, so does every catholic have access to the Catechism.
Now - If a Catholic asks a priest for advise or “interpretation” and follows said advise in good conscience, that person has commits no sin, even if the advise is bad. The Priest, on the other hand does commit a sin for giving bad teaching (if he know it is against the Church teachings as documented in the catechism.)

As to infallible decisions - Every teaching of the Catholic Church should be seen by a catholic as infallible. Even those things that have not been dogmatically declared and thus cannot be changed, should be followed as infallible. If the Church later makes some change or other, then the Faithful accept that change as the will of Christ who is the head of the Church and guides her.
Quite simple really - If you think about it.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Yet, if satifaction is not reached, couldn’t this cause a split in the faith? Isn’t this exactly what has occured time and time again, resulting in the multide of different beliefs today?

Well it did not cause splitting “time and time again” until the 16 century and then it only caused few splits - Luther. Swingli - Calvin (I’m not up on origins of all the “reformers”)
After that the Splits which occured “time and time again” were all among the various Protestants who had no authority by which to hold things together.

As to your question about “What if satisfaction is not reached…”,
Just to clarify, remember that we are talking about a situation where “I” personally believe that “someone in authority” (a priest or whatever) is teaching something against “God’s Word”, that is agianst the Teachings of The Church as expressed in Both the Bible and the Catholic Church Catachism.

I once again refer you to Mt 18:15-18.

Once a person has put a matter forward and recieved an answer from the Church it is their duty to accept that answer and submit their will in humility to Christ in His Church. This is what Christ teaches and expects of us. Not splitting apart based on our own individual interpretations.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

Actually, as the Early Church Fathers explained, and as the Church has maintained all these centuries…

husband of one wife

means that if the man was married and was worthy of elevation to bishop he was assuming awesome responsibilities. If his wife (if he had one) were to die, he should not remarry, which would limit his bishop abilities.

Nowhere does Scripture encourage or require a bishop to marry. On the contrary, we see the example of St Paul who encourages those in such authority to “be as I am…”

.

Reference, please?

Paul didn’t specify those in authority, he said he wished “all men” were as he was. Obviously, that would make for a short stay for God’s Church on earth.

Scripture DOES require a Bishop be married when it says he must have believing children, and it even gives the reasoning behind this: how will he manage the household of God, if he can’t manage his own? The church is like a family. Those without a family are ignorant of its workings, which the Catholic church’s celibate priests demonstrate for us regularly.

 

[MDK]

1 Tim. 3: 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So is it okay then that your pope marry? Or is this just for bishops in other denoms?

In the Roman Rite, priests, and subsequently Bishops don’t marry due to custom, not doctrine. This is in line with inspired author St. Paul, with complete dedication to God. Because is not doctrine that they do not marry, this could change at some point. Currently, if a man chooses to marry, then he is free to do so. He will then, not become a priest. The pope is a Bishop, is he not?

So, it is not okay in the Roman Rite to marry, out of custom. Maronite priests can marry. It has nothing to do with defined doctrine of God’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[MDK]

If a Catholic has a question of interpretation, how does he resolve it. He can ask his priest but then the priest cannot guarantee that his interpretation is right. Neither can an individual bishop. How often do people complain about liberal priests or bishops? You disagree with them but the Church keeps them in office. Do you listen to them or try to find a priest or bishop more to your taste.

How does an ordinary Catholic access the Magisterium or an infallible ruling by the Pope? You are stuck with a personal interpretation whether it is yours or someone else’s. Even where something is set out in the Catechism you must interpret how to apply it. Mortal sin is defined but individuals are constantly asking here if something is a mortal sin or even if it is a sin at all. They must interpret the definition for themselves.

What is an infallible decision. Does it require a canon from a council? How many scriptures have been infallibly interpreted by the Church? Catholics can’t seem to agree how many or even how many past papal decrees are infallible. Unless it has been infallibly established, whatever you get is someone’s personal interpretation and you must decide if you agree with it or not.

