US constitution and the bible

[PeterJohn]

Didn’t know exactly where to put this.

I was reading and article on a summary of the reformation and it dawned on me. The bible is like the constitution of the US of A in that it lays down a basic set of rules or guidelines, sometimes in the form of examples, and sometimes in what we Catholics would consider theology in its infantcy as far as the developed “why”.

My point here is that just as we can see today, in the USA, people are attempting to redefine what the constitution says. Eg. Gun rights, abortion, religious liberty.
The ones defending these amendments are staying tradition, and using the traditional viewpoints of how these verses, err… I mean amendments are to be understood.

With just a book of amendments, and no George Washington still alive, they will eventually be eroded and amended by due process.

The Catholic Church on the other hand has Sacred tradition, the magesterium, and the bible. And we still have St. Peter err… His successor the Pope. Am I not seeing this rightly? Show me how this analogy would fail.

God bless.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My point here is that just as we can see today, in the USA, people are attempting to redefine what the constitution says. Eg. Gun rights, abortion, religious liberty. …]
The Catholic Church on the other hand has Sacred tradition, the magesterium, and the bible. And we still have St. Peter err… His successor the Pope. Am I not seeing this rightly? Show me how this analogy would fail.

My understanding is that in Catholicism that when the pope speaks ex cathedra (is that the right phrase?) that his words are then considered infallible. By contrast the USA Constitution is not considered an infallible document. What we classically know of as the USA Constitution wasn’t the first version. It was preceded by the articles of the confederacy. Even when we know what was meant when something was included/added to the constitution our understanding of it doesn’t dictate whether or not it will stick around (ex:three-fifth’s compromise). Also due to popular support and the problems caused by trying to enforce the 18th amendment it was repealed. I’m not sure there’s an analogy to that in Catholicism.

But then again, analogous relationships are not perfect isomorphisms. There’s usually going to be some differences.

 

[JaKael02]

I don’t think their is a perfect analogy either.

Bible = Constitution
Magisterium = Supreme Court
Pope <> President
S. Tradition <> (no analogy here)

The early fathers of the constitution made it clear that as a nation, we must possess Christian values. Without Christian values, our nation will turn to tyranny. As we see occurring now. Some would argue we already experience a subtle-democratic tyranny form of government.

Kindly - james

 

[D_Martin]

Didn’t know exactly where to put this.

I was reading and article on a summary of the reformation and it dawned on me. The bible is like the constitution of the US of A in that it lays down a basic set of rules or guidelines, sometimes in the form of examples, and sometimes in what we Catholics would consider theology in its infantcy as far as the developed “why”.

My point here is that just as we can see today, in the USA, people are attempting to redefine what the constitution says. Eg. Gun rights, abortion, religious liberty.
The ones defending these amendments are staying tradition, and using the traditional viewpoints of how these verses, err… I mean amendments are to be understood.

With just a book of amendments, and no George Washington still alive, they will eventually be eroded and amended by due process.

The Catholic Church on the other hand has Sacred tradition, the magesterium, and the bible. And we still have St. Peter err… His successor the Pope. Am I not seeing this rightly? Show me how this analogy would fail.

God bless.

The US Constitution is an agreement between a people and its government, which is being carried out according to the agreement, amendments (changes) are allowed, if certain conditions are met. Which is part of the agreement. Many who think to change the mind of congressmen make the mistake that it is the mind set of the people that needs to change before a congressman will respond.

In the case of the Bible the Torah is the old agreement (Old Testament) that Jesus Christ fulfilled to God the Father’s Satisfaction. In whom is now the new agreement which is truly the fulfillment of the old. Noah did and followed in agreement with the Lord God, so did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So did the Israelites in the days of Moses, the Lord God specifically made the Children of Israel to agree, before many things happened. And no man was found who could fulfill the agreement to the Lord God’s satisfaction, until Jesus came into the world. So the only thing that has changed in this case is, Jesus fulfilled what wasn’t fulfilled before, and in Him is the agreement between God (Creator and Judge) and mankind.

---

(I disagree with your signature there, the Church or Churches belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, if they belong to anyone else, then they are in the wrong hands.)

 

[Love4All]

I think the Constitution and the Bible are similar in the respect that both are accepted as binding for all time. The way the Constitution is treated in U.S. Law is similar in a way and different in a way from the way the Bible is treated in Christianity.

The Constitution can be amended, and the Bible can’t, that is one difference. The Supreme Court is established in the Constitution as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, and the Magisterium is established in Scripture as the final arbiter of the meaning of Scripture, although Protestants disagree. That is one similarity.

