Scripture vs Tradition

[mgrfin]

Are you saying that Jeremiah didn’t prophesy that King Jehoiachin would be taken to Babylon before it happened.

What about Joseph’s dreams? They all came true. Joseph said that he could not interpret dreams, but that God revealed the meaning to him.

Joseph wasn’t a prophet. He had a dream, and these were revelations to him.

The real prophets had as their mission (their prophetic mission) was to chastise the Jews for their infidelity. They had to insist for Israel to repent or they would be punished for their idolatry, their infidelity and their unfaithfulness

In turn, as Jesus said, “O Israel, who stones the prophets…:”
In like manner, the Jews put the Messiah to death.

Some of the prophets spoke figuratively of the Messiah, particulary Isaiah, but all of them primarily were trying to get the Jews to repent and wake up to their Covenant with God.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Joseph wasn’t a prophet. He had a dream, and these were revelations to him.

The real prophets had as their mission (their prophetic mission) was to chastise the Jews for their infidelity. They had to insist for Israel to repent or they would be punished for their idolatry, their infidelity and their unfaithfulness

In turn, as Jesus said, “O Israel, who stones the prophets…:”
In like manner, the Jews put the Messiah to death.

Some of the prophets spoke figuratively of the Messiah, particulary Isaiah, but all of them primarily were trying to get the Jews to repent and wake up to their Covenant with God.

peace

Joseph also interpreted the dreams of others correctly. He was able to tell the Pharaoh that there would be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine and that the seven years of plenty would supply enough food to get them thru the seven years of famine.

I’d say that was much more than a private revelation.

And what is your answer to Jeremiah?

What about Nathan? He told David that his son would died and David’s son died.

Micaiah warned King Ahab that he would die in battle against the Syrian army (1 Kgs 22.5-38).

Elisha? Elisha worked miracles - 2 Kings 4
Elisha announced to Hazael that he would be king (2 Kings 8:7-13). And what he would do as king (2 Kings 13)

 

[Ginger2]

Getting back to the purpose of this thread…

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

algran
Junior Member

Posts: 24
How do I answer regarding St. Catherine of Siena’s statement?

---

Dear Apologist:

…St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church.

… said, “Even if the Pope was the Devil Incarnate, I must bow before him, because he holds the Keys to the Blood.”

…Now, how do you, as a Catholic Apologist, take this quote, and how would you answer my friend, so as not to confuse him, but to drive the point home?..

Fr. Vincent Serpa Fr. Vincent Serpa is offline
Catholic Answers Apologist
St. Catherine of Siena

---

Dear Art,

St. Catherine was exaggerating to make a point. This is called “hyperbole.” She certainly did not mean to be taken literally. The importance of obeying the Vicar of Christ can be shown in many other ways. One might, for example explain the Scripture passage in which Jesus give Peter the keys with the authority to bind and loose (Mt. 16:19).

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I have two points to make using the above example:

1. Most Catholics I know would not consider Matthew 16:19 as “hyperbole”, but take it very literally.
2. St. Catherine is given a pass on her statement. But any Protestant, who might use a form of “hyperbole” is never given a pass on even the slightest exaggeration.

The first point directly deals with this thread. The second point is an observation of bias that I feel Christians should try to overcome

 

[Sean_Boyle]

1. St. Catherine is given a pass on her statement. But any Protestant, who might use a form of “hyperbole” is never given a pass on even the slightest exaggeration.

Protestants usually preach scripture alone. No slight exaggerations allowed in the scripture alone “gospel”.

In such an instance protestants are being held to their own prinicipals by others as a proof that the “scripture alone gospel” defies logic and reason.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Getting back to the purpose of this thread…

I have two points to make using the above example:

1. Most Catholics I know would not consider Matthew 16:19 as “hyperbole”, but take it very literally.
2. St. Catherine is given a pass on her statement. But any Protestant, who might use a form of “hyperbole” is never given a pass on even the slightest exaggeration.

The first point directly deals with this thread. The second point is an observation of bias that I feel Christians should try to overcome

After 145 post these are the questions that you really meant to ask at first? Consider renaming the thread and asking the questions now.

