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

[Pax]

Michael,

The discussion of the word “day” has brought another word to mind that the Church has defined. The Church infallibly defined the word “is” as it is used by Jesus at the Last Supper. Until the Reformation the word “is”, as used by Jesus, was understood to mean that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are indeed the Lord’s body, blood, soul, and divinity. Within a short time after Luther’s break there were approximately 200 different interpretations of what the word “is” meant within the context. Those that remain part of the Catholic Church accept the Church’s infallible definition. Those that parted company do not. Go figure!

Clearly, there is a difference in the importance of defining these two words. The Church had no choice but to define “is” because of its incredible importance since it points to what we believe to be the source and summit of the Christian faith. The Church does not believe that the word “day” in Genesis 1 carries the same theological implications if latitude is allowed.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

Peter, I have just been told so many times on this forum that infallibility protects the Church from division.

Hi Michael!

Infallibility protects the Church from officially teacher error, not from division. The Reformation is proof that there is no protection against division.

This has been stated over and over again. Protestants, it is said, cannot have the unity because everyone interprets Scripture differently. The Magisterium steps in, so I have been told, and solves any disputes–that is their purpose. Therefore, I don’t understand why they don’t interpret this. It seems kind of selective and suspicious that they don’t interpret this. This one interpretation has implications on science, abortion, evolution, politics, and education. There would not be a better time, in my opinion, to step in and give an infallible interpretation of Scripture than with the word “day.”

What you are requesting of the Church here is “inspiration” not “infallibility”. The Church is not guaranteed to always say what is right but rather that what she does say cannot be wrong. While it may seel selective and suspicious to you, it’s really not. Again, the holy Spirit doesn’t tell the church what to say, he protects what she DOES say.

The Church is in the business of teaching infallibly on matter of faith and morals only, not on matters of science or politics. You are faulting her for failing to do something that she was not created to do.

In Christ,
Nancy

]

 

[MacleodOFS]

michaelp:

None accurately represent the Reformers model

That’s good

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Hey Peter,

But I have been told time and time again that the purpose of the magisterium is to interpret the Bible because it is difficult at times, and differing interpretations cause divisions.

Differing interpretations only cause division when you rely soley on your interpretation to define your faith! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

michaelp:

There are many arguments going on in the Church (and on this forum) about the interpretation of the word “day” in Genesis. If the magisterium’s purpose is to interpret Scripture because it is too difficult, this would be a great place for them to step in.

I disagree. this is not a pressing issue and it has absolutely no bearing on anyones salvation. We obsess about such things because we don’t know how to use our time more wisely.

The controversy has bearing upon science, politics, and education, but it is a hermeneutical issue first. If the Magistium knows the answer to this question, and has known it since the time the Apostles delivered the deposit of faith to their successors, why have they sat on it so long? Or do they not know the interpretation of “day” in Gen? If not, are they not able to do their job relative to our age and the controveries that have arisen?
In my opinion this is a non-issue. A “non-essential” as Augustine would say. Of course it would be NICE to know so we could prove someone else is wrong about something, but what, in the end, does it do for anyone? Again, god created the universe on His own terms. We can’t understand creation from nothing. God “speaks” and stuff happens? Tell me you understand what that means…

Phil

 

[michaelp]

I disagree. this is not a pressing issue and it has absolutely no bearing on anyones salvation. We obsess about such things because we don’t know how to use our time more wisely.

In my opinion this is a non-issue.

It seems to have more relavance than the assumption of Mary. Why and how is the assumption of Mary more essential to the faith so that it needs defining with dogmatic assertion? THAT seems like a non-issue, don’t you think?

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

It seems to have more relavance than the assumption of Mary. Why and how is the assumption of Mary more essential to the faith so that it needs defining with dogmatic assertion? THAT seems like a non-issue, don’t you think?

Not when you consider that the primary question that man seeks to resolve as it concerns his salvation is the question of death. Mary’s assumption is an answer for humanity that directly addresses his deepest anxieties.

It’s very reasonable that the Church would protect that truth of faith from delusions by making it dogma.

