Where to begin?

[Solus_Christus]

It has to do with the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. How do you know that your pastor is giving the correct interpretation? Surely you would not admit that your pastor is infallible would you?

Good grief, Tom. You’re killing me here. I am beginning to think you’re just making arguments for argument’s sake.

If I forget my reading glasses when I go to my favorite restaurant with my wife and have to ask her to read the menu for me, she does not need to be infallible for me to get what I want for dinner (i.e. to properly interpret the menu). Now, if I bring my glasses with me to dinner, and while looking at the menu she says the trout costs $15, she does not need to be infallible either. If the trout actually costs $13, on the other hand, then I can read the menu myself and realize she has made a mistake. Likewise, if my pastor’s interpretation is incorrect, then I will look in the Bible and see it for myself. No infallibility required, just some common sense.

What you fail to understand is that the Word of God is infallible and it takes an infallible teacher to interpret it infallibly. You have no such assurance.

While a textbook, for example, is not infallible it can make many true statements. Yet even if these statements are 100% correct, I still do not need to be infallible to read it and understand it. Besides, understanding is generally the easy part. Doing is the part that’s hard.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Are you aware that the Bible is oral Tradition in written form?

So you’re saying Paul never actually wrote a physical letter to the Thessalonians, but someone overheard a conversation he had with the Thessalonian church (by phone maybe?) and then wrote it down later? Excuse the sarcasm, but this is a ridiculous claim if ever I heard one.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Now, if we take this one step further and really look at it closely, we see that Solus Christus hasn’t really thrown away the IDEA of tradition. He, perhaps unknowingly, has really accepted it. By that I mean he accepts the exegesis of those who have actually taught him, by word of mouth, from one or many of the pastors he has come in contact with. Oh, he accepts tradition alright. It’s just that it has never been explained to him in that way.

Tomster, there is an excellent website called dictionary.com. Please go there and lookup the word “exegesis.”

Some questions I have posed to many non-Catholics who come to Catholic Answers, and never really received a satisfactory answer to, is why do you bother listening to the exegesis of Sacred Scriptures from your pastors? Don’t you know that they are just giving you a fallible interpretation of Scripture? Are you aware that your own TRADITION states that you are free to interpret Scriptures any way you desire? Why, then, do you bother with men who tell you what they think a particular Scripture passage means?

After all is said and done, all they can do is reply with silence.

The silence is probably because they are wondering what planet you are from. NO, Evangelicals DO NOT believe they can interpret Scripture any way they please. Fortunately for you, I know where you have heard that tripe: From apologists such as Scott Hahn. Contrary to what he may like to believe, however, he was never an Evangelical. He originally hailed from a denomination that does believe that Christians are free to interpret Scripture however they please, and he disingenuously attributes this belief to all Protestants.

Now, before the Catholics in the room begin beating their chests in triumph, understand this: That evil teaching spawns from what is known as theological liberalism, and I have found strong taints of this filth even in some Catholic publications. I am sure everyone will be quick to point out that this is not the official theology of the RCC, but just understand that no group of believers is completely immune from this vile theology.

 

[Prieldedi]

My answer to the question is that God preserved His Word in His Word, the Bible. If there are words spoken by Christ not preserved in the Bible (such as “please pass me the bottle of wine”) then it was not necessary for us, as His followers, to know them. And, since you bring it up, please do tell me: What did Jesus write in the dust? Since apparently it is important that we know, I am assuming Catholic Tradition has preserved it. So please, do tell.

But the Catholic Church put the Bible together. The Bishops of the Catholic Church did it. All 27 books of the New Testament were chosen by Catholic Bishops. Why do you accept their decision? Obviously you do. Do you believe the Holy Spirit inspired them? If your answer is yes, are you suggesting that the same Holy Spirit only half-inspired them regarding the Old Testament books? You believe they got it wrong with the OT, right? Kind of strange behavior from the Holy Spirit, full inspiration for one thing, half inspiration for another.