Your comparison is not legitimate.

For instance, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was ever virgin, before conception of Christ, during the Birth of Christ, and after the birth of Christ. In other words, Mary’s one and only Child was the Savior of the World, Jesus the Christ. I think most people have the capacity to understand the phrase “Mary’s one and only Child is Christ.” One doesn’t need to understand all the theological significance of this at that instant, but should study.

When a Protestant says Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, as in Mary and Joseph had children together, the faithful Catholic knows enough to say “this is not true… it is a false and man made distortion of reality.” Do they know every theological aspect of this? Probably not. However, that is why we learn about these things, and it requires study.

On the other hand, the Protestant when hearing that Mary had other children, says “yep, makes sense… I read it literalistically myself… the Bible says so!” This despite the use of the word meant close relation, and not literal brother or sister in these Scripture passages… and despite if one counted, Mary would have had over 80 children, applying the Protestant definition.

The Catholic who keeps with the Catholic truths should not be led astray. The Protestant, on the other hand, will easily be led astray, because they are their own final interpreter simply from misusing God’s gift of free will and not by God’s revealed plan for His Church, thereby deciding themselves what God said, rather than listening to those God sent with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, your comparison is not legitimate. The Catholic Church takes the Bible as a whole, to understand true teacings… Catholics don’t even need the Bible, though. The Church taught for 10 years or so after the resurrection of Christ without any Scriptures. The Church taught for about 350 years without collecting the inspired Scriptures into the Bible. The Bible is a Catholic book, written by Catholics in the context of Catholicism for Catholics. Scriptures only make proper sense in the context of Catholicism. The truths of Scriptures are protected by Catholic teachings. It was intended that all followers of Christ be in His Catholic Church.

Protestants come along and take our book, out of the context of Catholicism, away from the understandings of Scriptures and the teachings taught by the Apostles and those with organic link to them via laying on of hands, and the Protestants decide for themeselves what the Catholic Scriptures mean… then tell the author and keeper of the truth, that they are wrong…

What I have told you is in line with reality. Do you see what is wrong with Protestantism? It will lead the practitioner astray. Often, pride preceeds Protestantism and/or pride proceeds from practicing Protestantism, in a lack of humility and desire to tell God what He said, instead of listening to what God said.

 

[MrS]

Reference, please?

Paul didn’t specify those in authority, he said he wished “all men” were as he was. Obviously, that would make for a short stay for God’s Church on earth.

Scripture DOES require a Bishop be married when it says he must have believing children, and it even gives the reasoning behind this: how will he manage the household of God, if he can’t manage his own? The church is like a family. Those without a family are ignorant of its workings, which the Catholic church’s celibate priests demonstrate for us regularly.

I too wish all men were like St Paul… ONE vocation, not two, each of which requires a full time 100% dedication.

Sure you can have other interests, but a vocation, a calling, is much more than that.

.

 

[MDK]

Reference, please?

Paul didn’t specify those in authority, he said he wished “all men” were as he was. Obviously, that would make for a short stay for God’s Church on earth.

Scripture DOES require a Bishop be married when it says he must have believing children, and it even gives the reasoning behind this: how will he manage the household of God, if he can’t manage his own? The church is like a family. Those without a family are ignorant of its workings, which the Catholic church’s celibate priests demonstrate for us regularly.

The Bible doesn’t teach it’s own truths, and so can be and is often distorted by those who out of ignorance,twist the meaning of Scriptures to their own destruction.

Scriptures absolutely do not require the Bishop to be married, and so neither require them to have children of their own blood. The Apostles didn’t believe as you have interpreted on your own, outside of the context of truth. The only Apostle I’m aware of who had been married was Peter, and it’s likely he was a widower when following Christ. The meaning is that he not be an adulterer. Neither does it require children. If you want to discuss children of the Bishops today, they are the sheep whom he feeds as spiritual children. Would you tell the NASA Engineers that they can’t describe how the Shuttle works, because they don’t fly it? I’ve heard some Bishops and others who are single who know quite a lot about marriage and how to counsel in God’s ways. This is what you want… to have someone who deeply knows God’s true teachings and ways, and how to apply them to our lives in our time. These are the people sent by Christ…, why do you place limits on God’s ability?