 

[michaelp]

Benadam:

Not when you consider that the primary question that man seeks to resolve as it concerns his salvation is the question of death. Mary’s assumption is an answer for humanity that directly addresses his deepest anxieties.

It’s very reasonable that the Church would protect that truth of faith from delusions by making it dogma.

What does the essential question of her assumtion answer that is so pressing that it required a dogmatic statement 1800 years later? What did it answer that Christ’s resurrection and Paul’s and Christ’s assurance of the resurrection throughout the NT did not already answer? Why was it not needed for 1800 years?

Most importanly, as was said above:

I disagree. this is not a pressing issue and it has absolutely no bearing on anyones salvation. We obsess about such things because we don’t know how to use our time more wisely.

What bearing does dogmatic knowledge of her assumption have on our salvation.

 

[exrc]

michaelp:

I know, I am still here. I am going to bed right after this one.

luv, you really seem mad. Please don’t misuderstand what we are doing here. It is just a heathy discussion that involves disagreements.

OK, why did Paul say that the Church is the bulwark of truth. Uhh. . . I guess you won’t accept the answer “because it is,” right?

I know where you are going though. You are assuming that because the Church (and remember that I define this as the Body of Christ) is the bulwark of Truth, this means that it infallibly represents that Truth. But this is not necessarily true.

It would be like me making an arguement that because the Church is the Body of Christ, Christ’s representative here on the earth, it always and infallibly follows it Head. But you and I know it does not. It is supposed to and at its best, Christ shines through. But it does not do so perfectly. The same is true in the protection of Truth. The Church, like the Jews were (Rom. 3:2; look it up), are intrusted with the Gospel–the Truth. But this does not assume that we always and infallible represent that truth any more than the fact that we are Christ’s representatives mean that we alway act like Christ.

Good question though. I pray you have a good night (if it is night where you are at). It is 1am and I am going to bed. . . I mean it!!

Michael

Good post!

love to all, exrc!

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

What does the essential question of her assumtion answer that is so pressing that it required a dogmatic statement 1800 years later? What did it answer that Christ’s resurrection and Paul’s and Christ’s assurance of the resurrection throughout the NT did not already answer? Why was it not needed for 1800 years?

Most importanly, as was said above:

What bearing does dogmatic knowledge of her assumption have on our salvation.

It seems you assume this dogma to be new. It wasn’t. The belief nor the believers had to change in 1800. What changed was the environment that this dogma was exposed to. The environment of the 1800’s relative to the relationship between the world and the Church required that the Church proclaim that Mary was assumed into heaven. It was already an essential belief from the beginning whether non-christians were aware of it or not.

1800 marks 1800 years that the Church has believed this not 1800 years not believing it.

I would think that since this was a truth that is essential to being Catholic and if the Catholic Church claims to be the minister of salvation then it follows that believing what the Church says is Truth without error is essential to salvation.

The Church wishes the circumstances were such that these beliefs can exist without having to proclaim them as essential.

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Peter, I have just been told so many times on this forum that infallibility protects the Church from division. This has been stated over and over again. Protestants, it is said, cannot have the unity because everyone interprets Scripture differently. The Magisterium steps in, so I have been told, and solves any disputes–that is their purpose. Therefore, I don’t understand why they don’t interpret this. It seems kind of selective and suspicious that they don’t interpret this. This one interpretation has implications on science, abortion, evolution, politics, and education. There would not be a better time, in my opinion, to step in and give an infallible interpretation of Scripture than with the word “day.”

Michael

Hi Michael and Pete -

We have already been down this road. You continue to attempt to refute the distinctly Protestantism problem of SIGNIFICANT VARIABILITY ON MAJOR ISSUES (baptism, salvation, confession, Communion,etc) and simultaneously attempt to discredit the Catholic Magisterial authority by saying that Catholics have it no better because we only fallibly are able to interpret the Churches declarations of doctrine. I have pointed out that the Church speaks clearly through a number of channels including the Catechism in simple direct language, but you continue to resist. Yet when it comes time to produce some “big controversies” within Catholicism, you come up with, in my opinion, this complete minutia. A declaration on the word “day” wouldn’t change a thing for you - especially since you don’t acknowledge the authority of the Church to make such a declaration. And what, exactly, would it change for anyone else? The duration of the “day” is an ACCIDENTAL characteristic of God’s Creation, not an ESSENTIAL one. The 'days" could be left out entirely and it wouldn’t change anything regarding Creation. Please state SPECIFICALLY the impact a pronouncement of “day” in Gen 1 would have in the area of faith, morals and unity.

