Why do protestants have such varied understanding of what the Bible say's and actually means?

[Publisher]

Because there is one infallible interpretation, this is what the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is for. Yes, there may be Catholic that have several interpretations but the official teaching of the Catholic Church is the correct one when there is conflict and error.

Now for the your questions pertaining to Protestants, the problem arises when Sacred Scripture is misinterpreted and taken out of context and then proclaimed to be the one truth from God. There is no Magisterium or teaching authority established that speaks for Protestants or Protestantism as a whole.

Understood…from a Protestant perspecitive the Catholic church is just one more body that offers an interpretation of scripture…with no more authority or “truth” than any Protestant body…the “official” teaching of the Catholic church may claim it has a “teaching Magisterium” to interpret scripture for everyone…but it’s just another group of men making a claim.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The inability of the RCC to persuade all that unity and orthodoxy are more important than union with God.

Did Christ, Himself,. ‘persuade’ all to believe? Did the Apostles persuade all to believe?

It’s not the Church’s ‘inability’. It’s each individual’s inability.

 

[larkin31]

Did Christ, Himself,. ‘persuade’ all to believe? Did the Apostles persuade all to believe?

It’s not the Church’s ‘inability’. It’s each individual’s inability.

two sides of the same coin: both are limited by the human condition

 

[shawn38]

As the Protestant thing hit its stride, which created the first English translations of the Bible, errors in interpretation (both accidental and forced by Luther and others) came about.

Examples please! Errors within the deutrocanonicals was one of the driving forces of their removal. The books were not blindly removed.

The Catholic Church, not to be undone, made it’s own English translation: The Douay and Rheims translations. It is still a difficult tome to read with all the “thys” and “thous” and “thees”. Today, you can get differing translations for Catholic bibles, but most hold themselves proper in theology.

I wouldn’t expect you to say anything less for that’s what you’re indoctrinated to believe, from cradle to grave.

The first King James Bible put the deutrocanonicals in the rear of the Bible as an appendix. To save printing costs, some publishers eventually omitted them altogether. Today, some Protestants think that Catholics have a radically different Bible (as the Mormons and JW’s have) while, in fact, it’s the full canon.

“Deutrocanonical comes from the Greek meaning ‘belonging to the second canon’ and indicates doubt about the inclusion of these books in the canon by some of the early churches.” They were removed from the Hebrew Bible long before the KJV came along.

 

[wmscott]

Understood…from a Protestant perspecitive the Catholic church is just one more body that offers an interpretation of scripture…with no more authority or “truth” than any Protestant body…the “official” teaching of the Catholic church may claim it has a “teaching Magisterium” to interpret scripture for everyone…but it’s just another group of men making a claim.

Thanks for the reply, and I appreciate your thoughts. They are charitable and coherent.

As for the Catholic Church being just one more body, the CC is the first and original “Body”; the CC is the Body of Christ. Christ’s body, that being the Catholic Church, we see in 1Tim 3:15 “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” that the CC offers the infallible interpretations with the authority of Christ.

As for the Authority of the CC, Luke 10:16 says, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." that authority can be further see in John 14:24-26 – 24 “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me. 25 I have told you this while I am with you. 26 The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you”

As for the claim that the Magisterium authority to interpret scripture for everyone…but it’s just another group of men making a claim is a misguided statement. Matt. 18:17-18 - 17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. 18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.

The Church is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

So how can this be accomplished with such division and as many differing interpretations that has come from Protestantism?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Examples please! Errors within the deutrocanonicals was one of the driving forces of their removal. The books were not blindly removed.

Examples please! Show the errors within the deutrocanonicals.

I wouldn’t expect you to say anything less for that’s what you’re indoctrinated to believe, from cradle to grave.

Like Protestants, Catholics also choose to believe and it’s not ‘indoctrinated’, as you infer.

Deutrocanonical"Deutrocanonical comes from the Greek meaning ‘belonging to the second canon’ and indicates doubt about the inclusion of these books in the canon by some of the early churches." They were removed from the Hebrew Bible long before the KJV came along.

Weren’t the epistles of John also considered to be ‘deuterocanonical’?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Understood…from a Protestant perspecitive the Catholic church is just one more body that offers an interpretation of scripture…with no more authority or “truth” than any Protestant body…the “official” teaching of the Catholic church may claim it has a “teaching Magisterium” to interpret scripture for everyone…but it’s just another group of men making a claim.

Just as it was ‘just another group of men’ who wrote the letters and epistles that became part of the New Testament, defined the canon of the New Testament, and preserved the Bible through the ages until the reformers had it; just was we all have it today.

