since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[PRmerger]

Applying multiple meanings to what scripture states is adding, taking away from and exceeding what is written.

Scripture is the Inspired Word of God but it does not carrying multiple upon multiple different meanings. God’s Word is truth, not what we choose it to be.

Actually, Magdalena, I must gently correct you on this. Scripture does indeed contain multiple meanings, sometimes in a single verse. Our Catholic faith does not limit each verse to have only 1 meaning.

As our Catechism states:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism. (Cor 10:2)
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”. (1 Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3:1-4:11)
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.(Rev 21:1-22:5) scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#116

And all those senses can be just from 1 verse!

 

[Magdalena59]

Actually, Magdalena, I must gently correct you on this. Scripture does indeed contain multiple meanings, sometimes in a single verse. Our Catholic faith does not limit each verse to have only 1 meaning.

As our Catechism states:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism. (Cor 10:2)
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”. (1 Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3:1-4:11)
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.(Rev 21:1-22:5) scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#116

And all those senses can be just from 1 verse!

Good point. Maybe I should have said many different interpretations.

 

[wmscott]

I have seen statement like “Scripture alone is sufficient pertaining to Christian doctrines & beliefs, since Scripture teaches not to “add to,” nor “take away from,” nor “exceed what is written” from the written”, or any number of various versions of this statement. If this was true then as Christians how do we deal with human cloning or stem cell research? Those are not called out in the Bible as being evil or toe be avoided. To preach against it them would be adding to scripture.

 

[benhur]

Your humor notwithstanding, please take note of this addition you have made to Scripture.

And it is not a trivial addition you have made.

Knowing whether the NT canon has 27 books, 32, or 17 is of great import.

And you know this NOT from the Bible.

You get your info from men.

I hope you consider this next time you claim that you believe in the Bible Alone as your sole rule of faith.

Never sole norm but final norm yes. Thank you ecclesia.

 

[PRmerger]

Never sole norm but final norm yes. Thank you ecclesia.

So not Bible Alone.

You take the word of men.

And unless you believe these men errred, you believe they were infallible in this decision.

So not only are you not a Bible Alone advocate, you are also a believer that men have been given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the 27 book canon of the NT.

 

[benhur]

You can’t separate Christ from His Church or those he chooses to lead us. If you follow Peter, (Matthew 16: 18-19 And I tell you, you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven), you are following Christ.

Agree, if you follow Peter you are foundationally ok, even if you do as Paul does you are foundationally ok. To me Christ is the Rock, the Cornerstone and the apostles a sure foundation( Rev.). I understand CC has Christ and Peter as the Rock, (Peter in quote is Rock)

I did mean the individual believer.

Yes and you also mentioned ministries.

Humble himself and realize that he doesn’t have all the answers and that there is a place that Jesus gave to us that does have the answers, that is led by the Holy Spirit into that truth.

A bunch of that (HS answers) in C and O and P churches.

You’ll have to explain that part a little better about the weak and the strong because I don’t see that in that parable.

The parable was yours I think. Before that I made the comment that the Church has wheat and tares, strong and weak brethren, mature and immature brethren. That makes up the ecclesia, an imperfect one yet somehow “perfect”. Unity must loosely be defined, if not you start cutting brethren out. That is how I see the OT Israel, the counterpart of NT Church.

Many scriptural arguments come because one person or another person believes that their interpretation of the scripture is right and the other person is wrong. As an ex-protestant I have seen this many times. I have seen many arguments and insults over scripture interpretation.

I have not seen too many insults, but certainly passionate utterances. Reminds me of the Franciscans and the Dominicans who for over a century argued over Mary’s Immaculateness, even anathemizing each other. (I think it was these two orders and I think over that doctrine, which had not been declared dogma yet, centuries ago)

Also that is many times what causes one to leave the Catholic church. They believe they know more or better than what God revealed to the Church, as they did in the OT when they complained about Moses being the one they had to listen to. These things lead to sin.

