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

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Phil, after you respond to the post (if you want to do so), I have an honest question for you that I think people keep skipping over:

What Bible do you use?

New American Bible , St. Joseph’s edition

michaelp:

Who translated your scriptures?

The church commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Bible from Greek to Latin - it only took him 30 years - and he was commissioned by the Pope of his day. It’s nice to know it was done by a Saint. Heres what it says in my bible:
"For more than a quarter of a century, members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, sponsred by the Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, have labored to create this new translation of the Scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant from which the tests exist. In doing so, the translaters have carried out the directives of our predecessor, Pius Xll, in his famous Encyclical *Divino Afflante Spiritu, *and the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum), which prescribed that “up to date and appropriate translations be made in the various languages, by preference from the original texts of the sacred books”, and that “with the approval of Church authority, these translations may be produced in cooperation with our separated brethren” so that “all Christians may be able to use them”.
There is actually quite a bit more that is explained in my Bible - let me know if you want to read it - I can scan it and email it.

michaelp:

Someone actually told me earlier that it was not the Magisterium. Is that true?
If it is true that, as Daniel Wallace, text critic and General editor of the NET Bible says, all translation involves increadible amounts of interpretation (those of you with Greek and Hebrew background know this), how did they translate the Scriptures since they would be the ultimate interpreter of it? Were they given this authority by the Magisterium?

Not sure if I understand completely, but I believe they were given the authority by the Magisterium.

michaelp:

On a simular note: what version of the Greek and Hebrew text do the translators use? If they us NA27 or UBS4, are they relying on others to give them the right text? If they do not use these, what do they use and who are the text critics that decide what the original is (since there are over 300,000 varients in the New Testament alone to say nothing of the Hebrew).

I know that you may not know what I am talking about, but I would be interested to know from whomever is qualified to answer.

Michael
“I am most definitely not qualified” - this is the first thing Catholics learn to say about Scripture interpretation!
One thing I will add in. Due to your theology, it seems, you start with the Bible and then everthing comes out of it. Don’t forget that the Church was around for close to a century before all of the NT was even written, and several centuries before the Church declared the canon. It’s not really proper to think of the church coming out of the Bible - the Bible came out of the Church.

Thanks for your thoughts. I’ll state up front that I enjoy this form of dialogue, the fellowship it can foster and have no interest in personal attacks. In addition, I don’t judge anyone. I firmly believe that “He who humbles himself will be exalted” IF only I had better control of my temper sometimes…

PHil

 

[Philthy]

Wil Peregrin:

C4R, how do you know that your interpretation of the translations of Church documents is correct?

NO translation is perfect - that’s what the Magisterium is for…
Wil Peregrin:

Mr.S, keep training, your response to Ahima was rude. And surely you can understand that some of the interpretations that you claim as facts are in fact the very things that are at issue

The issues are irrelevant. If you offend someone, even if you didn’t mean to, even if you think they deserve it, even if…, an apology is appropriate. I’m not taking sides…

Phil

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp
“The buck stops with the Scripture. It is not that difficult to interpret when you start without presuppositions. I think that this is the greatest enlighenment to people who take a Hermeneutics class. When exegesis is conducted in a common sense model, and you put a little sweat behind your studies, it is not that hard.”

Hey, this is a huge presupposition! We all come to anything we read, watch, listen to and smell with presuppositions. Just being an American carries with it a huge amount of presuppositions.

Whether Paul was writing to the “common man” or not, or what language was used or not is a mute point. Catholics do not deny that Scripture is God’s Word. Again, what we differ on is who has the Authority to interperate it. You say that you do, we say that only the Church does. We have our reasons based in history and tradition. You have yours based in a 16th century innovation.

I hope I am not being rude in calling Sola Scriptura an innovation, but I see no evidence for it prior to the Reformation.

You claimed that one of the people on this site was just using Scripture to defend belief they already held. What of those, like me or an intellectual giant like John Henry Newman, who has an adequate background in Hermeneutics coming to the realization that what the Chuch says about it’s self is true?
I came to the Church highly skepical and came away a convert.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

dennisknapp:

Hey, this is a huge presupposition! We all come to anything we read, watch, listen to and smell with presuppositions. Just being an American carries with it a huge amount of presuppositions.

Whether Paul was writing to the “common man” or not, or what language was used or not is a mute point. Catholics do not deny that Scripture is God’s Word. Again, what we differ on is who has the Authority to interperate it. You say that you do, we say that only the Church does. We have our reasons based in history and tradition. You have yours based in a 16th century innovation.

I hope I am not being rude in calling Sola Scriptura an innovation, but I see no evidence for it prior to the Reformation.

You claimed that one of the people on this site was just using Scripture to defend belief they already held. What of those, like me or an intellectual giant like John Henry Newman, who has an adequate background in Hermeneutics coming to the realization that what the Chuch says about it’s self is true?
I came to the Church highly skepical and came away a convert.