Many of Jesus unrecorded word were for His Apostles, not for every Catholic. They in turn passed them to the new Bishops, priests, deacons. Jesus left them special instructions to be known just for them for the task ahead. Do you think that what’s talked about at the highest ranks in an army has to be told to every soldier in detail? Or what the managers in a company talk at their meetings, is it shared in minute detail with every employee?

I said it in my post: “He wrote something on the ground with his finger, but we don’t know what,” which means no one knows what Jesus wrote in the sand. But His Apostles heard Him talk for three long years. His Mother heard him talk for more or less 33 years. There you have 12 witnesses who, excluding Judas, and guided by the Holy Spirit wrote or helped in the writing of part of what He said, and remembered the rest which they passed it to the the next generation of leaders. Is this something God can’t do?

If this is true, then the keeping of these words is a most solemn and sacred duty. So it should be a simple matter for Catholics (or some Catholic somewhere deep in the bowels of the Vatican) to produce (recite?) volumes of words of Christ not recorded in the Bible. Can you please either point me to them or else recite them for me? Surely at least some of them have been written down during the last 2,000 years. It would surely be a best-selling title: “The Unrecorded Words of Christ.” The faithful would be clamouring for a chance to read these.

One such volume of His words is the Mass, every part of it and it’s public, isn’t it? It’ is solemn and it is sacred. You can participate in it every day. What did Protestants do? Reject it using the excuse “it’s not in the Bible.”

Another example:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. And he said, “Take this, it is my body.” (Mark 14:22)

“Blessed it”… how does a Christian bless the Bread? Can any Christian bless it? When? Where? This things are not in the Bible, yet for 2000 years only the clergy does it. Why? Was it a human decision or was it Jesus decision? I can tell you: it was Jesus decision. The priest makes the sign of the cross when blessing the Bread. Did Jesus make the sign of the cross when He blessed the Bread? It’s not in the Bible, but I have no problem believing He did. After all, He was the Teacher.

Who would you believe, someone who knew the Apostles and received the Gospels directly from them or someone who lived 1500 years after the Apostles and thought he knew better? If your father tells you something and you pass it on to your children, and they to their children, and if a friend of your grandchildren deny and change what you were told by your father, would you accept it as the truth? Where would you say the truth is, with your grandchildren or with the friend that changed you father’s words?

“Let each one, then, examine himself before eating of the bread and drinking from the cup. Otherwise, he eats and drinks his own condemnation in not recognizing the Body.” (1 Corinthians 11:28-29)

Who told Paul it’s sinful not to believe the Eucharist is Jesus real Body? He wasn’t at the Last Supper, he wasn’t with Jesus during the three years He spent with the Apostles, he wasn’t with Jesus the 40 days He was with the Apostles after His resurrection. Paul didn’t listen what Jesus said preparing them to be the first Bishops. It’s only logical to conclude that after he was accepted by the Apostles he was told everything Jesus told them. Remember, they were converting pagans, there was no reason to tell the converts to be how to be a Bishop/priest, unless the person was ready to be one. But if you are not satisfied look at this:

“After his passion, he presented himself to them, giving many signs that he was alive; over a period of forty days he appeared to them [the Apostles] and taught them concerning the Kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:3)

And what’s the Kingdom of God? The Church. Is there a description of what was it He taught them? No. Why them and not all His followers were told? Think about it. And think also of this: Jesus didn’t tell everything He had to say to the Apostles before His crucifixion. There was something extra to teach them during those 40 days, right?

 

[Tomster]

Good grief, Tom. You’re killing me here. I am beginning to think you’re just making arguments for argument’s sake.

If I forget my reading glasses when I go to my favorite restaurant with my wife and have to ask her to read the menu for me, she does not need to be infallible for me to get what I want for dinner (i.e. to properly interpret the menu). Now, if I bring my glasses with me to dinner, and while looking at the menu she says the trout costs $15, she does not need to be infallible either. If the trout actually costs $13, on the other hand, then I can read the menu myself and realize she has made a mistake. Likewise, if my pastor’s interpretation is incorrect, then I will look in the Bible and see it for myself. No infallibility required, just some common sense.