Phil

PS Thanks for asking about my kids - I have 3: Philip Jr (9), Sarah (5), and Grace (16 months)

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

What does the essential question of her assumtion answer that is so pressing that it required a dogmatic statement 1800 years later? What did it answer that Christ’s resurrection and Paul’s and Christ’s assurance of the resurrection throughout the NT did not already answer? Why was it not needed for 1800 years?

Most importanly, as was said above:

What bearing does dogmatic knowledge of her assumption have on our salvation.

The mystery of Mary is essential to salvation in that Mary herself is essential to salvation. Her role answers many of the questions facing today’s fight including the effort against the delusion that there is no God at all. In one of the letters of the Apostles it mentions that parents will lose the natural effection for children. We see this and the devastation to souls that result. Mary is essential to their salvation in that through understanding her role they can believe in Christ. The Church has in mind the souls that are scandalized by the delusion of a culture that was rising and the dawn of which was noticed by her prophets. That same culture has it’s worst enemy on earth in no other than the Catholic Church.

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

It seems to have more relavance than the assumption of Mary. Why and how is the assumption of Mary more essential to the faith so that it needs defining with dogmatic assertion? THAT seems like a non-issue, don’t you think?

For the record, you have failed to convince me of the significance of “day”. You have simply restated that you are of the opinion that it is significant. Not that I don’t respect our opinion - it’s just that you have given me no independent reason to change my own opinion of its insignificance.

As for the declaration on the Assumption, I can only speculate, but it has nothing to do with the topic. Perhaps it emphasizes May’s sinlessness since the wages of sin is death. Certainly from a Catholic perspective the Assumption is very significant. It’s just dribble to you because Mary does not hold the same place of honor for you that she does for Catholics. Anyhow, get back to the issue…

Phil

 

[af3983]

I’ve noticed that if i try to interpret the bible myself, i come to a different conclusion and interpretation every time. It depends on what is going on in my life and how I want to interpret it. It causes me to look over statements that I really need to hear. However, I use the church to help me interpret. When I do this, I tend not to miss the message of the reading. The church is a constant that has stood the test of time. I am one who is not nearly as old as the church, I am not a constant. I can change my mind at any point of time. How can my interpretation be right? I would rather go with what I know is right!

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

For the record, you have failed to convince me of the significance of “day”. You have simply restated that you are of the opinion that it is significant. Not that I don’t respect our opinion - it’s just that you have given me no independent reason to change my own opinion of its insignificance.

As for the declaration on the Assumption, I can only speculate, but it has nothing to do with the topic. Perhaps it emphasizes May’s sinlessness since the wages of sin is death. Certainly from a Catholic perspective the Assumption is very significant. It’s just dribble to you because Mary does not hold the same place of honor for you that she does for Catholics. Anyhow, get back to the issue…

Phil

Phil, I am not that concerned with the word day nor the assumption of Mary. They are just issues that are brought up so that I can understand why and when the Church decides to make a doctrine dogma. It is a confusing subject. I use the illustration of the word “day” because everyone has told me that the Magesterium is there to interpret Scripture, but it does not feel the need, for one reason or another, to interpret this (I don’t think that it is that significant). But it does feel the need to say that Mary was assumed into heaven. I don’t get it. It took 1800 years for this to become dogmatized. You said that in order to get dogmatized, it must be essential for salvation. I don’t see how the assumption of Mary is essential for salvation. I think that there is some confusion concerning the Magisterium’s reason for making official statements. Is it to interpret Scripture because the average person is not smart enough? Is it to clarify essential doctrine? Is it just to make statements about Mary? Why and when does the Church feel the need to come in and make dogmatic statements that have not been made before?