Sola Scripura didn’t exist prior to the reformation (I refuse to capitalize it, as the Church did not need reforming. To say it needed to be reformed means that Christ didn’t do an adequate job setting it up in the first place. I don’t have the cajones to make that claim). It is therefore a product of man’s innovation. Noone could ever make the claim that the Church relied solely on the face of Scripture prior to the establishment of canon in 397. Prior to that time, the Church was primarily based on oral Tradition. I’d like a protestant make a solid case of anyone defending the notion of Scripture-onlyism prior to Martin Luther.

On a side note, I wonder just how successful Martin Luther’s indulgent (pardon the pun) little rebellion would have gone if Europe wasn’t teetering on the brink of being overrun by the Ottoman Turks? Most people completely overlook the fact that while Luther was splintering Christianity and attacking the Church, the Catholic King of Poland was busy saving the backdoor of Europe from a massive Muslim invasion.

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Don’t get me wrong Lisa, it is a nice system and might even be pragmatic if the traditions could agree, but there is no justification for it. If God actually expected me to follow by this elaborate of a system, He needs to be ALOT more clear. Matt. 16 just ain’t going to cut it.

Michael

Here, again, you are trying to derive the Church FROM Scripture!! The Church PRECEDES Scripture and should be viewed in this light. This is not to say that you shouldn’t find the “proof” you’re looking for in Scripture, but you must realize that to “see” the proof requires the appropriate interpretation of Scripture in the first place. The Church is built by Jesus Christ upon Peter and the other Apostles who carried their authority wherever they went and who also passed it along to others who continue to do so to the present day. All of this is in Scripture, all of it precedes Scripture, but if you attempt to “derive” it FROM Scripture there are many places to go astray.

Phil

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Dismas2004
The disunity is not in the magisterium, but in the “faithful”

This is great. Thank you. I would just say this. The disunity is not in the Scripture, but in the “faithful”
You see, we both have the same problem. The magisterium does not acutually solve anything.

Michael

Sure it does. The Magesterium gives us a sure standard against which to measure our understanding of scripture.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

When the NT letters open, who are those addressed? It is the common person. For example Paul’s opening letter to the Corinthians:

“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their *Lord *and ours.”

This is to “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus.” All those in Corinth. The common person. All of the general epistles are addressed to the common person.

How about the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 1:1 “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write *it *out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus”

Theophilus was not clergy, much less a bishop.

How about the Gospel of John?

“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

This was written so that “you” (generic second person plural; get out your Greek!) might believe. It was written for the common man.

Hi Michael!

The epistles were written to the people with the understanding that they were going to be read and explained to them by a qualified person.

Acts 15 shows this. The letter sent by those at the Council of Jerusalem was addressed to “the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin”; in other words, common people. But they weren’t all handed the letter and told to read it and decided for themselves what it means. No. The letter was sent along with someone qualified to explain it ( Acts 15:27).

And what caused all this upheaval in the first place? People heading out and preaching what they believed to be true without a mandate from the teaching authority of the Church (Acts 15:24). The teaching authority (Magesterium) assures unity in teaching. This was important in the NT Church and remains so today.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

How can you trust them if the Magisterium did not translate them. All translation requires MUCH interpretation.

The Magestium isn’t in the translation business, they are in the teaching business. When teaching in union with the pope they are guarenteed not to TEACH error by the guidance of the holy Spirit. Infallibility doesn’t cover the act of translating scripture only teaching.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

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

Hi Michael!

How do you believe that the Church functions in the world today as the pillar (upholder) and bulwark (protector and defender) of the truth?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

I base my statement on the fact that from Genesis to Revelation the plan of God and redemption of mankind progresses and reveals itself. That plan involves the Son of God who was slain from the foundation of the world. There can be no other truth more important. This is absolute truth.

Peace…

Hi ahimsaman72!

It’d helped if you had included the statement to which you are referring in your post. I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

I hope I am not being rude in calling Sola Scriptura an innovation, but I see no evidence for it prior to the Reformation.

No, you are not being rude. You are just giving your opinion based upon the research you have done with all the preunderstandings that you already have. We all do this. My studies of the give just the opposite conclusion. But, hey, what do we do?

Have a great day,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Here, again, you are trying to derive the Church FROM Scripture!! The Church PRECEDES Scripture and should be viewed in this light. This is not to say that you shouldn’t find the “proof” you’re looking for in Scripture, but you must realize that to “see” the proof requires the appropriate interpretation of Scripture in the first place. The Church is built by Jesus Christ upon Peter and the other Apostles who carried their authority wherever they went and who also passed it along to others who continue to do so to the present day. All of this is in Scripture, all of it precedes Scripture, but if you attempt to “derive” it FROM Scripture there are many places to go astray.

Phil

I am talking about justification for the system. It is question begging to say that the Church is the authority because it says it is. It would be irresponsible for me to accept such a system based upon this. You can do, and I respect your leap of faith, but all religions have simular leaps of faith. Who is to say that your question begging leap of faith is any better than theirs?

It is really something that you have to stuggle with.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Sure it does. The Magesterium gives us a sure standard against which to measure our understanding of scripture.

In Christ,
Nancy

Question begging and pragmatics are not convincing to me. I am sorry.

Thanks for your continued desire to dialogue.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

The epistles were written to the people with the understanding that they were going to be read and explained to them by a qualified person.