 

[JRKH]

The Bible doesn’t teach it’s own truths, and so can be and is often distorted by those who out of ignorance,twist the meaning of Scriptures to their own destruction.

Scriptures nether require the Bishop to be married, nor require children. The Apostles didn’t believe as you have interpreted on your own, outside of the context of truth. The only Apostle I’m aware of who had been married was Peter, and it’s likely he was a widower when following Christ. The meaning is that he not be an adulterer. Neither does it require children. If you want to discuss children of the Bishops today, they are the sheep whom he feeds as spiritual children. Would you tell the NASA Engineers that they can’t describe how the Shuttle works, because they don’t fly it? I’ve heard some Bishops and others who are single who know quite a lot about marriage and how to counsel in God’s ways. These are the people sent by Christ…, why do you place limits on God’s ability?

I agree - The Idea that just because a priest or Bishop hasn’t been married means they don’t know about families is ludicrous. Weren’t they born into a family? Don’t they have relations who have families? While it can be said that they don’t have first hand, day to day, knowledge of being a “head of Household” issues this also helps them to preserve their objectivity when counciling others.
How may times do we, when listening to a friend complain about their spouse or children respond with something along the lines of, “I know what you mean. My (wife/kids) do the same thing”. Then we might follow it up with sommething like, “When they do that, I just (say/do)_________”. This might be fine when talking with a friend, but it can be more difficult when you are trying to council someone and keep your own issues out of it.

In a more broad sense regarding the whole issue of celibacy in the priesthood.
I heard Fr. Corapi a while back talking about this as well as the “male only” issue.
As he explained, unmarried priests is a practice that was not always in force. Therefore, since we HAD had married priests in the past, we could have them again if the Church so decided. In fact we have a few married priests even now. Some priests who have converted from the Episcopal Church have been granted an exemption by the Holy Father to be ordained Catholic Priests while still married.
So the possibility of married prists exists. However, the Church is unlikely to change Her basic teaching of celibacy because it avoids many issues, not just in the priests being divided in their responsibilities, but also in assigning priests and supporting the families of priests.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

I too wish all men were like St Paul… ONE vocation, not two, each of which requires a full time 100% dedication.

Sure you can have other interests, but a vocation, a calling, is much more than that.

.

You obviously need more time in the Scriptures. Paul didn’t have one vocation, he was a tentmaker. He points out his refusal to accept “wages” for his work for the gospel many times. If Paul had the “right” to take along a believing wife, whether he actually did or not, then any “Priest” should have the same right.

 

[ckempston]

The Bible doesn’t teach it’s own truths, and so can be and is often distorted by those who out of ignorance,twist the meaning of Scriptures to their own destruction.

Scriptures absolutely do not require the Bishop to be married, and so neither require them to have children of their own blood. The Apostles didn’t believe as you have interpreted on your own, outside of the context of truth. The only Apostle I’m aware of who had been married was Peter, and it’s likely he was a widower when following Christ. The meaning is that he not be an adulterer. Neither does it require children. If you want to discuss children of the Bishops today, they are the sheep whom he feeds as spiritual children. Would you tell the NASA Engineers that they can’t describe how the Shuttle works, because they don’t fly it? I’ve heard some Bishops and others who are single who know quite a lot about marriage and how to counsel in God’s ways. This is what you want… to have someone who deeply knows God’s true teachings and ways, and how to apply them to our lives in our time. These are the people sent by Christ…, why do you place limits on God’s ability?

Christ’s example reveals this for the lie that it is. God himself surely understood man, better than any human can understand anything, and yet he came in the form of sinful man so that he could “sympathize with our weakness” and be “tempted in every way.” Your NASA analogy falls flat on its face.