While a textbook, for example, is not infallible it can make many true statements. Yet even if these statements are 100% correct, I still do not need to be infallible to read it and understand it. Besides, understanding is generally the easy part. Doing is the part that’s hard.

So then you do admit that your pastor’s interpretations MAY be incorrect. Good!

If that is the case, what makes you think by going back into the Bible yourself you can come up with the correct interpretation?

What happens when you bring your “correct interpretation” back to your pastor, explain it to him, and he disagrees with you? ANSWER: PROTESTANTISM!

 

[Tomster]

So you’re saying Paul never actually wrote a physical letter to the Thessalonians, but someone overheard a conversation he had with the Thessalonian church (by phone maybe?) and then wrote it down later? Excuse the sarcasm, but this is a ridiculous claim if ever I heard one.

I am not saying anything of the kind.

What I am saying, and what you totally fail to understand, is that Sacred Tradition came well before the New Testament was completely written and canonized by the Catholic Church.

 

[Tomster]

Solus Christus,

Quite simply exegesis the investigation and expounding of the true sense of the Sacred Scriptures, that is, the truth actually conveyed by them.

The word exegesis is derived from the Greek verb - to explain. Exegesis is the art of finding and proposing the true sense of a text, and, in the theological field, of a text of Sacred Scritpture. It is an art insomuch as it applies the rules and principles of both the rational and the theological orders, which the science of hermeneutics establishes.

The process of interpretation of a biblical text starts with the determination of the text itself through the principles of textual criticism. Through the means of the rules of hermeneutics the exact exegesis of the text is given, recourse being had, whenever necessary, to literary criticism to determine the literary style of the book in which the text under examination is contained, and to historical criticism to locate it in its time relations. The supreme purpose of exegesis is to illuminate through human words the fullness of the light and thought of God.

(cont.)

 

[Tomster]

Solus Christus,

Related to exegesis is catechesis, another word derived from the Greek “sound”, “noise”; therefore “I resound”, “echo”; make heard"; “teach”.

At the dawn of Christianity it meant the oral teaching of the evangelical doctrine. The term is found in St. Paul and St. Luke, especially as a verb (1 Corinthians 14:19; Acts 18:25).

It is customary to distinguish between apostolic catechesis - the preaching of the Gospel heralds, sober and plain exposition, but lively and replete with the teachings of Jesus Christ - and a catechesis of the Fathers of the Church, which is the first developement of the teaching as adapted to common intelligence of the neophytes, especially under the form of a homily. But in a stricter sense, catechesis is the careful instruction which, from the first centuries, accompanies and is a part of the catechumenate in its various steps. There was an introductory catechesis, which was given to the candidates before admission to the real catechumenate; we have an interesting example of this in St. Augustine’s “De catechizandis rudibus,” which treats not only about the subject matter but also the method of teaching religious truths.

After this initial preparation the aspirant was admitted to the catechumenate, at first as an audient, then as a competent; and the catechesis became progressively more extensive and more profound, up to the teaching of the great mysteries and the sacraments. In this connection, the most complete and precious document is the 24 catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in which are distinguished: an introduction (protocatechesis); 18 catecheses for those to be baptised ( to be illumined ), which treat of sin, penance, baptism, and faith, and develope the articles of the Creed in a popular style; and, finally, the 5 mystagogical or sacramental catecheses for the newly baptised ( neo-illumined ). The old catechesis gave birth to the Catechism, a compendium of Christian doctrine adapted to children and adults.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster, there is an excellent website called dictionary.com. Please go there and lookup the word “exegesis.”

The silence is probably because they are wondering what planet you are from. NO, Evangelicals DO NOT believe they can interpret Scripture any way they please. Fortunately for you, I know where you have heard that tripe: From apologists such as Scott Hahn. Contrary to what he may like to believe, however, he was never an Evangelical. He originally hailed from a denomination that does believe that Christians are free to interpret Scripture however they please, and he disingenuously attributes this belief to all Protestants.

