So let's talk about today's readings 4/9/10

[Benadam]

Benadam,

Since you have been following the posts which consider sensus plenior for some time, you can see that without it, we would have to speculate about Peter’s motives in going fishing.

But IF <–big IF sensus plenior is real AND we interpret it correctly, then it is as authoritative as the literal and provides additional information to the literal to be used for interpretation and we are not left to speculate about it. We would consider the symbols and verify that they are true to the rest of scripture.

I have found that it resolves many such disagreements about theology, even the filioque.

If sensus plenior is real, then we have only read 1/4 of the information when we have read only the literal.

The Scriptures, describe events in history and words of prophets that all contain a kernal of eternity. Because of that, they describe or present the moment of history they were written in, and, as the moment proceeds, the Scripture proceeds with it. That characteristic of scripture, the Word that leaps down frpm heaven, eternity entering time, is the sensus plenior. Is there doubt that the sensus plenior exists?

 

[Crumpy]

y’all not speaking in English, so I’m sure what you’re saying.

At dawn, Jesus is on the shore with a fire – He is the Light of the world. He is flaming the fire ( didn’t He say that He came to set the world afire, and wished that it were already so?) to prepare for the miracle He is about to perform.

The disciples have to come to Him to recognize Him. They have to obey His word.

I heard an evagelical say that 153 represents the nations of the known world.

 

[Nita]

Benadam,

Since you have been following the posts which consider sensus plenior for some time, you can see that without it, we would have to speculate about Peter’s motives in going fishing.

I’m not sure of your definition of sensus plenior - whether it differs from what the CCC refers to as the various senses of Scripture. If it does, could you explain? Thanks.
{The Catholic Church recognizes two basic senses: the literal and the spiritual - with 3 subdivisions of the spiritual sense (namely, allegorical, moral and anagogical). For reference, see the Catechism #115-117 at the following link. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM }

Regardless, I do not think sensus plenior or the various senses of Scripture can reveal to individual readers with certainty what Peter’s motives were. It will remain speculation on our part. Judging motives is judging the heart. If God doesn’t reveal it explicitly in Scripture (or additionally for Catholics, thru an infallible teaching of His Church) it remains speculation.

But IF <–big IF sensus plenior is real AND we interpret it correctly, then it is as authoritative as the literal

Who do you mean by “we”? And what authority/who decides whether “we” have interpretted the sensus plenior correctly?
As Catholics, we accept the Pope & Magisterium as such an authority, but as a non-Catholic, who would you look to, to let you know you had interpretted it correctly?

 

[CatholicOf94]

The story of Jesus having breakfast with his Apostles after his resurrection is the most moving and intimate moment Jesus Has with his Followers-mainly Peter.
Have any of you had a time where you were in the same room with another person, probably one who you have wronged, or betrayed. You havent seen this person in a long time and you are just having a gut feeling of what they will say to you, or you to them. That’s EXACTLY how Peter and the others felt. But we need to keep in mind this was no ordinary person. This was the Christ.

But how did Peter know that ‘It was the Lord’ Calling him on the shore? The monster catch probably reminded him of how Jesus originally had called them to be His disciples: “When He had stopped speaking, He said to Simon, ‘Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.’ But Simon answered and said to Him, ‘Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word I will let down the net.’ And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking. So they signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!’ For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish which they had taken; and so also were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, 'Do not be afraid. From now on you will catch men.”

 

[CatholicOf94]

The story of Jesus having breakfast with his Apostles after his resurrection is the most moving and intimate moment Jesus Has with his Followers-mainly Peter.
Have any of you had a time where you were in the same room with another person, probably one who you have wronged, or betrayed. You havent seen this person in a long time and you are just having a gut feeling of what they will say to you, or you to them. That’s EXACTLY how Peter and the others felt. But we need to keep in mind this was no ordinary person. This was the Christ.

But how did Peter know that ‘It was the Lord’ Calling him on the shore? It was no other than John, the Apostle whom Jesus Loved. It was he who stood at the foot of the cross with Mother Mary. Behold the youngest, the ‘child’ of the Family first recognized and called out to the others saying ‘look it is the Lord’. How many Children especially teens call out to the Lord or even acknowledge him. How many of us who were like the Apostles-Hopeless, doubtful and questionable notice the Lord? Though at times we believe in him, we deny him, we run away from him, our promises to sometimes in vain. In this secular world we need a little ‘John’ to point to God and say to us ‘It is the Lord!’ The children are the shining crowns, the Glory of the Household their innocence closest to that of an angel. Therefore we must not deny them nor should we tarnish and exploit them. John Paul II of venerable memory said in 1996 “A Nation that kills its own children has no future.”
Indeed how true is this. But it doesn’t have to be physical death. Our Children starve, they hunger for love and satisfaction. They never have been shown of the true value of ‘Love’. Who is love? Love isn’t really a word, nor a small action… IT IS A PERSON! 'God who so loved the world, that he gave his only son" John 3:16.

God gave us more than what we literally think is a son. But he Gave us Love, the ultimate expression of his love for us. And we killed it. We betrayed it. No it wasn’t Judas, or Peter, or the impure Herod or the Roman soldiers. It was us who spat at him, it was us who mocked him, who laughed at him. We nailed him to that cross… We pierced his heart.
But we have Hope. it is that Same hope which rose with Jesus on the 3rd day. It is the Same hope that followed the words Jesus said to his Beloved “Peace be with you.” Now it tests us with the words ‘Do you Love me?’ The Answer is up to you.

This is from my own source: My Brian.
God bless you.

 

[CatholicOf94]

Sorry for the inconvenience, The post that is two posts up is a typo. the one above THIS post is my new revised one. Sorry.

 

[cheeto1]

No it wasn’t Judas, or Peter, or the impure Herod or the Roman soldiers. It was us who spat at him, it was us who mocked him, who laughed at him. We nailed him to that cross… We pierced his heart.

Now it tests us with the words ‘Do you Love me?’

Thank you so much for sharing these thoughts and feelings about today’s
readings. This idea that we killed Jesus is the scourge of Lent. Now you say
that inasmuch as we killed Jesus, His words to Peter are directed toward us:
“Do you love Me?” yes, and what about the next words, “feed My sheep”.
It’s like a 4th commandment. We have 1. Love God 2. Love neighbor as self
3. love one another as I have loved you and now 4. feed my sheep.

Who’s your Brian? (just kidding, I know what you mean)

 

[cheeto1]

At dawn, Jesus is on the shore with a fire – He is the Light of the world. He is flaming the fire ( didn’t He say that He came to set the world afire, and wished that it were already so?) to prepare for the miracle He is about to perform.

Hey, you’re pretty good at rc jone’s talent too. It really makes the readings interesting.

 

[cheeto1]

I’m going fishing" could possibly be viewed as a bit of an abondonment.

Is there something else you think Peter should have been doing instead?

 

[cheeto1]

I try to imagine how strong that interior desire/longing/love for Our Lord must have been within Peter ------- a grown man leaping into the water to swim because the boat couldn’t get him there fast enough. What joy it must have been for him, and the other apostles, whenever Jesus would appear to them.
Sometimes I experience a strong “heart pull” to visit Our Lord in the tabernacle, to be close to Him; but I imagine it’s only a fraction of what Peter experienced.

I know this feeling too. But I don’t compare it to this story. I compare this story
more to recognizing the mysterious presence of Christ in another person. You
know like someone being right where you need them and then they mysteriously
disappear and are never heard from again. It happened on the road to Emmaus, but
now here Jesus doesn’t disappear. Do you think maybe He would have, if Peter hadn’t
jumped into the water after Him? How many times might He have disappeared in
our life, because we weren’t as hospitable as the men going to Emmaus, or as
driven as Peter?

 

[Benadam]

Is there something else you think Peter should have been doing instead?

Cheeto, what Peter should have been doing is between him and the Lord. I don’t really see much in the story that points to what Peter should have been doing. I see possibilities that returning to what occupied his past was turning his head from his future. Apparently what he did initiated the appearance of the resurrected Christ. Which begs the question , why? Perhaps that is why. A point had been reached in the heart of Peter.

 

[rcjones]

… That characteristic of scripture, the Word that leaps down frpm heaven, eternity entering time, is the sensus plenior. Is there doubt that the sensus plenior exists?

Not in my mind, and not in the catchism of the church, however, the practice of discerning sensus plenior is not well-known and often popular typology is mistaken for being a claim of sensus plenior.

Think about it backwards. If God speaks through sensus plenior, then what he speaks is as authoritative as the literal and must be able to be discerned as clearly and unambiguously as the literal.

Regardless, I do not think sensus plenior or the various senses of Scripture can reveal to individual readers with certainty what Peter’s motives were. It will remain speculation on our part. Judging motives is judging the heart. If God doesn’t reveal it explicitly in Scripture (or additionally for Catholics, thru an infallible teaching of His Church) it remains speculation.

I am unaware that there is any doctrine saying that the Magisterium has spoken exhaustively of truth. Their silence only means that it is not an issue critical to saving faith, it does not mean that it is not true, nor mere speculation.