Acts 15 shows this. The letter sent by those at the Council of Jerusalem was addressed to “the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin”; in other words, common people. But they weren’t all handed the letter and told to read it and decided for themselves what it means. No. The letter was sent along with someone qualified to explain it ( Acts 15:27).

And what caused all this upheaval in the first place? People heading out and preaching what they believed to be true without a mandate from the teaching authority of the Church (Acts 15:24). The teaching authority (Magesterium) assures unity in teaching. This was important in the NT Church and remains so today.

In Christ,
Nancy

This really is eisegesis. Read the introductions to all the Epistles and read the intro to Luke. You could never come to your conclusions. In fact, they absolutely militate against this.

I know that this issue militates against your system, but it is just one peice that alone is not conclusive concerning your system either way. But please, this is getting rediculous. I think tou are reading Scripture with some tainted shades.

The Bible was written in the common language to common people. That is why I love it. “Pick up and read.”

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*This is a common misconception. The bible was already being circulated in various languages prior to the Reformation. *

By whom? What languages?

GERMAN VERSIONS
The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing. Of special interest are the five complete folio editions printed before 1477, nine from 1477 to 1522, and four in Low German, all prior to Luther’s New Testament in 1522.

ITALIAN VERSIONS
A complete version in the vernacular, a manuscript preserved in the National Library at Paris, was made by Nicholas de Nardo, O.P., in 1472. The first printed Bible (Venice, 1471) was due to Nicholas Malermi, O. Camald. A revision of this, with notes, rubrics, and résumés largely after the Biblical commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra was made by Marine de Veneto, O.P. (Venice, 1477).

SPANISH VERSIONS
The first printed Bible (Valencia, 1478), following an Old-Testament version from the French and Latin by Romeu de Sabruguera, O.P., was in the Catalonian dialect and was the work of the General of the Carthusians, Boniface Ferrer (d. 1417),

FRENCH VERSIONS
A complete version of the Bible was made in the thirteenth century; The fourteenth century manuscript Anglo-Norman Bible follows it closely. About 1478, appearing at Lyons among the incunabula of France, is a New Testament by Julian Macho and Pierre Farget, and the books of the Old Testament history, published six times.

DUTCH AND FLEMISH VERSIONS
The first Bible for Catholics in Holland was printed at Delft in 1475.

SCANDINAVIAN VERSIONS
In the fourteenth century, versions of the Sunday Epistles and Gospels were made for popular use in Denmark. Large portions of the Bible, if not an entire version, were published about 1470.

newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm#mixed

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

The Magestium isn’t in the translation business, they are in the teaching business. When teaching in union with the pope they are guarenteed not to TEACH error by the guidance of the holy Spirit. Infallibility doesn’t cover the act of translating scripture only teaching.

In Christ,
Nancy

You obviously have not done much translating. I have. All the time. All translating involves interpretation; it is sometimes very difficult to make decisions about the translation because there could be multiple meanings. But, in the end, you have to make up your mind based on the evidence. As you have said, the Magisterium does not translate, so they leave the interpretation decision in the hands of the trained individuals. I like that. You need to recognize this** (if, indeed, the Magisterium does not translate your scriptures; if they don’t, your system fails from the beginning).**

I hope you see the force of this. Again, not absolutely conclusive, but, to me, very hard to explain if it is true (but nobody seems to know).

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

What truth are you searching for? You mention “the truth”, but I need to make sure of what you are talking about. There are many “truths” in the world - the sky is blue, water is wet, etc.

Hi ahimsaman72!

I thought that in a thread about the standard against which you measure your understanding of scripture it would just be assumed that “truth”, in this context, would not be references to things such as the color of the sky or the characteristics of water. I’m sorry for the confusion.

By “truth” I’m referring specifically to that which God has revealed to mankind concerning faith and morals.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

You want to assert that the priesthood still exists today and that the priesthood is relevant. Your assertion needs some evidence from some source outside of the people who claim that authority upon themselves.

Hi ahimsaman72!

What sort of outside eveidence are you referring to?

Is evidence from some source outside of the people who claim the authority for themselves to properly interpret scripture available?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

How do you believe that the Church functions in the world today as the pillar (upholder) and bulwark (protector and defender) of the truth?

In Christ,
Nancy

You bet:

I believe that the Church represents Christ–though imperfectly.
I also believe that the Church represents Truth–though imperfectly.

Do you see the connection. There is not a necessary infallibility of the Church just because we represent the Truth any more than there is a necessary perfection just because we represent the love of Christ.

Can’t you see this connection at all? I recieve this arguement all the time on this site, and no one seems to see the connection. Am I just an idiot? This seems very clear.

But again, I have the freedom to question the system . . . you don’t, since the very questioning of the system would be a denial of it (although this is not true, but I think some of you think it is). I just don’t find very many people who truly have stuggled with these issues without letting their presuppositions dictate the outcome of their studies.

Please forgive me if this sounds offensive or if I am speaking out of line. You can call me anytime. I am just trying to be candid right now.

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

What is so wrong with believers having copies of the Scriptures?

I don’t recall anyone making this claim Could you please reference the post # in which this claim was made so I can refresh my memory?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy