What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[ahimsaman72]

michaelp:

Wow! You do not give the most important and first job of interpretation to the Magisterium, but to regular lay folk? Wow! Well, I guess we are alot more alike than you think.

But here is the problem. You have an infallible Magisterium interpreting a fallible translation of the text. Now you have real problems.

Michael

What I find really odd is that Catholic theologians and scholars produce a translation of the Scriptures (such as NAB) and have the imprateur, but it is the magisterium and pope that decide faith and morals (which come from Scriptures). And what’s more odd is that people like Origen (who was one of the most intelligent theologians) was condemned for some of his beliefs that he derived from the Scriptures by the magisterium that trusted his knowledge.

If the magisterium trusts theologians and scholars with translating the Holy Scriptures, why would they think the theologians could be wrong on doctrine? Oh - because only the magisterium and pope are infallible - seems very odd - very odd indeed.

Peace…

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Is 9,000 somehow better? worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/about/denominationlist.asp

Perhaps the research’s most striking feature is a growth rate of Catholicism around the world that significantly outpaces overall global growth. During the last 50 years, global population increased by 117 percent, while the Catholic population rose by 139 percent. Catholic population in Africa, however, grew 708 percent, while the total African population increased 313 percent. In Asia, Catholic population rose 278 percent, while the overall population growth was 104 percent. The only region where Catholic population growth rates lagged begind total population growth rates was in Europe, where population increased by 58 percent, while Catholics increased by just 32 percent.
www1.georgetown.edu/explore/news/?DocumentID=379

Weblog: Adult Converts to Catholicism Up 10 Percent
Compiled by Ted Olsen | posted 4/25/00
Catholicism experiencing boom among American adults
“Nationwide, the number of adults being baptized as Catholics is up by as much as 10 percent this year, and the number of Catholic adults who were baptized as infants but who are just now receiving First Communion and being confirmed is rising slightly faster,” reports The Boston Globe. Though the article doesn’t mention specific statistics, it says many of these converts are coming from Protestantism.
christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/117/22.0.html

In Christ,
Nancy

You really need to read this article. Or read the thread that I posted about the 30000 number. It shows that Evangelical Protestant and Catholics have a simular number of denominations (although we just call them something different). Get involved over there. I would glad to clear up this misconception.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=26434

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Is 9,000 somehow better? worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/about/denominationlist.asp

Perhaps the research’s most striking feature is a growth rate of Catholicism around the world that significantly outpaces overall global growth. During the last 50 years, global population increased by 117 percent, while the Catholic population rose by 139 percent. Catholic population in Africa, however, grew 708 percent, while the total African population increased 313 percent. In Asia, Catholic population rose 278 percent, while the overall population growth was 104 percent. The only region where Catholic population growth rates lagged begind total population growth rates was in Europe, where population increased by 58 percent, while Catholics increased by just 32 percent.
www1.georgetown.edu/explore/news/?DocumentID=379

Weblog: Adult Converts to Catholicism Up 10 Percent
Compiled by Ted Olsen | posted 4/25/00
Catholicism experiencing boom among American adults
“Nationwide, the number of adults being baptized as Catholics is up by as much as 10 percent this year, and the number of Catholic adults who were baptized as infants but who are just now receiving First Communion and being confirmed is rising slightly faster,” reports The Boston Globe. Though the article doesn’t mention specific statistics, it says many of these converts are coming from Protestantism.
christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/117/22.0.html

In Christ,
Nancy

I can accept the 10% growth in converts in this nation. What I would like to see is number of converts worldwide. The stats you show (that I saw) whether these were converts worldwide or infant baptisms. If infant baptisms, that doesn’t tell us much about missionary work - which is my point. And no prot stats were shown. I will try to find the latest stats on conversions worldwide for prots. Thanks for the figures here.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

Having an “authority” to whom you can appeal does not equal truth. You can appeal to the authority, but if the authority is corrupt - what good does your appeal for assurance of error do you? This is the problem. We are the only ones responsible for our own souls - we all have individual responsibility for our own lives. I trust myself rather than a complete stranger.

Hi ahimsman72!

The corruption (bad behavior) of individuals has absolutely no effect on the truth of what they teach. A math teacher could be found to be a raping, thieving, adulterous, power hungry mass murder, but 2+2 would still equal 4.