The difference then lies with which ‘group of men’ passed it down to us? Those of Apostolic succession, who also received the interpretation through the traditions of the Church.

The differences between ‘one more body’ is the first body had the scriptures and the interpretation. Protestants received the scriptures, but took on interpreting them for themselves.

 

[Publisher]

Thanks for the reply, and I appreciate your thoughts. They are charitable and coherent.

As for the Catholic Church being just one more body, the CC is the first and original “Body”; the CC is the Body of Christ. Christ’s body, that being the Catholic Church, we see in 1Tim 3:15 “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” that the CC offers the infallible interpretations with the authority of Christ.

As for the Authority of the CC, Luke 10:16 says, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." that authority can be further see in John 14:24-26 – 24 “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me. 25 I have told you this while I am with you. 26 The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you”

As for the claim that the Magisterium authority to interpret scripture for everyone…but it’s just another group of men making a claim is a misguided statement. Matt. 18:17-18 - 17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. 18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.

The Church is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

So how can this be accomplished with such division and as many differing interpretations that has come from Protestantism?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Your assertions are understood…they simply are not believed to be so by Protestants. The claims the Catholic church makes for itself do not prove in any way that those claims are true.

I do not find compelling evidence to substatiate it’s claims. The Catholic churches claims about itself is no different than the Mormon churches claim for itself…they can list the reasons why they believe it is so…but I do not find those reasons compelling enough to believe. My understanding of the development of the early Christian chruch indicate a different historical development than what the Cathlolic church gives for itself.

This is the impasse we find ourselves…you believe the claims of the Catholic church…I and most if not all Protestants…do not.

 

[wmscott]

Your assertions are understood…they simply are not believed to be so by Protestants. The claims the Catholic church makes for itself do not prove in any way that those claims are true.
**I can understand this “Belief” or disbelief as you have put it. **

I do not find compelling evidence to substatiate it’s claims. The Catholic churches claims about itself is no different than the Mormon churches claim for itself…they can list the reasons why they believe it is so…but I do not find those reasons compelling enough to believe. My understanding of the development of the early Christian chruch indicate a different historical development than what the Cathlolic church gives for itself.

**I know it was not intended but I would never equate Catholicism with Mormonism. That would be the same as equating Quakerism to Christian Scientists. **

This is the impasse we find ourselves…you believe the claims of the Catholic church…I and most if not all Protestants…do not.

True and this is the sadness of such division of Christ’s body.

 

[Publisher]

wmscott:
It would seem most Friends…at least “unprogrammed” Friends would have much less of an issue being compared to Christian Scientists than Catholics would be to Mormons.

 

[wmscott]

It would seem most Friends…at least “unprogrammed” Friends would have much less of an issue being compared to Christian Scientists than Catholics would be to Mormons.

Just trying to illustrate the vast spectrum between the two beliefs.

Or am I mistaken in that Quaker beliefs align somewhat with Christian Scientists? I am not familiar with Quakerism.

 

[schaick]

Pondering? Sounds like another gospel to be honest. Explain how there are so many ‘different’ interpretations from the one Holy Spirit?

**No, I am saying there should be and in fact there is one interpretation, ** among trinitarian Christians.

The different interpretations exist because someone **wrongly thought **the Holy Spirit was leading them to another interpretation-cults.

The Holy Spirit leads us to the different applications of that one interpretation.

This is how we become the many parts of the Body of Christ.

 

[Publisher]

Just trying to illustrate the vast spectrum between the two beliefs.

Or am I mistaken in that Quaker beliefs align somewhat with Christian Scientists? I am not familiar with Quakerism.

No, Quakerism is as different from Christian Science as Catholicism is from Mormonism…we just don’t have issues with some comparisons…being compared to a Christian Scientist who walks the way of Christ and is faithful to their precepts might even be a compliment.

 

[Poco]

…but I do not find those reasons compelling enough to believe. My understanding of the development of the early Christian chruch indicate a different historical development than what the Cathlolic church gives for itself.

Do you also not believe Matthew 16:13-19? Do you not believe the writings of St. Augustine and others? It seems to me Apostolic succession is pretty obvious.

What, exactly, is your “understanding of the development of the early Christian chruch”?

 

[Publisher]

Do you also not believe Matthew 16:13-19? Do you not believe the writings of St. Augustine and others? It seems to me Apostolic succession is pretty obvious.

What, exactly, is your “understanding of the development of the early Christian chruch”?

