Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
enanneman:
Tell me the paragraph and your question. 🙂

Eric
Click to expand...
How do I know that you will interpret it correctly 🙂 .

Guy, it has been fun. I think I have said and learned enough for now. I will come back soon and check up on the responses. I enjoy learning from you all.

May God’s grace be with you (even if you think you have to earn it!!)

Michael
 
Michael, use your ommon sense.

There is no further “Christ” typefigure to come, in other words There is no further prophet promised. What we are promised from Christ is the Hly Spirit and of course himself. There may be room for further definition of beliefs but not a reversal of beliefs.

It is encumbent upon Christ to ensure that we have his word and that we understand it. Now even if you want to consider bible alone wihtout anything else it is encumbent upon God to ensure that either an individual or an organisation fromthe time of his death until his return must be infalliable in interpreting scripture.

Christ cannot change vehicles mid stream becasue there is in reality no way for us to know if he did change vehicles and when,which means we would not know what was correct teaching and incorrect teaching (interpretation) at any point in time.

Once we admit that Christ is not with one organisation or individual for that matter, from his time until the end then we can never know correct interpretation of mcuch of scripture.

Now either correct interpretation is needed or it is not, if it is thent here is only one option, if it is not needed then we cannot know a great deal about what God wants from us, not enough to distinguish us from other related Christian type beliefs and other non christian type beliefs.

Michae if you don’t believe this then yu are only showing yourself as most of us do at one time or another to be full of nothing. It comes down to you wanting to believe Christianity in some form is correct, not necessarily that it is correct, only that you want it to be correct.

You could technically say the same about Catholics wanting their version of Christianity to be correct, the only difference is that using philoosphy and comon sences genuine about wanting to follow a christian type faith.

REMEMBER THIS- Every religeous belief in the world believes they are the “true” faith, yet it is actually only possible for one to be the true faith unless God is having fun at our expense

In Christ

Tim
 
Methinks this may be a bona fide case of, as St. Thomas Aquinas would put it, “Invincible Ignorance”. There is none so blind as him who will not see 🙂
 
That was really meant to be light hearted. please forgive me if I offended you. I did not mean to.

Michael
 
Just a side note about signs and wonders.

Did you know that Pope John Paull II recently performed an exorcism?

Would that not qualify as a sign and wonder?

Your sister in Christ,

Maria
 
I think I may know what you are really asking here. For example, when Vatican II came out, many people read it and placed upon it a meaning that was not there, so “interpreted” it.

What happens then? The Bishops come back and correct us, and say no you did not understand. We then take the directions and try again. Sometimes the instructions we recieve are clear sometimes they are not. The only “interpretation” we do as lay people is try to figure out what the instructions given to us were, if they were not clear.

Hope it is clear as mud now:o

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
Slow Burn:
Methinks this may be a bona fide case of, as St. Thomas Aquinas would put it, “Invincible Ignorance”. There is none so blind as him who will not see 🙂
Click to expand...
Yep why do you think I stopped posting? This is easy to answer and I post it in # 6 but I never got a response becuase I think he was not interested in the truth but wanted to argue a bit more.

Interpretations are not responsible for our beliefs, our beliefs are responsible for our interpretations.

This should be common sense. Anytime you enter an argument, you take with you your beliefs, which are your bias in your interpretations of anothers position. The other guy’s beliefs are challenged by your beliefs.

Ironically my protestant friend who just got his master’s degree in theology is the one who taught me this.
 
40.png
MariaG:
I think I may know what you are really asking here. For example, when Vatican II came out, many people read it and placed upon it a meaning that was not there, so “interpreted” it.

What happens then? The Bishops come back and correct us, and say no you did not understand. We then take the directions and try again. Sometimes the instructions we recieve are clear sometimes they are not. The only “interpretation” we do as lay people is try to figure out what the instructions given to us were, if they were not clear.

Hope it is clear as mud now:o

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
Click to expand...
This does help alot Maria. And really, this is my point. The only “interpretation” that I do, as a believer that the Scripture is our only validated authority (sola scriptura), is to figure out what the instructions given to us were, if they were not clear.

So, this answers my question that I posted at the beginning. How do you (RCCs) interpret the tradition? You do the best you can using the rules that follow basic interpretation and pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to the truth, all the while knowing that there will be disagreements (?).

Thanks for you honesty.