In the United States, the Constitution provides the blueprint for the form of government, and one branch of that government, the Supreme Court, interprets the Constitution, while another, Congress, has the power to amend it.

In the Church, the Bible is divided into Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament establishes the scenario into which the Son of God was born, lived, and died as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, whereas the New Testament provides an account of His life, death, resurrection, and establishment of His Church, which has the power of interpreting Scripture but not the power to amend it.

 

[D_Martin]

In the Church, the Bible is divided into Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament establishes the scenario into which the Son of God was born, lived, and died as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, whereas the New Testament provides an account of His life, death, resurrection, and establishment of His Church, which has the power of interpreting Scripture but not the power to amend it.

Since Jesus is the fulfillment of scripture, then what need is there for interpretation? Jesus is the interpretation, because it is ordained by God the Father that there is no other Way.

 

[Love4All]

Since Jesus is the fulfillment of scripture, then what need is there for interpretation? Jesus is the interpretation, because it is ordained by God the Father that there is no other Way.

Ah! That must be why there is no dispute among Christians regarding the interpretation of Scripture! God’s Church is visibly One, throughout the world. Everyone glorying in the Name, “Christian,” breaks bread together and agrees on every point of doctrine. God’s Church is, indeed, “of one mind and one heart,” just as Scripture says.

Or, is the reality different from that?

It is an interesting question, and it depends on your perspective. In particular, it depends on whether you consider a heretic to be a Christian, or not. If not, then the above paragraph describes the actuality of the world, except for the part about "glorying in the Name, ‘Christian.’ "

 

[D_Martin]

Ah! That must be why there is no dispute among Christians regarding the interpretation of Scripture! God’s Church is visibly One, throughout the world. Everyone glorying in the Name, “Christian,” breaks bread together and agrees on every point of doctrine. God’s Church is, indeed, “of one mind and one heart,” just as Scripture says.

Or, is the reality different from that?

It is an interesting question, and it depends on your perspective. In particular, it depends on whether you consider a heretic to be a Christian, or not. If not, then the above paragraph describes the actuality of the world, except for the part about "glorying in the Name, ‘Christian.’ "

Actually I was wondering how to explain the statement, but you just showed me how.

The delusion is, when it comes to the Church or Christian community as a whole, is they believe that others are required to agree with them, or in your description, agree with their interpretation, but in the Kingdom of Heaven all will agree with the Lord Jesus Christ King in the Kingdom of Heaven who is the interpretation, otherwise they are not there at all. So, any group of people that call themselves a church the calls itself Christian thinks that their interpretation is the authority is incorrect, because the only interpretation that is the authority is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His resurrection proved it. So your reference to scripture saying “of one mind and one heart” is true because there are those who call themselves Christian and there are those who are called of the Lord. Those who are called of the Lord are in agreement with the Lord already. Seeking the mind of Christ with the same law written on their hearts.

 

[Love4All]

Actually I was wondering how to explain the statement, but you just showed me how.

The delusion is, when it comes to the Church or Christian community as a whole, is they believe that others are required to agree with them, or in your description, agree with their interpretation, but in the Kingdom of Heaven all will agree with the Lord Jesus Christ King in the Kingdom of Heaven who is the interpretation, otherwise they are not there at all. So, any group of people that call themselves a church the calls itself Christian thinks that their interpretation is the authority is incorrect, because the only interpretation that is the authority is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His resurrection proved it. So your reference to scripture saying “of one mind and one heart” is true because there are those who call themselves Christian and there are those who are called of the Lord. Those who are called of the Lord are in agreement with the Lord already. Seeking the mind of Christ with the same law written on their hearts.

What do you make of the words, “Take and eat, for This is My Body.”?

 

[D_Martin]

What do you make of the words, “Take and eat, for This is My Body.”?

Why? I though this was about “US constitution and the bible”. If one wants to talk about the Body and Blood of Christ, or to use the Catholic term Eucharist, shouldn’t one start or find a thread on the subject?

Besides its not my job to make anything of what the Lord says. It is the Lord who fulfills His Word.

 

[Love4All]

Why?

It goes to the question of authoritative interpretation. It also goes to the question of the Mind of Christ. You stated that the agreement of Christians in one mind and heart is in the Lord Jesus Christ. Well what does He think about His own words? Shouldn’t His Church know?

I though this was about “US constitution and the bible”. If one wants to talk about the Body and Blood of Christ, or to use the Catholic term Eucharist, shouldn’t one start or find a thread on the subject?

Would you like to move our discussion to another thread, or would you rather not discuss this?

Besides its not my job to make anything of what the Lord says. It is the Lord who fulfills His Word.

Well, He says differently. He says,

Matthew 7:24 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”