I “believe” that Matthew 16:13-19 offers us a glimpse into the developing theology of one of the early Christian communities. The Rock of Peter’s statement is what the body of believers would be founded on…“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”…not Peter.

Augustine is no more an authority on the subject than anyone else was…apostolic succession is not ‘pretty obvious’ from scripture, but is a development of the proto-orthodoox/catholic community of believers which developed in the following generations.

The Orthodox have a closer understanding on what this passage means…and has the references of some of the “ECF’s” to back it up…some contrary to Augustine…quoting someone 300 years plus removed from when Matthew was written…doesn’t proove too much.

I have read some of Augustine from time to time…“City of God” is interesting as I remember…but it was decades ago that I read it.

 

[PJM]

Publisher;6406516]So if Catholics are allowed a diversity of belief and understanding concerning the scriptures…why can’t Protestants?

Informed fully practicing Catholics can ONLY hold views that conform to CC Teaching; therefore they too share the SINGULAR truth.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Publisher]

Informed fully practicing Catholics can ONLY hold views that conform to CC Teaching; therefore they too share the SINGULAR truth.

Love and prayers,

Pat

So I understand that the “Magisterium” HAS infallibly “interpreted” ALL of scritpure?

 

[schaick]

schaick-I agree there is one interpretation, but the problem is the Catholic Church has added things that aren’t discussed in Scripture and never mentioned when discussing what we need for our salvation.
wmscott-Please cite a few.

Infallible Pope? I don’t see this any where in Scripture.

Mary
We know that Jesus was born of a virgin and that Mary was full of grace as were others according to Scripture, one interpretation. That is a concrete statement. Gosh even Muslims agree with this!

**My application **- she is the very best example of a servant of GOD, an amazing woman.
**C210atholic application **- she remains a virgin, she is assumed, she is born sinless herself and remains sinless forever. If you pray to her she will put in a good word for you.

Now IF I must apply your application instead of my application in order to be saved, according to catholism it becomes a forced and false interpretation.

The Eucharist there is one interpretation-this is my Body and Blood. Do this in remembrance of me.

**My application **- when I take the bread and wine I know that in, under and with the Bread and Wine is the Body and Blood of Jesus. That for the meal to be complete I must consume the Bread and Wine. This happened years ago and is a memorial to the event.

Please correct me I know this is not quite correct-**The Catholic application **it is becomes, is transformed into the Body and Blood, figuratively speaking you are sent back in time to witness the sacrifice, you bow to the bread and wine because it is Jesus.

Does the difference in the application warrant for one of us to not be saved?

schaick-Not needed there is one TRUTH.
wmscott-And because there is only one truth, that truth needs to be faithfully guarded and defended from heresy, and fallible misinterpretation.
YES!

schaick-What Catholic teachings are from Scripture and which teachings are from your Sacred Tradition?
wmscott-Embryonic Stem Cell research
Human cloning

Sorry I was thinking more along the lines of Doctrine-what you have to believe in order to be saved.

*schaick-For some time I have been asking what about Jesus do Catholics have that is not in GOD"s written Word? For sure mention the ones that involve our salvation.
wmscott-***So why does every single detail have to be written? does Sacred Scripture not say that not everything Christ said is recorded, if it were not all the books in the world could contain all that he said. that is why there is “Sacred Tradition” Dei Verbum (Latin: “The Word of God”), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

As a non-Catholic I feel that you will not understand or accept Sacred Tradition as being part of what Christ established here in His Church. In the end it boils down to the fact that you have to be open to the fullness of truth in order to understand and embrace all that Christ’s Church has to offer. ****
Why can no Catholic answer this question?

It must be documented and not some** secret tradition/message **otherwise it is Gnosticism.

Is the tradition needed for my salvation?

 

[PJM]

=BrianH;6407104]Do you mean the Bible or individual books or passages? If you mean Bible as a whole, there will be multiple ways of understanding it based upon the framework taken into the interpretation of it.

If you mean individual books, I think that varies. Some books in particular could have been written to have layers of meaning.

***Perhaps?

BUT all the more reason [logic here] to allow the Church and those qualified within that Church to determine it’s meaning as they alone are th ones for whom it was written.

[Notice please I did not say applies to.] ***

Love and prayers,

 

[Publisher]

***Perhaps?

BUT all the more reason [logic here] to allow the Church and those qualified within that Church to determine it’s meaning as they alone are th ones for whom it was written.

[Notice please I did not say applies to.] ***

Love and prayers,

Who determines that they are “qualified” to determine the meaning? Are not those “qualified” to interpret elected or appointed by another “elected” or “appointed” human?