The Bible is a “Catholic Book”

[SyCarl]

I have not read this entire thread so please excuse me if I am repeating something that has already been said.

Ultimately everything we believe must come down to a private interpretation or decision of some kind.

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals, but why do you believe that? What infallible authority do you have for that belief? Don’t start quoting verses from the Bible because according to the Catholic argument we cannot have the Bible until we previously have the authority of the Church to tell us what the Bible is. So relying on the Bible to establish the Church’s authority would be no better than me writing on a piece of paper that I am the King of England and then using that paper to prove I am. Even if you could use Scripture, would that not involve your private interpretation that what the Church claims Scripture says is the right interpretation?

Tradition doesn’t help because we can’t know what is valid Tradition until we know the Church has authority to tell us what that Tradition is.

The Church can’t confirm its own infallibility until we know that the Church has the authority it claims.

If there is some infallible source, apart from the Church, then accepting the authority of the Church would be your private interpretation of that source.

So how do you know that the Catholic Church is infallible and how do you do so without private interpretation of something?

 

[justasking4]

I have not read this entire thread so please excuse me if I am repeating something that has already been said.

Ultimately everything we believe must come down to a private interpretation or decision of some kind.

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals, but why do you believe that? What infallible authority do you have for that belief? Don’t start quoting verses from the Bible because according to the Catholic argument we cannot have the Bible until we previously have the authority of the Church to tell us what the Bible is. So relying on the Bible to establish the Church’s authority would be no better than me writing on a piece of paper that I am the King of England and then using that paper to prove I am. Even if you could use Scripture, would that not involve your private interpretation that what the Church claims Scripture says is the right interpretation?

Tradition doesn’t help because we can’t know what is valid Tradition until we know the Church has authority to tell us what that Tradition is.

The Church can’t confirm its own infallibility until we know that the Church has the authority it claims.

If there is some infallible source, apart from the Church, then accepting the authority of the Church would be your private interpretation of that source.

So how do you know that the Catholic Church is infallible and how do you do so without private interpretation of something?

Great post.

 

[RobGentner]

JustAsking4:

Great Post.

Hi JustAsking4The100thTime,

Great Post? Great Post? GREAT POST? Hahahaha, T1T, Will you stop joking!!S omeone may believe you! I knew you were joking! It was so easy, Calling that "Babbling" great hahaha!:bounce: But please be careful, some people may not realize what a Great sense of humor you have. Great Post! Yea, Right! hahaha

SyCarl’s entire post was circular logic, My dear! You are smart so you should have known that! Exactly what was the GREAT POST remark about? Are you dating SyCal???

For my friend SyCarl, and others who may also be ignorant:

In logic, Circular Logic traditionally describes a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises being offered.

Circular Logic is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. None of which makes sense to logical people. :whacky: The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book “Prior Analytics” The Vatican has a copy.

SyCarl’s illogical argument rests soley on his premises which are as questionable as the conclusion. However JA4, hoping that you may actually agree with SyCarl. :bigyikes: Let me ask you a couple of questions:
“Ultimately everything we believe must come down to a private interpretation or decision of some kind” :bigyikes:
Doesn’t this make us all gods? If not, why not? Don’t use the bible! Sy says it isn’t authenticated! He should know he told himself that!
Next question = ( I really hope you say “YES” to this one.) “Don’t start quoting verses from the Bible because according to the Catholic argument we cannot have the Bible until we previously have the authority of the Church to tell us what the Bible is.” Does this mean Protestants** can never **quote scripture again? (Please say yes!! Please!)

Remember: JA4T1T, You should never try to have a battle of wit possessing only half the ammo! Catholics never do!

Both of you are loved. :hug3:

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl’s entire post was circular logic, My dear! You are smart so you should have known that! Exactly what was the GREAT POST remark about? Are you dating SyCal???

For my friend SyCarl, and others who may also be ignorant:

In logic, Circular Logic traditionally describes a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises being offered.

Circular Logic is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. None of which makes sense to logical people. :whacky: The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book “Prior Analytics” The Vatican has a copy.

SyCarl’s illogical argument rests soley on his premises which are as questionable as the conclusion. However JA4, hoping that you may actually agree with SyCarl.