 

[Ginger2]

After 145 post these are the questions that you really meant to ask at first? Consider renaming the thread and asking the questions now.

No, but I have been asked to give specific examples and didn’t have a specific instance in mind and didn’t want to search endless threads to find examples.

But when this thread continues to move in a different direction (ie canon of Scripture) I decided it was best I search for an example to help it along.

Before today, I had never heard this quote.

However, it is fitting to my inquiry as Matthew 16:19 is what the authority of the papacy is based upon.

BTW, I tried on at least two different occasions to state that neither canon nor sola Scripture were the purpose of this thread, but that is what people want to talk about.

Others can continue to discuss the canon if they wish, but it is those who are off topic - even after I pointed it out - they are to blame for the numerous posts.

Why blame me for 145 posts when I am trying to get back to the issue? This and always was the issue.

In my first post I stated that Catholics can interpret Church teachings differently Obviously this priest understands it differently then some despite of the church teaching.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What about Nathan? He told David that his son would died and David’s son died.

Micaiah warned King Ahab that he would die in battle against the Syrian army (1 Kgs 22.5-38).

Elisha? Elisha worked miracles - 2 Kings 4
Elisha announced to Hazael that he would be king (2 Kings 8:7-13). And what he would do as king (2 Kings 13)

The Prophets MAIN purpose was to keep the Kings and the people in line. They used threats to show consequences of not obeying God. They weren’t fortune tellers.

Getting back to the purpose of this thread…

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

The importance of obeying the Vicar of Christ can be shown in many other ways. One might, for example explain the Scripture passage in which Jesus give Peter the keys with the authority to bind and loose (Mt. 16:19).

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I have two points to make using the above example:

1. Most Catholics I know would not consider Matthew 16:19 as “hyperbole”, but take it very literally.

You are mixing Point A with Point B. Point B is the Pope is the final authority in faith and morals, even if the Pope personally is a sinner, he still has been given the authority by Christ in FAITH AND MORALS.
You asked two questions, you got two answers, and now you are twisting the two answers. How about providing a link? It’s very easy to posters quotes, as you know from highlighting the answer by Father Serpa. Also, the word “might” is used as conditional, not as “maybe.” You are losing a lot of credibility on this issue alone.

Protestants usually preach scripture alone. No slight exaggerations allowed in the scripture alone “gospel”.

In such an instance protestants are being held to their own prinicipals by others as a proof that the “scripture alone gospel” defies logic and reason.

Yes.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In my first post I stated that Catholics can interpret Church teachings differently

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199193&page=10
I find your OP confusing. You are mixing interpretation of Scripture with following Church Teaching. This has been answered the 145 post reply Sean gave you.

Obviously this priest understands it differently then some despite of the church teaching

It is not obvious to me. Please explain. I don’t even understand to what you are referring, Scripture or Church Teaching.

 

[Ginger2]

I don’t even understand to what you are referring, Scripture or Church Teaching.

Then I guess I’m wasting my time and yours. Have a nice day.

If anyone wants to see the post on St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church,

please look it up yourself. It is in the Ask an Apologist section. I do not know how to find it again without simply going thru each post, which isn’t simple at all.

 

[Ginger2]

Before I leave, let me ask why people who don’t know what I’m even asking think they can tell me what I’m doing wrong.

Maybe it just seems like I am mistating things because you don’t understand.

Anyway after days of talking about everything but what I started the thread for, I am tired of going around in circles.

Just continue discussing prophets and canon.

 

[mgrfin]

In my first post I stated that Catholics can interpret Church teachings differently Obviously this priest understands it differently then some despite of the church teaching.

Ginger,

We know the tortorous trek of this tread. I’ve pointed out to you several times why, and under what errors you set this thread.

Catholics do not interprete Scripture differently when there is an issue of faith and morals at stake.

If you feel posters are off-thread, report it to the Administration. This is not your thread, although you began it (on false theses).

If you want to find a post or thread, if you know the name of a particular poster, search out all of his posts. You will get an abbreviated listing of each of the posts, but I thought you knew how to do that.

May God bless you on your way.

peace