The holy Spirit does not protect His Church leaders from bad behavior, he protects them from officially teaching error.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[MrS]

ahimsaman72:

What I find really odd is that Catholic theologians and scholars produce a translation of the Scriptures (such as NAB) and have the imprateur, but it is the magisterium and pope that decide faith and morals (which come from Scriptures). And what’s more odd is that people like Origen (who was one of the most intelligent theologians) was condemned for some of his beliefs that he derived from the Scriptures by the magisterium that trusted his knowledge.

If the magisterium trusts theologians and scholars with translating the Holy Scriptures, why would they think the theologians could be wrong on doctrine? Oh - because only the magisterium and pope are infallible - seems very odd - very odd indeed.

Peace…

Perhaps the reason you find it odd, it that you have not understood the meaning of infallibility. Origen was one man. Church Doctrine comes from one Man, the Man God Jesus Christ. It is His plan to give binding and loosing to the Pope alone, and then to the Magisterium in union with the Pope. Jesus did not ever recind this power, nor did he (name removed by moderator)ly that one man on his own would have it. Not Origen, not Thomas, not Luther, not Smith…etc etc.

Mistakes… we have more than our share. And in spite of them, and in spite of some evil bishops, and some sinful Popes, the Church has survived anyway. If we can’t destroy it from within, we have little fear of others destroying from without.

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

You really need to read this article. Or read the thread that I posted about the 30000 number. It shows that Evangelical Protestant and Catholics have a simular number of denominations (although we just call them something different). Get involved over there. I would glad to clear up this misconception.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=26434

not just the article, but the whole thread… then decide.

 

[michaelp]

How do you all respond to this. I am really interested to know:

*Wow! You do not give the most important and first job of interpretation to the Magisterium, but to regular lay folk? Wow! Well, I guess we are alot more alike than you think.

But here is the problem. You have an infallible Magisterium interpreting a fallible translation of the text. Now you have real problems.*

Michael

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

How do you all respond to this. I am really interested to know:

Michael

“we” don’t give authority. We don’t interview and hire our pastors (and fire them if need be). We don’t elevate a priest to bishop. We don’t determine who the next pope will be. Jesus gave us the format He wanted followed, and Acts show how it was in the early Church.

By the scriptural act of laying on of hands, Christ’s Apostles passed on their God given authority to the next bishop. It is the Office that is to be filled. Only the apostles selected Barnabas to succeed Judas etc. This authority has been passed on for 2000 years and never recinded.

In the middle ages politics often played a major hand in determining who would be Pope. But show me one Catholic Doctrine that has ever been recinded… or one Doctrine that has ever been proven wrong… or one Doctrine that has ever led one away from Jesus…
and either you have been misinformed…
or I need to look for the Church Jesus founded (if He started two, that ishttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif)

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

I am sorry, but you are reading things into the text to justify a theology you already have.

Read this concerning your interpretation of John to begin with and then we will move to an exegesis of Matt. (I know, you are not qualified, but since I am such a nice guy, I will walk you through it )

Here is what you have to ask yourself about Peter’s restoration? why is it recorded? What was the author’s intent with this passage?

1. 
   *]to affirm Peter as the head of the church with unquestioned authority. And that this authority was to be passed on to successors? That would be reading something into the authors intent that just cannot be found unless you place it there yourself. With this hermeneutic you can make the Scriptures say just about anything.
   *]to illustrate a basic principle that even when people fail, even to the point of weakness in denying of Christ because of outside pressure, God’s grace is there. And that God uses us in spit of our sinful past.
   
   Now which one do you believe? It can’t be both since the first is loaded with eisegesis (reading preconcieved theology into a text rather than drawing your theology from the text).

1. 
   Sigh…ssdd

 

[michaelp]

“we” don’t give authority. We don’t interview and hire our pastors (and fire them if need be). We don’t elevate a priest to bishop. We don’t determine who the next pope will be. Jesus gave us the format He wanted followed, and Acts show how it was in the early Church.

By the scriptural act of laying on of hands, Christ’s Apostles passed on their God given authority to the next bishop. It is the Office that is to be filled. Only the apostles selected Barnabas to succeed Judas etc. This authority has been passed on for 2000 years and never recinded.

In the middle ages politics often played a major hand in determining who would be Pope. But show me one Catholic Doctrine that has ever been recinded… or one Doctrine that has ever been proven wrong… or one Doctrine that has ever led one away from Jesus…
and either you have been misinformed…
or I need to look for the Church Jesus founded (if He started two, that ishttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif)

But you did not deal with the issue that this poses:

How do you justify it that trained Scholars, who are not part of the Magisterium, translate the Scriptures (which involves more interpretation than anything else). Why does the Magisterium allow this and how is it justified according to your system?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Sigh…ssdd

Is this really that unreasonable to ask? Remeber, I am not predisposed against the system, but the exegesis of this passage has to be justified better than the normal response, “because the Church says so.”