Agreed, though not sure I have ever met one of these ex Catholics. I have met many who simply stop going to church (not out of pride or disagreement) , and later become P’s.

*James 3:16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice. *

I am sorry but I see a lot of this when reading papal history. There are two thousand years of this history, so take with a grain of salt as to what a lot is ( another words, some good stuff too). Never read much of O history . I am sure there is some of this in P history also.

Now where in the NT does Jesus say He is giving us a book to interpret but He said He was giving us a Church.

Well the bible is to set the record straight amongst other things. All things are to be interpreted correctly, Scripture and Tradition.

Jesus is the Word, who gave us His Church and that includes the Bible and Tradition.

Yep. Writ is more sure footed and why Tradition had to be sure footed when discerning and proclaiming Writ

Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.

Amen

In John 17, Jesus prayed for unity. Divisions are not unity

Agreed but this is where we started, where I qualified what unity was, as in OT and should be in NT. We are not equally strong, mature with equal convictions and practices but never the less, His prayer calls for unity , despite differences. Or does He pray that all brethren have equal strength, maturity, convictions and practices ?

 

[benhur]

So not Bible Alone.

You take the word of men.

And unless you believe these men errred, you believe they were infallible in this decision.

So not only are you not a Bible Alone advocate, you are also a believer that men have been given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the 27 book canon of the NT.

Actually that is another topic. Many say scripture is infallible in its writing, and in canonizing and some even for some translations. Some say scripture is infallible but which books and translations is not infallible.

All I will say for now is I am not a literal “bible alone” advocate, unless you mean as final norm.

I do not deny Tradition that gave us that Writ.

I do not deny that Writ partly testifies of itself directly,in writing (some books,many books)

I do not deny the Writ (many books) still testifies of itself (via Holy Spirit) to magisteriums and individuals today, as it did from day one of reading and canonizing.

I do not denying taking the word of men, with the caveat of Jesus being the first man I trust.

I even trust in you PR, sometimes, especially when the Lord is speaking/posting thru you.

 

[benhur]

I have seen statement like “Scripture alone is sufficient pertaining to Christian doctrines & beliefs, since Scripture teaches not to “add to,” nor “take away from,” nor “exceed what is written” from the written”, or any number of various versions of this statement. If this was true then as Christians how do we deal with human cloning or stem cell research? Those are not called out in the Bible as being evil or toe be avoided. To preach against it them would be adding to scripture.

Well, making an ex cathedra statement might be adding. But preaching one way or another , like do we eat meats offered unto idols , is not adding to scripture, but allowing unity in disunity.

I am sure we can always find something that scripture doesn’t cover and declare the legitimacy of an equal authority to Writ. Still, it reminds me of those who condone something because of justifying rarities ( like rape for abortionists, or no prayer in school because of one atheist or non christian- not so rare today but certainly rare in 1963).

 

[Magdalena59]

Ihave not seen too many insults, but certainly passionate utterances. Reminds me of the Franciscans and the Dominicans who for over a century argued over Mary’s Immaculateness, even anathemizing each other. (I think it was these two orders and I think over that doctrine, which had not been declared dogma yet, centuries ago) …

I am sorry but I see a lot of this when reading papal history. There are two thousand years of this history, so take with a grain of salt as to what a lot is ( another words, some good stuff too). Never read much of O history . I am sure there is some of this in P history also.
Well the bible is to set the record straight amongst other things.

I think I will just focus on these comments here in regards to disagreements in interpretations and arguments throughout history. Yes, there are disagreements. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants all have disagreements. We are all human and we all get our own ideas but the bottom line still comes back to one question. Who settles and where does the argument get settled? Where is the visible Church found that is that pillar and foundation of truth?

I do agree that the Holy Spirit is found in protestant and Orthodox Churches also and all have some truth, yes, but where is the visible Church Christ talks about that has the fullness of truth and settles the matter?