If Mary’s assumption is essential to believe for salvation, where was it in the early Church? Does it seem essential in the early Church to you? Why dogmatize it 1800 years later? Why did it move from a doctrine to a dogma?

The interpretation of the word “day” would clear up more confusion than moving the assumption of Mary from RC doctrine to infallible dogma, wouldn’t it?

I know that if the Church does something like this it is to you (post facto) essential and you must defend it no matter what so I don’t expect to get many objective answers from you. But this is part of my struggle with the issue of the Magisterium.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

af3983:

I’ve noticed that if i try to interpret the bible myself, i come to a different conclusion and interpretation every time. It depends on what is going on in my life and how I want to interpret it. It causes me to look over statements that I really need to hear. However, I use the church to help me interpret. When I do this, I tend not to miss the message of the reading. The church is a constant that has stood the test of time. I am one who is not nearly as old as the church, I am not a constant. I can change my mind at any point of time. How can my interpretation be right? I would rather go with what I know is right!

Use the wisdom of the body of Christ both living and dead, but don’t think that this body is infallible. This is called prima scriptura. Scripture is not the only means of revelation, but it is the primary and only infallible means. This way you can advance and learn with the Church.

Think of this. What if Anselm would have taken your statement here to heart? The entire Church up until his time thought that the cross was an atonement paid to Satan. He could have said, “I am just going to rely on 1000 years of Church history and not study on my own.” But he did not. He said that the atonement was paid to God, not Satan. This is the right interpretation of the Gospel. This issue had not been dealt with sufficiantly until Anselm.

Respect and fear tradition but always be ready to reform–Semper Reformanda.

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: " Scripture is not the only means of revelation, but it is the primary and only infallible means."

“Only”? Where do you find that in Scripture?

You wrote: “What if Anselm would have taken your statement here to heart? The entire Church up until his time thought that the cross was an atonement paid to Satan”.

I think others have explained (more patiently than I could) the Church’s role as interpreter, and how that role goes hand in hand with a deepening of our understanding of truths as time passes. Dcdurel wrote: “Thus, on these matters the fathers of the Church were free to give their own opinions and speculations, until the Church authorities, (Pope and bishops) proposed a clear and explicit teaching on the matter. Thus, with all the Church fathers we will find errors which the Church condemns today as false. But, the fathers were not taught false doctrine by the apostles. The teachings simply were not clear and explicit yet.”

I’m not sure what you missing, but you’re missing it. I’ve suggested Newman’s “An Essay on the Development od Christian Doctrine” before, I’ll recommend it again.

 

[Ignatius]

michaelp:

The entire Church up until his time thought that the cross was an atonement paid to Satan.

I’m sorry, where on earth did you get this? I’ve read the patiristic writers from the 1st Century Barnabas, Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp through Justin, Turtullian, Augustine, Aquinas to Newman. I haven’t everseen this concept put forth.

God bless you.

 

[michaelp]

You wrote: " Scripture is not the only means of revelation, but it is the primary and only infallible means."

“Only”? Where do you find that in Scripture?

There is nothing else that is called theonustos ("God breathed). It is an arguement from priority and deduction.

You wrote: “What if Anselm would have taken your statement here to heart? The entire Church up until his time thought that the cross was an atonement paid to Satan”.

I think others have explained (more patiently than I could) the Church’s role as interpreter, and how that role goes hand in hand with a deepening of our understanding of truths as time passes. Dcdurel wrote: “Thus, on these matters the fathers of the Church were free to give their own opinions and speculations, until the Church authorities, (Pope and bishops) proposed a clear and explicit teaching on the matter. Thus, with all the Church fathers we will find errors which the Church condemns today as false. But, the fathers were not taught false doctrine by the apostles. The teachings simply were not clear and explicit yet.”

I’m not sure what you missing, but you’re missing it. I’ve suggested Newman’s “An Essay on the Development od Christian Doctrine” before, I’ll recommend it again.