Now, before the Catholics in the room begin beating their chests in triumph, understand this: That evil teaching spawns from what is known as theological liberalism, and I have found strong taints of this filth even in some Catholic publications. I am sure everyone will be quick to point out that this is not the official theology of the RCC, but just understand that no group of believers is completely immune from this vile theology.

Solus Christus,

Perhaps you missed the above posts reprinted for you for your convenience. :tiphat:

 

[Tomster]

Tomster, there is an excellent website called dictionary.com. Please go there and lookup the word “exegesis.”

The silence is probably because they are wondering what planet you are from. NO, Evangelicals DO NOT believe they can interpret Scripture any way they please. Fortunately for you, I know where you have heard that tripe: From apologists such as Scott Hahn. Contrary to what he may like to believe, however, he was never an Evangelical. He originally hailed from a denomination that does believe that Christians are free to interpret Scripture however they please, and he disingenuously attributes this belief to all Protestants.

Now, before the Catholics in the room begin beating their chests in triumph, understand this: That evil teaching spawns from what is known as theological liberalism, and I have found strong taints of this filth even in some Catholic publications. I am sure everyone will be quick to point out that this is not the official theology of the RCC, but just understand that no group of believers is completely immune from this vile theology.

Ah, so if Evangelical Christians are not free to interpret Scriptures however they please, as you say, then what about the above admission you have made? What if you disagree with your pastor regarding an interpretation? Who decides which is the correct interpretation?

And for Pete’s sake, please DO NOT SAY THE BIBLE.

You see Solus, you DO need an interpreter for Scriptures. You, personally cannot do it by yourself. You do rely on tradition. You DO rely on the oral tradition that was passed on to you. Any denial on your part to the above would be plain nonsense.

And, by the way, don’t most Evangelicals hail from liberal Protestant denominations?

 

[jmcrae]

So let me get this straight: If a confessing Catholic supports the right to murder through the cause of abortion, though they are in direct violation of God’s Word (Thou shalt not kill) they will not be excommunicated.

They are excommunicated, automatically.

They cannot return to the Sacraments without the permission of their Bishop - this goes not only for anyone who has an abortion, but also for anyone who performs an abortion, and anyone who by any action facilitated or encouraged the abortion - for example, by driving the patient to the clinic, providing money for the purpose of procuring the abortion, by telling the patient or in any way indicating to the patient that if she gave birth to the child, she would become homeless or lose her job or her place in school, or if they signed any paperwork approving of it, or worked for an abortion clinic, even if only as a janitor or book keeper.

 

[jmcrae]

I hear you on Paul’s “I, not the Lord” statement, but I think it proves just the opposite: In general, Paul did know that he was writing Scripture. The one place where he makes this interjection actually shows that he felt it necessary to differentiate what he thought was a personal opinion from the rest of the letter, which he thought to be inspired by God.

I think that Paul would have wanted to reinforce those things he had taught them that were of first importance (1 Corinthians 2:2 and 5:3) rather than leaving them to oral tradition where they could be altered or forgotten.

Keeping in mind that this is nearly three decades after Christ’s acsension into Heaven.

The Church was operating on Holy Tradition alone from 33 AD until 55 AD, when St. Paul first began writing letters - and even if St. Paul himself thought they were Scripture, no one was reading them out in the Liturgy of the Word for another 90 years or so - they were reading from what we now consider to be the Old Testament, only.

St. Paul’s letters would have been read out as part of the homily, much as Bishops’ letters are read out, today (we don’t consider them Scripture, either.)

 

[jmcrae]

So you’re saying Paul never actually wrote a physical letter to the Thessalonians, but someone overheard a conversation he had with the Thessalonian church (by phone maybe?) and then wrote it down later? Excuse the sarcasm, but this is a ridiculous claim if ever I heard one.

Not at all. Rather, that what St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he learned from the Holy Tradition, as taught to him by word of mouth by the Apostles and other Christians. Not from reading books.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are saying there needs to be an infallible standard whether people conform to that standard or not. I agree with you. The Bible fulfills the need for this standard. If there are people who do not “go along with” the Bible, then how does the introduction of a secondary standard (Tradition) solve anything?