 

[benhur]

I think I will just focus on these comments here in regards to disagreements in interpretations and arguments throughout history. Yes, there are disagreements. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants all have disagreements. We are all human and we all get our own ideas but the bottom line still comes back to one question. Who settles and where does the argument get settled? Where is the visible Church found that is that pillar and foundation of truth?

I do agree that the Holy Spirit is found in protestant and Orthodox Churches also and all have some truth, yes, but where is the visible Church Christ talks about that has the fullness of truth and settles the matter?

Seems like you almost answered your own question.

Yet an outsider may ask who can settle the matter of differences between all Christendom,( CC,O and P’s) ?

Do you need fullness of truth for very single argument ?

Do not O’s and P’s settle some arguments ?

The CC is limited also and does not settle very argument (interpretation) and certainly not right away though claiming fullness of truth.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur said:

For sure, 3000 souls had the ultimate sin forgiven because of one powerful, “key” speech .

---

I replied:

Actually it was not a “speech” that they received forgiveness.

---

Benhur stated:

Yes, I thought of all this Holic and realized the possible ongoing discussion.

---

Sorry about that benhur. It sounds as if I am pointing out to YOU that they weren’t saved by a “speech”. I wasn’t or at least the saved by “a speech” part was not directed at you.

I’ve read enough of your other posts to know YOU weren’t thinking that.

I was merely trying to clarify as there are readers here, who don’t join in the discussion (“lurkers”) that MAY not know this.

You of course DO know this, and you were using it as an expressive “springboard” for another area (in this case Confession).

Clumsy of me to word it that way and again, my apologies.

 

[Magdalena59]

Yet an outsider may ask who can settle the matter of differences between all Christendom,( CC,O and P’s) ?

Do you need fullness of truth for very single argument ?

Do not O’s and P’s settle some arguments ?

The CC is limited also and does not settle very argument (interpretation) and certainly not right away though claiming fullness of truth.

That is what I am asking you. Where would you seek the visible Church, that Christ gave us that is that pillar and foundation of truth, where one would seek out answers for the disputes in all of Christendom? Christ said he would build one. He said that is where to go for solutions and is where truth is found?

Wouldn’t you agree that knowing the fullness of truth is very important since not knowing it and being misinformed would cause a soul to be lost eternally?

God bless.

 

[wmscott]

Well, making an ex cathedra statement might be adding. But preaching one way or another , like do we eat meats offered unto idols , is not adding to scripture, but allowing unity in disunity.

I am sure we can always find something that scripture doesn’t cover and declare the legitimacy of an equal authority to Writ. Still, it reminds me of those who condone something because of justifying rarities ( like rape for abortionists, or no prayer in school because of one atheist or non christian- not so rare today but certainly rare in 1963).

So what does ex cathedra mean to you?

To me it is as defined as such “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent)

I bolded the one item above to illustrate that it is not about adding or taking away from Scripture.

I guess my point is that the Catholic Church gets accused of adding and taking away from Scripture so much, yet some non-Catholic faiths do the same to fit their view of theology. Take for example OSAS, the faith traditions that preach this say that it can be derived for Scripture, yet when the Catholic Church proclaims the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother we get accused of adding to Scripture.

the “It’s OK for me to “add” or define doctrine based on Scripture but not for you” type of arguments that leads to a double standard. I am not saying that this is the case in every discussion; I am only directing my thoughts about this towards to the ones who do “add” to Scripture by putting forth something that is not “specifically” by exact words spelled out in Scripture and then attack the Catholic Church for Her doctrines and accuse Her of adding to Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess my point is that the Catholic Church gets accused of adding and taking away from Scripture so much, yet some non-Catholic faiths do the same to fit their view of theology. Take for example OSAS, the faith traditions that preach this say that it can be derived for Scripture, yet when the Catholic Church proclaims the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother we get accused of adding to Scripture.

the “It’s OK for me to “add” or define doctrine based on Scripture but not for you” type of arguments that leads to a double standard. I am not saying that this is the case in every discussion; I am only directing my thoughts about this towards to the ones who do “add” to Scripture by putting forth something that is not “specifically” by exact words spelled out in Scripture and then attack the Catholic Church for Her doctrines and accuse Her of adding to Scripture.