Credo ut intelligam
“Faith seeking understanding”
Michael
 
I think I have probably overly simple answer here, but the magisterium is a living teaching one where you can go to and ask questions if you don’t understand something. This takes the “interpretating the interpreter” our of the equation. It uses 2000 of wisdom and explains it so the laity can understand. If you still don’t understand, you can ask for more clarification.
 
**MichaelP, wrote the original post. Here is the first paragraph. “**I would like to share a confusion about objections that Roman Catholics have concerning Evangelicals/Protestants interpretation of sola scriptura. The main objection that I see that is expressed on this website concerning using the Scripture alone as the primary and only infallible source of revelation is that people will come up with their own interpretations that disagee. Therefore, the RCC is needed to interpret Scripture and protect orthodoxy. Am I right so far?”

What did he say? He said he is confused about the Catholic objection to the Protestant Theology of Sola Scriptura. First what is Sola Scriptura? It is the belief that any man can read any part of the Holy Bible and interpret what he has read correctly! The underlined sentances are the core of the problem.

**In reading this thread I had wondered just what MichaelP was wanting to interpret. It seemed he possibly was trying to interpret the words of the Magesterium or maybe the Catechism. I am relieved the Catechism does not need to be interpreted. It is in plain language, written on the 9th grade reading level.**The following is an introduction to the fallability of the theory of Sola Scriptura.Where in the Bible do we find the theory of Sola Scriptura, it must be there for Protestants say only the Bible is to be used for any religious statement. Where is it?
“Sola Scriptura”. You might imagine that such a belief system as Protestantism, which has as its cardinal doctrine that Scripture alone is authoritative in matters of faith, would first seek to prove that this cardinal doctrine met its own criteria. One would probably expect that Protestants could brandish hundreds of proof-texts from the Scriptures to support this doctrine — upon which all else that they believe is based. At the very least one would hope that two or three solid text which clearly taught this doctrine could be found — since the Scriptures themselves say, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (II Corinthians 13:1). Yet, like the boy in the fable who had to point out that the Emperor had no clothes on, I must point out that there is not one single verse in the entirety of Holy Scripture that teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There is not even one that comes close. Oh yes, there are innumerable places in the Bible that speak of its inspiration, of its authority, and of its profitability — but there is no place in the Bible that teaches that only Scripture is authoritative for believers. If such a teaching were even implicit, then surely the early Fathers of the Church would have taught this doctrine also, but which of the Holy Fathers ever taught such a thing? Thus Protestantism’s most basic teaching self-destructs, being contrary to itself. But not only is the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura not taught in the Scriptures — it is in fact specifically contradicted by the Scriptures (which we have already discussed) that teach that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians (II Thessalonians 2:15;
 
******While on the subject of scripture and Tridition It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospels are anonymous, whereas the ‘Gospels’ which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards CLAIM to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. ****

***Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels which they accepted against the claims of those which they rejected…The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John was well established in TRADITION. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in TRADITION, but it was felt desirable to buttress the authority of tradition with arguments which gave those two Gospels a measure of apostolic validation.
In other words, they had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy. By ‘orthodoxy’ they meant the APOSTOLIC FAITH – the faith set forth in the undoubted apostolic writings and maintained in the churches which had been founded by apostles. This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed specially by Irenaeus…They had to defend the apostolic teaching, summed up in the rule of faith, against the docetic and gnostic presentations which were so attractive to many in the climate of opinion at that time. When previously unknown Gospels or Acts began to circulate under the authority of apostolic names, the most important question to ask about any one of them was: What does it teach about the person and work of Christ?" ***

*** The gnostic schools maintained that it was they who best preserved the original teaching of the apostles; some of them claimed that the apostles’ more esoteric teaching had been delivered privately to selected disciples who were worthy or gifted enough to receive it [AH 3:3:1]. Irenaeus set himself to examine such claims and to establish the content of the GENUINE apostolic tradition. This tradition was maintained in living power, he argues, in those churches which were founded by apostles and in which there had been a regular succession of bishops or elders since their foundation; it was summed up in those churches’ rule of faith or baptismal creed." ***

*** Heretics might APPEAL to the text of scripture, but their interpretation was vitiated because it did not ACCORD with the rule of faith – the summary of Christian teaching handed down in the APOSTOLIC TRADITION (Against Heresies 1:3:6
**
 
**ST. IRENAEUS, Against Heresies (c. 180-199 AD)
***"When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life, while all the rest are thieves and robbers. *****

***“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them, while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. What then? If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?” (AH 3:4:1) ***