The Bible also teaches a single set of beliefs. The difference between Scripture and RCC Tradition, however, is that Scripture is thoroughly self-consistent whereas, arguably, the body of RCC Tradition is not.

Protestantism demonstrates that having a book is not enough to ensure unity of belief. Baptists formally teach one thing; Methodists another. Only the Catholic Church has the infallible Magisterium to untangle the contradictory interpretations that people come up with in their personal reading of the Word.

All Christians believe that baptism is important.

Does the Salvation Army believe in baptism?

We disagree on mode (submersion or sprinkling) and significance.

You forgot pouring.

Our understanding of significance (i.e. whether it is needed for salvation) will affect whether we believe baptism should be performed on infants or only to confessing believers.

Right. For some, it is an “essential”; for others, it is not. Consequently, Protestants cannot even agree on the essentials.

In the end, however, if all Christians are baptized then our understanding or misunderstanding of these details seems unimportant.

Not if someone dies before receiving the sacrament.

If it were of eternal importance that we understand these details, I strongly suspect Christ would have taught on this or, at the very least, one of the NT books would have provided a comprehensive treatment of the subject.

Jesus left a church led by the Spirit. He did not leave a book that we have to figure out. His Church has authority to speak on His behalf. “He who hears you, hears me.”

In certain areas, yes, uniformity is important. In what areas? There are areas that are non-negotiable. For instance, the Church should not tolerate marital infidelity, murder, incest, teachings that deny the divinity and humanity of Christ, so on and so forth. In other areas, there is room for liberty. What about, for example, holy days, days of fasting, etc.? That is precisely what Paul discusses in Romans 14. There, he calls for liberty on these non-essentials while still making a plea for Christian love and unity. Therefore, it is valid and acceptable for two Christians to diverge on non-essential doctrinal matters while still maintaining unity in love. I do not agree that complete uniformity was ever in-view.

Thanks for your personal opinion about what the “essentials” are. Others disagree. So much for Christian unity and for Protestant claims to part of the ONE flock under the ONE shepherd.

You all follow whatever shepherd preaches what you personally like to hear.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the context of my original response to jmcrae, however, I was responding to his/her assertion that the Judaizers were merely checking with James to verify something Peter had said that was “hard to hear.” If the Judaizers were checking with James to determine whether Peter’s pronouncement was binding then they would, in essence, be questioning whether Peter was infallible. And hence my incredulity since such a charism would have been well understood by the early believers. If it were not well understood, jmcrae’s assertion would be even further frusterated since the Judaizers would not have even bothered conferring with James on the matter. After all they would not, under these circumstances, have believed him to possess the charism either.

I disagree. Surprised?

Read the passage again. Peter spoke, then Paul and Barnabas, then James.

There is no record of the Judaizers confronting James saying, “Well, what about it, James? Do we have to listen to Peter or not?”

Is there? C’mon…be honest. No, there is not. So, enough with YOUR baseless speculation, okay?

James added his voice to the discussion to assure his local flock that he supported Peter’s decision, but it was not necessary. It was, however, very practical in terms of human nature.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If it is applicable, then why do you accept the application while rejecting the implication concerning tradition? No need to answer, I anticipate the response (namely, that the traditions of the RCC are infallible).

I understand that as a Catholic you accept that response uncritically. In my estimation, however, Christians ought to give wide berth to anything spoken against in such strong terms by God. If I were a Catholic, I would not be content to trust in the assurances of men that they have been kept from error by the Holy Spirit based on their unique interpretation of Scripture. I would, at the least, think it worthwhile to consider, in as objective a manner as possible, whether any portion of the body of RCC tradition did in fact tend to nullify the Word of God. What if the eternity of your soul hung in the balance? I personally would find that thought highly motivating.

I’m not even sure I understand your point, to be candid. Perhaps you’ll elaborate.

Church leaders are human and they commit sins. However, the Pope and the Catholic Church are infallible.