To simplify my question, how do you know that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims without relying on private interpretation of some source that itself depends on the authority of the Catholic Church?

 

[RobGentner]

To simplify my question, how do you know that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims without relying on private interpretation of some source that itself depends on the authority of the Catholic Church?

Hi SyCarl, :tiphat:

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit, look who thinks he knows what he is talking about!

See, Now you made it easy ~ JESUS TOLD US!

How do we know ~ FAITH!

Why didn;'t you answer the two questions I asked JA4? To espress beliefs like you appear to, the religion youwould be practicing is called Atheism. All religion is from Faith. Except Atheism, or perhaps they need the most faith to not belive in Almighty God. Lucky for them God believes in them or they wouldn’t exist!:dancing:

“Religion is organized to satisfy and guide the soul - politics does the same thing for the body. .”-- Joyce Cary

“Protestant religions are like Obama supporters. They have the right idea, just the wrong team”-- Rob Gentner

God Bless

Go and sin no more

 

[SyCarl]

Hi SyCarl, :tiphat:

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit, look who thinks he knows what he is talking about!

See, Now you made it easy ~ JESUS TOLD US!

How do we know ~ FAITH!

“Religion is organized to satisfy and guide the soul - politics does the same thing for the body. .”-- Joyce Cary
“Protestant religions are like Obama supporters. They have the right idea, just the wrong person”-- Rob Gentner

God Bless

Go and sin no more

Well then I can say the same thing. I have faith that that the Holy Spirit guides me interpretting the essential truths set out in the Bible.

 

[RobGentner]

Well then I can say the same thing. I have faith that that the Holy Spirit guides me interpretting the essential truths set out in the Bible.

Nope,sorry :dts: He is Catholic. We had Him first! :yup: But I heard Satin is available, the Catholic church rejected him for Jesus!

Actually you can say anything you want. However, unless the CC approves it, it is only your opinion, not God’ s. Unless you believe that you might be a god?

Now a Joke My friend:

On the examination paper the Professor demanded that the students sign a form stating that they had not received any outside assistance.

Unsure of whether he should sign the form, a student stated that he had prayed for the assistance of God.

The Professor carefully studied his answer and told him, “You can sign it with a clear conscience. God did not assist you.” :bigyikes:

 

[RobGentner]

Well then I can say the same thing. I have faith that that the Holy Spirit guides me interpretting the essential truths set out in the Bible.

Hi, SyCarl,:tiphat:

Seriously, If you want to you can do that sure. However, not using the flawed type logic recently displayed. :tsktsk:
I am the first to admit that not only am I not a scriptural scholar. I am not half as smart as most of you people here.
I do appear to have uncommon sense, some people mistakenly call it common sense but it appears to be rare. Sorry my Protestant friends, education doesn’t eliminate stupity it just makes fools educated. Anyway, I don’t mind attempting to explain correct thinking to you, if that is permissable?

To do your own interpreting of Sacret Scripture, I would believe that you would have to work through these five layers:

1. The probable meaning of the writer, which has to fit in with the writer’s environment.
2. If it is an Old Testament text, the way the passage has been used and interpreted historically in Judaism.
3. The way the passage has been used and interpreted historic, by the catholic church, it being the oldest denomination.
4. How the passage is generally viewed by all Christians today realizing there might be over 33,000 different opinions on the passage.
5. The interpretation and proposed application in view of the preceding four.

You might even add some other check to ensure that carefull evaluation is conducted for proper interpretation .

For example, let’s take the example of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3.

" Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.” When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” —Exodus 3:1-4, NIV

OK Ready?

First: The Original Writer
Whoever the writer was probably intended the story at face value. Moses saw a bush that was on fire, but not consumed by the fire, and God spoke to him out of the bush.

Second: Ancient Jewish Interpretation
At the time of the New Testament, Jewish scholars reasoned that since the Lord does not have human form, any theophanies (that is, personal appearances of the Lord) in the Old Testament as the Angel of the Lord. Acts 7:30 reflects this. It is also important to trace how Jewish interpretation has changed over the years in reaction to Christian interpretation, but that doesn’t apply to this example. However, it does apply to Messianic passages that were considered Messianic by Jews until Christians made strong use of them.