"The true gnosis is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of Bishops, by which successions the Bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere; and the very complete tradition of the Scriptures, which have come down to us by being guarded against falsification, and which are received without addition or deletion; and reading without falsification, and a legitimate and diligent exposition according to the Scriptures, without danger and without blasphemy; and the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and more honored than all the other charismatic gifts." (AH 4:33:8) *
*** As i see it GENUINE apostolic tradition is maintained and can be intrepreted in living power in those churches which were founded by apostles and in which there had been a regular succession of bishops or elders since their foundation.**
 
40.png
SocaliCatholic:
Yep why do you think I stopped posting? This is easy to answer and I post it in # 6 but I never got a response becuase I think he was not interested in the truth but wanted to argue a bit more.

Interpretations are not responsible for our beliefs, our beliefs are responsible for our interpretations.

This should be common sense. Anytime you enter an argument, you take with you your beliefs, which are your bias in your interpretations of anothers position. The other guy’s beliefs are challenged by your beliefs.

Ironically my protestant friend who just got his master’s degree in theology is the one who taught me this.
Click to expand...
I agree…I had a similar non-response in the other MichaelP thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=323944&postcount=21) I’m not saying that my reasoning is stellar, but MichaelP doesn’t seem interested in addressing these sorts of arguments. In fact, he left the other thread because he “found the arguments thus far wanting”. Right.

:banghead:
 
Michael’s original question is philosophical in nature (epistemological to be more precise). How do we know?

Obviously, everyone interprets. That is how human beings are made. It is how they communicate. We begin interpreting at birth or even sooner. We are each responsible for our interpretations.

It is necessary for each believer to respond to the faith through God’s grace. The Catechism of the Catholic church recognizes that all believers should partake in understanding (i.e. interpreting) the faith. see, e.g., CCC § 94.

The issue between Protestants and Catholics is not primarily about interpretation. ** Interpretation is ancillary to the larger question of authority**.

Does the church possess authority to direct interpretation or not? What is the nature of that authority if it exists? Does the church possess authority to correct erroneous interpretations?

We all interpret Tradition/Scripture. We interpret sermons, homilies, prayers, liturgy, and songs etc. . . .

We all have authority to interpret. However, the magisterium of the church possesses authority to ensure authentic interpretations of the Word and the deposit of faith. CCC § 85-87.
 
40.png
dts:
Michael’s original question is philosophical in nature (epistemological to be more precise). How do we know?

Obviously, everyone interprets. That is how human beings are made. It is how they communicate. We begin interpreting at birth or even sooner. We are each responsible for our interpretations.

It is necessary for each believer to respond to the faith through God’s grace. The Catechism of the Catholic church recognizes that all believers should partake in understanding (i.e. interpreting) the faith. see, e.g., CCC § 94.

The issue between Protestants and Catholics is not primarily about interpretation. Interpretation is ancillary to the larger question of authority.

Does the church possess authority to direct interpretation or not? What is the nature of that authority if it exists? Does the church possess authority to correct erroneous interpretations?

We all interpret Tradition/Scripture. We interpret sermons, homilies, prayers, liturgy, and songs etc. . . .

We all have authority to interpret. However, the magisterium of the church possesses authority to ensure authentic interpretations of the Word and the deposit of faith. CCC § 85-87.
Click to expand...
dts: This is a great answer. Thank you very much for your insight and ability to see into the statements that I have been trying to get at. I think that the others, respectfully again, are using canned answers from an apologetic paradigm that is illinformed. These do not allow them to get to the heart of the question, and thus my difficulties as you have. (although there are a few others who I think are really trying to understand my question).

I can almost agree with everything that you have stated so far. I respect Tradition enormously. I read the Church Fathers regularly. In fact I have the full set of Anti-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene church fathers that I refer to often. I agree with the first six eccumenical creeds. I love reading Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Calvin. All this to say that I do not take lightly the fact that God moves withing the people of God, the Church. I am always leary to part with any tradition, understanding that my own bias and subjectivity cannot be given too much credit. I would never disagree with the fact that the church, as expressed throughout history, has authority to which we are obligated to submit to a large degree. I would just disagee with the belief that it has infallible authority. I have not seen the justification for this. My arguement of infinite regression of interpretation is valid, at least I believe it to be at this point. You have help clarify this.