Do you choose one, two, or give an alternate understanding. Remember, you believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, so do I, so we can start on this common ground. I would really like to understand how you justify exegetically your interpretation of John 21:15-17. I can be convinced by Scripture.

15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, *son *of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, *son *of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”

17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, *son *of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.

Here is what you have to ask yourself about Peter’s restoration? why is it recorded? What was the author’s intent with this passage?

1. 
   *]to affirm Peter as the head of the church with unquestioned authority. And that this authority was to be passed on to successors? That would be reading something into the authors intent that just cannot be found unless you place it there yourself. With this hermeneutic you can make the Scriptures say just about anything.
   *]to illustrate a basic principle that even when people fail, even to the point of weakness in denying of Christ because of outside pressure, God’s grace is there. And that God uses us in spit of our sinful past.
   
   Now which one do you believe? It can’t be both since the first is loaded with eisegesis (reading preconcieved theology into a text rather than drawing your theology from the text).
   
   Michael

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

How do you justify it that trained Scholars, who are not part of the Magisterium, translate the Scriptures (which involves more interpretation than anything else). Why does the Magisterium allow this and how is it justified according to your system?

Michael

I don’t see the problem. A problem could exist if the trained scholars (what a thread that could be) offered a translation filled with errors and the Magisterium accepted it. (has happened, I am sure)

What will not happen is this: a teaching from a particular traslation that is heretical being taught by the Magisterium.

Example… Luke 1:20 is often poorly translated as “highly favored one”

But the Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception is most evident in “full of grace”

The translations may vary… the Doctrine will not.

 

[michaelp]

MrS:

I don’t see the problem. A problem could exist if the trained scholars (what a thread that could be) offered a translation filled with errors and the Magisterium accepted it. (has happened, I am sure)

What will not happen is this: a teaching from a particular traslation that is heretical being taught by the Magisterium.

Example… Luke 1:20 is often poorly translated as “highly favored one”

But the Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception is most evident in “full of grace”

The translations may vary… the Doctrine will not.

So this does not differ much from Protestant since we let trained Scholar who are not part of the Magisterium interpret the Scriptures as well.

But I am confused, how do you or the Magisterium, know that the Scholars did not translate the text heretically? This is the key question that needs to be answered.

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

So this does not differ much from Protestant since we let trained Scholar who are not part of the Magisterium interpret the Scriptures as well.

But I am confused, how do you or the Magisterium, know that the Scholars did not translate the text heretically? This is the key question that needs to be answered.

Example only… There are perhaps over 5000 texts or pieces of texts of the NT. How do we know if they are authentic or not. Well… if we have so many ancient “copies” of Mark, for instance, found in different ages and in different locations, and all but one or two say the same thing, we tend to discount the two as erroneous.

When the Church listens to scholars (and especially the Early Church Fathers) over the ages discuss the Trinity, a “consenses” forms (for want of a better word). But when a heresy arises, concerning the Trinity, then the Magisterium steps up to the plate and formally defines the Doctrine. It is that formal declaration which is protected by the Holy Spirit by what we call infallibility.

Example two:
I am driving the freeway, and I see an accident - a car off to the side of the road. I observe as traffic slows and then drive on. I have formed an opinion (a translation if you will).

The police arrive and need more detail. The driver may be dead. They could have my opinion, but it is weak at best - only what I saw. So they look for witnesses, and perhaps one says “I saw the driver eating, he lost control, and drove off the road” Another says, “the truck in front of him veered right and caused him…”

Anyway, the best evidence is a witness. This is something the Catholic Church does. What does John 6 mean? Ask St. John. The early church did just that (Oral Tradition). Ignatius learned from John at his feet for nearly 40 years (and was also probably the first to call the early Church Catholic). The that Tradition was passed on. And it supported John’s Gospel.

But it is the Magisterium then which will correlate John 6 with Paul’s Corinthians (on the reception of the Eucharist), with the 3 accounts of the Last Supper in the Gospels, and so on,and declare when necessary:
The celebration of the first Mass (sacrament)
The ordination of the first priests (sacrament)
The reality of the Real Presence (Doctrine)

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

So this does not differ much from Protestant since we let trained Scholar who are not part of the Magisterium interpret the Scriptures as well.