Egg-zactly.

 

[PRmerger]

the “It’s OK for me to “add” or define doctrine based on Scripture but not for you” type of arguments that leads to a double standard.

I would add that there’s also a double standard when it comes to how to apply teachings when Scripture is silent.

When Scripture is silent for a behavior/teaching/belief that some folks think is fine, the mantra is, “Well, Scripture doesn’t say I can’t do (or believe) this, so it’s fine!”.

But if there’s a behavior/teaching/belief that they think is wrong, the mantra is, “Scripture doesn’t teach this, so you can’t do (or believe) this.”

 

[wmscott]

I would add that there’s also a double standard when it comes to how to apply teachings when Scripture is silent.

When Scripture is silent for a behavior/teaching/belief that some folks think is fine, the mantra is, “Well, Scripture doesn’t say I can’t do (or believe) this, so it’s fine!”.

But if there’s a behavior/teaching/belief that they think is wrong, the mantra is, “Scripture doesn’t teach this, so you can’t do (or believe) this.”

Absolutely I’m on the same page with you.

 

[PRmerger]

the 27 book canon of the NT contains NO ERRORS NOR CONTRADICTIONS,

When you say this, taz, you assume that you have already received the Word of God somehow.

How is it that you received this?

And if your position is that you read each of the over 400 ancient Christian texts to discern if they have errors, does that mean you have to reject 1 John?

For the author says this: I am writing to you, **fathers, **because you know Him who has been from the beginning. –1 John 2:13

But the Gospel of Matthew says to “call no man father”.

Using your paradigm you would have to exclude, what…1 John? Or would you exclude Matthew?

 

[benhur]

Clumsy of me to word it that way and again, my apologies.

No apology needed.It is another discussion .I feel there sins were forgiven by the speech, or were converted by it, born of the spirit. for faith cometh by hearing . They then gladly were water baptized. Again, it is the question if we are saved by faith requiring the righteous work of baptism. And for lurkers , I would post that if they believe , they should get baptized,gladly, because they have already been regenerated and washed by the Word.

So both views have been posted, washed by the Word or washed with that but after baptism.

 

[benhur]

That is what I am asking you. Where would you seek the visible Church, that Christ gave us that is that pillar and foundation of truth, where one would seek out answers for the disputes in all of Christendom?

Again most of us have a congregation where we can seek help with disputes, transgressions. Most of us would say the church we are in is the church the Lord has given us, placed us in.

Christ said he would build one. He said that is where to go for solutions and is where truth is found?

Again most Catholics, like the rest of us, probably go to our presbyter/priest when in conflict with a fellow parishioner/brethren. Some then might go to a bishop. Some churches even have a centralized office/authority, like your pope, for rare cases.

Wouldn’t you agree that knowing the fullness of truth is very important since not knowing it and being misinformed would cause a soul to be lost eternally?

Agreed. “My people perish for lack of knowledge”. In the new testament He writes the Laws on our heart . Indeed the church institution must put forth the gospel of salvation IN Jesus.

God bless.

 

[clem456]

Again most of us have a congregation where we can seek help with disputes, transgressions. Most of us would say the church we are in is the church the Lord has given us, placed us in.

Please don’t misunderstand my question:
Is this a self-referential approach? (please, I am not saying selfish).
It seems to center God’s revelation on the disposition of the self, rather than on Christ’s objectively existing community.

You seem to be saying that because your congregation is where you are, God’s will has conformed to your circumstances.

I acknowledge with gratitude that I am born into a Catholic family culture. If I were born in China, I might be Buddhist and I could still be grateful. While I should be grateful in any circumstance for my present condition, I cannot say that God has conformed his wishes to my condition.