To the others: I am on this website simply trying to learn what the Catholic church believes and why. This should not get people too upset if they are truly confident in their beliefs. I think my tone has been one of openness and honest. If I don’t respond to each statement, it is because I am only one person. I cannot respond to every one of the 50 plus posts. I just try to resond to the ones that are the most relavent and understanding of the issues, and the one that seem to be coming from a spirit of grace and understanding. If a Protestant cannot come here and get answers, where can he go? If I ask sincere questions (although they may be tough) and disagree with the responses, does this mean I need to be attacked?

Anyway, dts, I think that we are closer than many may think. Thanks for the honest and forthright answer.

By the way, your initials are for Dallas Theological Seminary–where I graduated from. You have a few point in my book just for that!!

Have a great one.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
To the others: I am on this website simply trying to learn what the Catholic church believes and why. This should not get people too upset if they are truly confident in their beliefs. I think my tone has been one of openness and honest. If I don’t respond to each statement, it is because I am only one person. I cannot respond to every one of the 50 plus posts. I just try to resond to the ones that are the most relavent and understanding of the issues, and the one that seem to be coming from a spirit of grace and understanding. If a Protestant cannot come here and get answers, where can he go? If I ask sincere questions (although they may be tough) and disagree with the responses, does this mean I need to be attacked?
Click to expand...
I am more than willing to discuss things with you, but the “light hearted” comment that Catholics think that we have to earn God’s free grace was absolutely uncalled for. You really don’t understand Catholic theology if you are willing to make comments like that, and what this says to me is that you have accepted what someone told you about the Catholic faith as truth instead of asking Catholics what we believe about grace and how it is received.

I think dts is right, it is all about authority. The reason that we believe that the Church has the ultimate authority when it comes to matters of interpretation of faith and morals is because the Church is the “pillar and support of the Truth” to use the words of St. Paul to Timothy. The scriptures were written as a way to expound the faith of the Apostles and the provide instruction to the new Church, so who should have the right to interpret those writings but those who are successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, to whom the teachings of the Apostles have been entrusted.
 
Michael,

I hope you didn’t misinterpret (hey, wait a minute…) my previous posts as an attack. My headbanging was merely frustration. I could just as easily feel you were trying to insult others when you say “others, respectfully again, are using canned answers from an apologetic paradigm that is illinformed” even with the *respectfully again. *

I’m sure you realize that a writer’s emotion is not always picked up accurately by the reader.

I am also being open and honest in my posts, but I don’t feel I’m being attacked when people disagree with me - even if they use what I feel is a poor argument (which I may have).

God bless you…I am also seaking truth, but I will stop posting in order not to cause offense.

Robert.
 
40.png
michaelp:
Many people trying to interpret the Magisterium, each believing that they are led by the Holy Spirit. What is the difference in this and those who just start with Scripure. We are ultimately left to the unifying guidence of the Holy Spirit.

I am not saying that Protestants are as united as RCC, but to me, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, there is not much difference.

Look forward to your response.

Michael
Click to expand...
Your question is a great one and you are correct in that we are ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit. So how do we know that the Holy Spirit is guiding us? Because He said so. Jesus started a Church. He started a visible Church that was intended to be for everyone, a universal Church. He started a Church that needs tradition as well as scripture and He promised to guide it. As a Catholic, we believe Jesus started this Church and declared that the gates of hell would not prevail.

The problem with those that start with scripture is that they are using only a portion of the Truth and there is so much more. For instance, we can run our car on gas alone and it would run great for quite a while. But if we refuse to see that it is also necessary to do oil changes, check fluids, etc., we will run into trouble. We will ultimately be faced with the fact that we have missed out on so much more about maintaining our car, all the while convinced that gas was enough. When we do realize it, we will be screaming “why didn’t someone tell me?” It may not be the best analogy but you get the idea.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides each of us if we allow Him. But He also guides His Church. The biggest problem I see with individual interpretation is that it denies the communal aspect of the Body. However, this aspect requires an understanding of obedience, an idea that is very hard for most of us to accept given societal’s very individual and independent thinking.

Hope that makes sense.
God Bless.
 
listen people, don’t get down on this guy or think that he is taking jabs at our faith. It’s obvious he asks questions in good faith and just wants to learn and understand. If he makes a mistake like “catholics earn their salvation”, then just correct him like a good christian, correct him with love. Most protestants are protestants because they don’t understand the Catholic faith or because they have bought into misconceptions. It’s not their fault. Nothing is worse than bombarding someone who is seeking. It really makes Catholics look bad in general. On the other hand, there are a lot of good people on here who are great examples of Catholics who speak with love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top