.

But it is a hugh difference… “Your” scholars have made tremendous contributions and still do. The Holy Spirit will lead us into all Truth. It is obvious he has used non-Catholics as well.

But to declare those contributions as true or not belongs only to those given that direction, that directive, that power from God.

We don’t see many “declarations”… one in 1950, another back in 1854 (both Marian)… so much of the work of the Magisterium is teaching, not declaring… hence the word which means the “authoritive teaching body of the Church”

 

[michaelp]

Anyway, the best evidence is a witness. This is something the Catholic Church does. What does John 6 mean? Ask St. John. The early church did just that (Oral Tradition). Ignatius learned from John at his feet for nearly 40 years (and was also probably the first to call the early Church Catholic). The that Tradition was passed on. And it supported John’s Gospel.

Ignatius was also a premillennialist. Is the RC church premil? Or does it just pick and choose what out of Church history you agree with. Hey, there is no shame in this. We do it.

“We all walk through the gardens of Church history and pick the flowers we like best.”
-John Hannah

Except admision of this is self destructive for you, for us it is semper reformana.

Have a great night.

Michael

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

I really do appreciate your time though.

Michael

back-at-chahttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[michaelp]

MrS:

Example only… There are perhaps over 5000 texts or pieces of texts of the NT. How do we know if they are authentic or not. Well… if we have so many ancient “copies” of Mark, for instance, found in different ages and in different locations, and all but one or two say the same thing, we tend to discount the two as erroneous.

It is not quite that easy (there are over 300,000 varients in the NT alone). There are alot of interpretive decisions to make. I am glad that you trust those INVIVIDUALS to compile and translate the Scriptures from which your infallible magisterium regulates. But I fail to see the practicallity in this.

But I really don’t think you are representing the RC postion well. I think there has to be more than this. Are you sure you have this right?

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

It is not quite that easy (there are over 300,000 varients in the NT alone). There are alot of interpretive decisions to make. I am glad that you trust those INVIVIDUALS to compile and translate the Scriptures from which your infallible magisterium regulates. But I fail to see the practicallity in this.

But I really don’t think you are representing the RC postion well. I think there has to be more than this. Are you sure you have this right?

It would take me 2000 years to represent the Catholic position well.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Again, I can not come to Christ on my terms. He gave us the Church, and He gave us the sinners in it. But He also gave us His promise and His guidance. He did not recind it, and He did not say He would “share” it with other theologies. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.

He gave us the Reformation, I believe, to show us we were right, not to let man show us we were wrong. And in the same era He saw 8 million leave the church for error, He oversaw 8+ million enter the Church in Mexico.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

That is helpful and I do agree that local churches function simularly. It becomes elaborate simply by the addition of unquestioned authority and infallibility.

Hi Michael!

Infallibility really isn’t that elaborate. It’s actually a much less elaborate thing than what God worked through the writers of scripture. In writing scripture God inspired fallible men to write inerrantly. With the pope and his bishops it’s much simpler. All he does is prevent them from teaching the wrong thing, not inspire them to teach the right thing.

And it becomes even more elaborate when decrees and doctrine are used to “clarify” Scripture to the point that it no longer finds support in Scripture (i.e. the eucharist imparting saving Grace, baptism removing just “original sin,” the Marian doctrines, asking the Saints to pray for you). In and of itself it may be simple, but what it produces becomes complex. That is why this is an issue of Authority first. And that is why the authority must be CLEARLY justified by Scripture.

But scripture as the authority isn’t justified in scripture at all let alone CLEARLY. Likewise, the idea that every doctrine must find support in scripture isn’t in scripture at all let alone clearly. Both are extra-biblical Protestant traditions.

Believe me, I would be the first to admit that the Church needs to find a unifying factor. I don’t think that a confession in the Scripture as the word of God has done it–ever. But this does not justify the creation of the RC system. It was pragmatically created in the middle ages and find greater elaboration today.

The writings of the early Christians, and therefore history, points to the Catholic Church as being founded by Christ in the 1st century, not pragmaticaly created in the middle ages.

Believe me, if the Pope and the Bishop did not claim infallibility, I would not have as much trouble.

Help me understand what about infallibility bothers you.

Thanks again for sticking in there. I appreciate your kind tone and attempt to understand me as I attemt to understand you.

:tiphat:

In Christ,
Nancy