Thanks. It is on its way. But I think that I already understand his concepts from the numerous other readings that I have done on this subject. I just am trying to dialogue about it here.

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michael,

You wrote: " But I think that I already understand his concepts from the numerous other readings that I have done on this subject. I just am trying to dialogue about it here."

I appreciate your willingness to discuss and debate these topics. The problem is (and this is why I, and others, have all these book recommendations!!) that these are sometimes weighty and/or complex ideas to get across in a post, or even in a string of posts. (And if you’re like me, you will tend to skim through the posts that go on and on and on…) Newman is very good, and he presents his research in a very carefully laid out progression. It took him 445 pages to present his ideas; it is not likely that any of us (though there are certainly some good Catholic apologists here) can thoroughly address your objections and questions in this format. The same is true for questions regarding the papacy: many times I find myself recommending Stephen Ray’s “Upon This Rock”, because again, it is hard to cover this topic effectively within posts. Just summarizing the inormation is quite a task!

 

[Philthy]

Hi Michael -

michaelp:

Phil, I am not that concerned with the word day nor the assumption of Mary. They are just issues that are brought up so that I can understand why and when the Church decides to make a doctrine dogma. It is a confusing subject. I use the illustration of the word “day” because everyone has told me that the Magesterium is there to interpret Scripture, but it does not feel the need, for one reason or another, to interpret this (I don’t think that it is that significant). But it does feel the need to say that Mary was assumed into heaven. I don’t get it. It took 1800 years for this to become dogmatized. You said that in order to get dogmatized, it must be essential for salvation.

I don’t think I ever said that - I only said that declaring definively the concept of “day” in Gen was irrelevent to one’s salvation.

michaelp:

I don’t see how the assumption of Mary is essential for salvation.

Well, for one, if Mary can offer intercessary prayers that are powerful similar to the prayers of a “righteous man”, then that would be important. It all, of course, depends on your theology. Mary makes no sense at all in your theology. then again, you said that using your system of belief that on a scale of 1-10 you almost never achieve an 8 - that’s not very inspirational.

michaelp:

I think that there is some confusion concerning the Magisterium’s reason for making official statements. Is it to interpret Scripture because the average person is not smart enough? Is it to clarify essential doctrine? Is it just to make statements about Mary? Why and when does the Church feel the need to come in and make dogmatic statements that have not been made before?

I don’t know is the most honest answer I have. At least they don’t change their mind once dogma is declared. Changing dogma over time is a sure sign of one who is lost.

michaelp:

If Mary’s assumption is essential to believe for salvation, where was it in the early Church? Does it seem essential in the early Church to you? Why dogmatize it 1800 years later? Why did it move from a doctrine to a dogma?

The interpretation of the word “day” would clear up more confusion than moving the assumption of Mary from RC doctrine to infallible dogma, wouldn’t it?

You keep harping on this and I honestly have no idea why it would change anything. I said this much in the post and asked you to provide with some ideas of WHY you think it is important EXACTLY. You, for the third time, have failed to do that. Please tell me why it is important to know the specific duration of time in Genesis.

michaelp:

I know that if the Church does something like this it is to you (post facto) essential and you must defend it no matter what so I don’t expect to get many objective answers from you. But this is part of my struggle with the issue of the Magisterium.

Michael

If I am not mistaken, when the Magisterium speaks it is guided by the Holy Spirit. What you are essentially asking, then, is “Why does the Holy Spirit operated in the manner it does (in this capacity)? It doesn’t make sense to me.” I will agree with you here. But a lot of Christianity makes no sense. It makes no sense that Christ would come to earth at a time when there is no truly valid means of confirming what He did, said or otherwise. We have to read copies of alledged letters written by a small group of men in an otherwise insignificant culture and location. It makes no sense that God would leave us such an ambiguous written witness(bible) to the truths He expects us to know from the Bible, and then tell us in that very book to hold fast to the Traditions that were handed down to us. I mean think about it, it’s a collection of stories and ideas which are not particularly clear in their intention, which are redundant, and leave us all scratching our heads most of the time. How can you possibly look at the church with confusion when god has chosen to operate in the manner He has?

Phil