Infallibility and impeccability are different things.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, but I find this explanation dubious.

Of course you do. It would be most unsettling for you if you did not, wouldn’t it?

Since Peter’s supposed infallibility was by way of the Holy Spirit, then any refusal or hesitancy to concede on the part of the Judaizers would have be a direct affront to the Holy Spirit. Would it be appropriate for James to respond to such effrontery with cajoling? I suppose it is possible, but the proposition seems contrived.

You seem to be suggesting that everyone had equal understanding of Peter’s role as head of the Church and his infallibility. James got it…he was with Jesus when Peter was given the keys, but the others who had been Pharisees/Sadducees during Christ’s lifetime…well, who knows how clearly they understood what Jesus had conferred upon Peter. And even if they got it, do you not think they would have a hard time accepting a teaching that went against an ancient law (circumcision)? In our own lifetimes, just look how difficult it has been for people to accept the Church’s prohibition against artificial birth control.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So let me get this straight: If a confessing Catholic supports the right to murder through the cause of abortion, though they are in direct violation of God’s Word (Thou shalt not kill) they will not be excommunicated.

Actually, I believe the Bishops are moving (at a glacial pace) toward excommunication of those public figures who support abortion. Praise God! However, my point is that those who support abortion will never hear the truth if we just bar the doors against them…better that they come to mass and hear the truth about their ideas.

On the other hand, if a confessing Catholic believes that he is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, then he is excommunicated. It would seem we have entered the theater of the absurd.

Are we excommunicating people over these issues these days? I haven’t read about anything like this in my church bulletin.

No, we let both abortionists and sola fide-ists sup at our table.

I hope God does not judge us too harshly for our weaknesses.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am saying that at first the letters were circulated among the churches, and then careful copies were made so local churches could retain a copy. All along, however, most of those texts worthy of being considered Scripture were widely recognized. Yes, there were some, such as Hebrews and Revelations, about which reasonable questions were raised. Certainly, copies of inspiritational writings were probably widely distributed as well, but they were not widely considered to be Scripture.

And as jmcrae pointed out, there were others. Gee, you seem to want to fix the canon even earlier than most Catholics.

However, don’t forget that Paul had to warn about letters that were supposedly from him. Obviously, there was a period of uncertainty in the Church.

In Clement’s letter he instructs his readers to look to Scripture (to wit: “Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.”), but he never attributes divine inspiration to his own letter. Compare this to Paul’s letters, where he opens almost every letter with: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Grace and peace you, Solus Scriptus.

Having begun with those words, you now can be sure that everything written thereafter is inspired.

Right?

And recall that Paul specifically states in one of his letters “Now, about the matter you wrote, I have no instruction from the Lord…” yet, his letter is called inspired. In another place he says, “I, not the Lord” so we know with certainty that he did not think he was writing scripture - even though he was.

Like I said, the early Church took awhile to sort all this out.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I hear you on Paul’s “I, not the Lord” statement, but I think it proves just the opposite: In general, Paul did know that he was writing Scripture. The one place where he makes this interjection actually shows that he felt it necessary to differentiate what he thought was a personal opinion from the rest of the letter, which he thought to be inspired by God.

Not at all. Paul spent a lot of time in prayer and in studying the scriptures. I’m sure he felt that God had revealed many things to him over the years. However, I’m not sure he was EVER conscious of writing (well, dictating technically) the inspired Word of God. So, when he says, “I, not the Lord” he thought he was only giving personal opinion because he was completely unaware of the action of the Holy Spirit at that precise moment.

I think that Paul would have wanted to reinforce those things he had taught them that were of first importance (1 Corinthians 2:2 and 5:3) rather than leaving them to oral tradition where they could be altered or forgotten.

In that case, Paul should have written a more complete catechism or work of theology so that nothing could be misinterpreted or lost. But he didn’t, did he?

Instead, he had left his “gospel” in the hands of reliable men, like Timothy and Titus, with the instructions that they should do the same.

Paul advocated apostolic succession, you see.