Third: The Ancient Church’s Interpretation
Since the catholic church of the first four centuries believed that Jesus is God in human form, they reasoned that all theophanies—all of the ‘angels of the Lord’ in the Old Testament—are preincarnate Christophanies. Thus for the them it was Jesus who spoke to Moses from the bush. We can corroborate that this was their view by looking at both historic and contemporary Orthodox interpretations of the Transfiguration, in which the disciples saw Jesus talking to Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the Prophets). They see Jesus, the Word of God, inspiring the Scriptures.
Fourth: Modern Interpretation
Who spoke to Moses?
As modern people, we have a problem with the idea that it was Jesus speaking to Moses out of the burning bush, because we live in the shadow of the holocaust and we are eager not to be anti-Semitic. We become almost temporary Jews when we read the Old Testament. We even call it the Hebrew Scriptures,which can have the unintended side effect of making the Old Testament seem in some way disconnected from Christianity. So I must ask myself: are modern efforts not to be anti-Semitic backfiring, in effect facilitating anti-Semitism by inadvertently encouraging people to think that the Jews have nothing to do with Christianity? I am in a dilemma: Failing to appropriate the passage defers to modern Jewish sensitivities, but breaks the link between Christian and Jew. Appropriating the passage affirms the link between Christian and Jew, but offends modern Jewish sensitivities.

:yawn:
END OF PART ONE
:coffeeread:

 

[RobGentner]

Hi, SyCarl,:tiphat:

PART TWO

Was there actually an objective voice?
I live, in the shadow of the holocaust, so I not only have a problem determining whose voice it is, I also have a problem believing that there was a voice at all. So the isssue is not only who spoke to Moses, but whether anyone spoke at all. If there was no voice, was Moses aware that he was mistaking his thoughts for a voice, or was he using a figure of speech?

Was there a bush, let alone a burning one?
I can even have a problem with the bush, since the account says it was on fire, but wasn’t consumed by the fire. Was there a bush, was it really on fire, or was it all a vision?

Did this really happen?
We are all familiar with campfire ghost stories that end with everyone dead. While most of us shiver with the thrill of the horror, some smart-aleck speaks up and observes that the story cannot possibly be true, because none of the witnesses survived. Are we in that sort of situation here? According to the narrative, there was no third party to witness this event; only Moses knew about it. So there are three possibilities:
First, that Moses experienced it and wrote about it. Second, that Moses had the experience, related it orally or in writing, and someone else put it in the Torah.
Third, that someone other than Moses made it up and put it in the Torah.

Is the interpreter standing in the way of the interpretation?
In science, there is a principle that you cannot observe an event without having an effect on it. It is similarly true that you can’t interpret a text without reading something of yourself into it. So you have to critique yourself. Are you under undue influence from the corrupted, things you have been taught? Bowing before the idol of empiricism in a situation where it might not apply? Are you motivated by the desire to look respectable to professionals in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, and if so, is that a valid consideration?

Of course,Noone is without their own personal context. There are controversial political and social issues that bedevil all of us at the moment—issues we might not have been aware of ten years ago, and probably even won’t care about ten years from now, even though we feel strongly about them today. If you am all worked up about a controversial issue, no matter how urgent and important you think it is, and if you feel that the passage you’re reading addresses it, you have to step back and seriously consider that you just might be the victim of your own preoccupations.
You might be projecting an issue into the text where neither God nor the ancient writer put it. For instance, when I was in grade school, some people claimed there were a lot of passages in the Bible that opposed racial integration in the school system. Today no one says that. A decade later, a lot of people found verses in the Bible that gave the Soviet Union an important role in end-times events. Today, there is no Soviet Union. The difference is not in the Bible, it is in the obsessions of the intepreters. The onl constant thing is the Catholic Church, it has been around for 2,000 years teaching the same things, year after year.

Ten years from now, when you reread your personal interpretation, you wouldn’t want discover that youI was blind to the truth of God because you were obsessed with the cares of this world.

Fifth: My Interpretation
Now if I were to exegete the passage by jumping from step one to this step, my interpretation wouldn’t be as good, not just because I didn’t show my work (as in long division on a fourth-grade math test), but because I rob myself of the benefits of thinking through steps two through four.

I conclude that it is proper to appropriate Old Testament texts in view of Jesus’ claims, since Christianity began as a Jewish sect. However, I must do that in a way that that affirms our Jewish origins with respect, but without condescension.

In the case I made, I could conclude that it really doesn’t matter if a voice spoke from the burning bush, or if Moses just thought a voice spoke to him from a burning bush, or if Moses was speaking in a metaphor, or even if there really was a burning bush! All those dips and bows to empiricism and modern psychology are not necessary, because no matter which of those explanations is correct, it all comes out to be the same thing—which is that Moses had this experience and it led him to take certain actions, whose consequences spill out into later events.

I could conclude that the event is real, not fabricated. If it is a fictional story, it contains too much gratuitous detail. This is the only time that Moses sees a burning bush or communicates to God through one. It doesn’t seem to begin or continue any symbolism, theme, or literary device. Even if the story were fictional, it has the impact of a real event, so for actually interpretive purposes the difference would be moot.

I’m not going to interpret the passage here; that was not my purpose. My purpose is only to show you the information-gathering process that must be put into self interpreting every biblical passages.

SyCarl, Wouldn’t it be easier to follow the Catholic Church? I mean Jesus’ followers do. Afterall, it being the Body of Christ, headed by Jesus, Himself, and guided by the Holy Spirit for over 2,000 years It has had time to examine, reexamine, evaluate and reevalute, test and retest every possiblity and be able to determine and provide the correct and accurate that God wants His people to have.

Seems simple to me, but then my eyes are open!

God Bless

I hope that makes it clear to you

 

[SyCarl]

RobGentner;4332604:

Hi, SyCarl,:tiphat:

PART TWO

Was there actually an objective voice?

I live, in the shadow of the holocaust, so I not only have a problem determining whose voice it is, I also have a problem believing that there was a voice at all. So the isssue is not only who spoke to Moses, but whether anyone spoke at all. If there was no voice, was Moses aware that he was mistaking his thoughts for a voice, or was he using a figure of speech?

Was there a bush, let alone a burning one?
I can even have a problem with the bush, since the account says it was on fire, but wasn’t consumed by the fire. Was there a bush, was it really on fire, or was it all a vision?

Did this really happen?
We are all familiar with campfire ghost stories that end with everyone dead. While most of us shiver with the thrill of the horror, some smart-aleck speaks up and observes that the story cannot possibly be true, because none of the witnesses survived. Are we in that sort of situation here? According to the narrative, there was no third party to witness this event; only Moses knew about it. So there are three possibilities:
First, that Moses experienced it and wrote about it. Second, that Moses had the experience, related it orally or in writing, and someone else put it in the Torah.
Third, that someone other than Moses made it up and put it in the Torah.

Is the interpreter standing in the way of the interpretation?
In science, there is a principle that you cannot observe an event without having an effect on it. It is similarly true that you can’t interpret a text without reading something of yourself into it. So you have to critique yourself. Are you under undue influence from the corrupted, things you have been taught? Bowing before the idol of empiricism in a situation where it might not apply? Are you motivated by the desire to look respectable to professionals in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, and if so, is that a valid consideration?

Of course,Noone is without their own personal context. There are controversial political and social issues that bedevil all of us at the moment—issues we might not have been aware of ten years ago, and probably even won’t care about ten years from now, even though we feel strongly about them today. If you am all worked up about a controversial issue, no matter how urgent and important you think it is, and if you feel that the passage you’re reading addresses it, you have to step back and seriously consider that you just might be the victim of your own preoccupations.
You might be projecting an issue into the text where neither God nor the ancient writer put it. For instance, when I was in grade school, some people claimed there were a lot of passages in the Bible that opposed racial integration in the school system. Today no one says that. A decade later, a lot of people found verses in the Bible that gave the Soviet Union an important role in end-times events. Today, there is no Soviet Union. The difference is not in the Bible, it is in the obsessions of the intepreters. The onl constant thing is the Catholic Church, it has been around for 2,000 years teaching the same things, year after year.

Ten years from now, when you reread your personal interpretation, you wouldn’t want discover that youI was blind to the truth of God because you were obsessed with the cares of this world.

Fifth: My Interpretation
Now if I were to exegete the passage by jumping from step one to this step, my interpretation wouldn’t be as good, not just because I didn’t show my work (as in long division on a fourth-grade math test), but because I rob myself of the benefits of thinking through steps two through four.

I conclude that it is proper to appropriate Old Testament texts in view of Jesus’ claims, since Christianity began as a Jewish sect. However, I must do that in a way that that affirms our Jewish origins with respect, but without condescension.

In the case I made, I could conclude that it really doesn’t matter if a voice spoke from the burning bush, or if Moses just thought a voice spoke to him from a burning bush, or if Moses was speaking in a metaphor, or even if there really was a burning bush! All those dips and bows to empiricism and modern psychology are not necessary, because no matter which of those explanations is correct, it all comes out to be the same thing—which is that Moses had this experience and it led him to take certain actions, whose consequences spill out into later events.

I could conclude that the event is real, not fabricated. If it is a fictional story, it contains too much gratuitous detail. This is the only time that Moses sees a burning bush or communicates to God through one. It doesn’t seem to begin or continue any symbolism, theme, or literary device. Even if the story were fictional, it has the impact of a real event, so for actually interpretive purposes the difference would be moot.

I’m not going to interpret the passage here; that was not my purpose. My purpose is only to show you the information-gathering process that must be put into self interpreting every biblical passages.

SyCarl, Wouldn’t it be easier to follow the Catholic Church? I mean Jesus’ followers do.
Seems simple to me, but then my eyes are open!

God Bless

I hope that makes it clear to you

What could be easier than cutting and pasting someone else’s work without credit?

kencollins.com/bible-i11.htm

I am afraid with this apparently dishonest approach I can not take you seriously.

 

[RobGentner]

RobGentner;4332607:

What could be easier than cutting and pasting someone else’s work without credit?

kencollins.com/bible-i11.htm

I am afraid with this apparently dishonest approach I can not take you seriously.

Hi SyCarl,:tiphat:

It wasn’t dishonest.:tsktsk: I had no need to provide my source for my posting. This isn’t a college paper. Didn’t you realize that90% of the things here are cut and pasted? Maybe higher, It isn’t dishonest. I used it as a basis and modified it. If I would have taken the entire work without modification and presented it, that wouldn’t have been correct, but still not dishonest. I was attempting to give you a way to logically interpret the Bible. You used circular logic which is like a dog chasing its own tail. Fun, but not much usefullness to it. really thing it was exactly like taking another church’s beliefs and presenting them as your own work. Modifiying them. Isn’t that the same thing? It did explain very well what had to be explained. How much time do you think is spent on these things? Most people do nothing but cut and paste. It is correct, it is logical and like the Bible and the Catholic church you dismiss it.uch: Way to go Forrest. :doh2: You can’t change what you won’t acknowledge.:hypno:

Rob:thumbsup:

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl;4332919:

Hi SyCarl,:tiphat:

It wasn’t dishonest.:tsktsk: I had no need to provide my source for my posting. This isn’t a college paper. Didn’t you realize that90% of the things here are cut and pasted? Maybe higher, It isn’t dishonest. I used it as a basis and modified it. If I would have taken the entire work without modification and presented it, that wouldn’t have been correct, but still not dishonest. I was attempting to give you a way to logically interpret the Bible. You used circular logic which is like a dog chasing its own tail. Fun, but not much usefullness to it. really thing it was exactly like taking another church’s beliefs and presenting them as your own work. Modifiying them. Isn’t that the same thing? It did explain very well what had to be explained. How much time do you think is spent on these things? Most people do nothing but cut and paste. It is correct, it is logical and like the Bible and the Catholic church you dismiss it.uch: Way to go Forrest. :doh2: You can’t change what you won’t acknowledge.:hypno:

Rob:thumbsup:

Proper ettiquette is to give your source. In this particular case the material is copyrighted and posting such is definitely against forum rules.

 

[happilycatholic]

I have not read this entire thread so please excuse me if I am repeating something that has already been said.

Ultimately everything we believe must come down to a private interpretation or decision of some kind.

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals, but why do you believe that? What infallible authority do you have for that belief? Don’t start quoting verses from the Bible because according to the Catholic argument we cannot have the Bible until we previously have the authority of the Church to tell us what the Bible is. So relying on the Bible to establish the Church’s authority would be no better than me writing on a piece of paper that I am the King of England and then using that paper to prove I am. Even if you could use Scripture, would that not involve your private interpretation that what the Church claims Scripture says is the right interpretation?

Tradition doesn’t help because we can’t know what is valid Tradition until we know the Church has authority to tell us what that Tradition is.

The Church can’t confirm its own infallibility until we know that the Church has the authority it claims.

If there is some infallible source, apart from the Church, then accepting the authority of the Church would be your private interpretation of that source.

So how do you know that the Catholic Church is infallible and how do you do so without private interpretation of something?

If you are Baptized and follow Christ then you are a follower of Christ’s Church, the same Church He promised never to leave. If you do not believe this, then Christ is wrong and His Church would not exist today. But it certainly does.

See how simple that is?

Furthermore, when you are speaking of individual interpretation you are speaking of interpretation of religious documentation I presume, so choosing your faith is not interpreting the Bible or any other religious document. You are clouding the issue.

We as catholics do as Christ instructed His Apostles to do and that is to trust in Him and His Church.

The only interpretation is whether you interpret Christ to be your Savior.

Right?

 

[Sailka]

I have not read this entire thread so please excuse me if I am repeating something that has already been said.

[SIGN]

Ultimately everything we believe must come down to a private interpretation or decision of some kind.

A few comments, factually, if that acceptable

(1) We are free to interpret privately, as long as our reading does not conflict with The Church Teaching.
(2) I believe everything Basic/Fundamental the Caholic Church has taught in 2000 years, because it has not changed anything Fundamental. Cite one example where it has in 2000 years.
(3) The Authority for infallibility of the Magesterium (Council of Bishops) and the Pope are From God himself, such as 1 Timothy 3:15, Mathew 16:18-19, and more, similar. Isn’t God a pretty good Authority?

(4) again, we SURE do not need ‘previous authority from the Church’ to quote the Bible. Who told you that? Don’t need to name names The Lord Knows!
(5) The validity of ‘Tradition’ depends on Who started it, Why, appropriate, and whether it has ‘worked’. Almost all Catholic Traditons are from the First Centuries, and have held up! And happen to be Very Inspiring. “Spiritual”, as some say, because of the Holy Spirit.

Feel free to ask examples, or give ‘false, anti’Scriptural’ examples.

HAGD, Got to prepare for Eucharistic Adoration. Give That ‘tradition’ a trial sometime, respectfully. And watch Strong Men get very humble, in One On One Presence with The Lord. His Presence, He told us about, is Universally Felt. Try that sometime. The Lord wants you to! And He is watching your mind, listening to you, Up Close, In Person.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Hi SyCarl,:tiphat:

It wasn’t dishonest.:tsktsk: I had no need to provide my source for my posting. This isn’t a college paper. Didn’t you realize that90% of the things here are cut and pasted? Maybe higher, It isn’t dishonest. I used it as a basis and modified it. If I would have taken the entire work without modification and presented it, that wouldn’t have been correct, but still not dishonest. …

CONTENT RULES
Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.
Do not change the title of posted articles.
Discussion of a controversial news event must reference at least one publicly-available news report on the subject. This can be in the form of a link, a partial quote and a link, or a posted photo (as appropriate).
Do not post others’ e-mail addresses, private messages, or private e-mail sent by them unless they give you permission to do so.
Do not post copyrighted material.
Do not post material from unapproved private revelations.
Do not post personal phone numbers and addresses.
Do not post anything that can be construed as spam.
Do not post anything that can be construed as a commercial advertisement or contains any form of commercial solicitation.
Do not post anything that you do not want to be publicly read for an extended period.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

 

[RobGentner]

CONTENT RULES
Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.
Do not change the title of posted articles.
Discussion of a controversial news event must reference at least one publicly-available news report on the subject. This can be in the form of a link, a partial quote and a link, or a posted photo (as appropriate).
Do not post others’ e-mail addresses, private messages, or private e-mail sent by them unless they give you permission to do so.
Do not post copyrighted material.
Do not post material from unapproved private revelations.
Do not post personal phone numbers and addresses.
Do not post anything that can be construed as spam.
Do not post anything that can be construed as a commercial advertisement or contains any form of commercial solicitation.
Do not post anything that you do not want to be publicly read for an extended period.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

Thank you. I actually hadn’t read that previously. I can see where certain parts of it, although subjec to interpretation are valid. As a Mod. It is your opinion that counts. Like I attempt to tell the others, We have to follow lawful authority, such as the CC. I shall try to do better, in the future.

God Bless

 

[ChristianKnight]

I think the Bible belongs to everyone, not just Catholics.

 

[RobGentner]

I think the Bible belongs to everyone, not just Catholics.

Hi Christian, :tiphat:

We are in total agreement.: bigyikes:

I also think that the Bible belongs to everyone, not just Catholics. Individual copies belong to whoever pays for them.

The Holy Scriptures, are inspired by God and must belong to everyone. We are all called to salvation through Jesus Christ.

What we may disagree on is that the correct interpretation of the various verses belongs soley to the Catholic Church.

Of course you are allowed to interpret them yourself, you can even disagree with the CCs interpretation unless it supports a matter of faith that must be believed for your salvation then the CCs interpretation is needed to be followed.

But if your personal interpretation does differ with the CC’s, then your interpretation is wrong! If your personal interpretation doesn’t support the CC teachings it is wrong!

You will ask well, how will I know if my interpretation is correct? If it is in agreement with the CC then it is absolutely correct!

The more you study various verses, and attempt to understand them, and the more information you obtain through various ancient documents the more you would come into agreement with the 2,000 year old church’s interpretations. Why, because that church authored the NT thereby explaining how the OT is fulfilled through Jesus’ teachings and death. That was actually the purpose of the NT to validate the OT through Jesus and show it’s fullfulment through His sacrifice.

Easy to understand now isn’t it?

God Bless

 

[justasking4]

RobGentner;4336206]

Hi Christian, :tiphat:

We are in total agreement.: bigyikes:

I also think that the Bible belongs to everyone, not just Catholics. Individual copies belong to whoever pays for them.

The Holy Scriptures, are inspired by God and must belong to everyone. We are all called to salvation through Jesus Christ.

What we may disagree on is that the correct interpretation of the various verses belongs soley to the Catholic Church.

Of course you are allowed to interpret them yourself, you can even disagree with the CCs interpretation unless it supports a matter of faith that must be believed for your salvation then the CCs interpretation is needed to be followed.

Is belief in the Marian doctrines necessary for salvation? Can a person still be a member of the Catholic church who rejects them?

But if your personal interpretation does differ with the CC’s, then your interpretation is wrong! If your personal interpretation doesn’t support the CC teachings it is wrong!

You will ask well, how will I know if my interpretation is correct? If it is in agreement with the CC then it is absolutely correct!

Why do assume that the CC is always correct when it teaches things against the Scriptures?

The more you study various verses, and attempt to understand them, and the more information you obtain through various ancient documents the more you would come into agreement with the 2,000 year old church’s interpretations.

If only this were true. Just take the marian doctrines, indulgences, penance, Tresurary of Merit, unmarried bishops etc and compare with the Scriptures and you have 2 different teachings. They are not in agreement on these things.

Why, because that church authored the NT thereby explaining how the OT is fulfilled through Jesus’ teachings and death. That was actually the purpose of the NT to validate the OT through Jesus and show it’s fullfulment through His sacrifice.

Easy to understand now isn’t it?

If it were easy to understand why hasn’t your church ever infallibly interpreted the Scriptures?

God Bless

 

[adrift]

Is belief in the Marian doctrines necessary for salvation? Can a person still be a member of the Catholic church who rejects them?

Why do assume that the CC is always correct when it teaches things against the Scriptures?

If only this were true. Just take the marian doctrines, indulgences, penance, Tresurary of Merit, unmarried bishops etc and compare with the Scriptures and you have 2 different teachings. They are not in agreement on these things.

If it were easy to understand why hasn’t your church ever infallibly interpreted the Scriptures?

What is not in agreement is not the Church and Scripture but your interpretation and Scripture.