Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?

[PRmerger]

You know what,
I’d like to apologise to everyone on this whole message forum board for being such a stupid lifelong Catholic of over 50 years and asking questions that just seem to irritate many people, so yes sorry for my ignarance and asking too many questions.

Oh, Luv, Luv, Luv–you have not irritated with your questions.

That you have great misinformation about Catholicism and have often proclaimed WRONG teachings as if they were Catholic teachings–that is what you have been called on the table for.

But never for asking questions.

It’s quite obvious that you did not understand the faith that you have lived 50 years–and that you cannot articulate, with Scripture verses to support, any allegedly divisive teaching of Catholicism.

You ought to learn your faith better, and then decide if you want to leave.

Right now what you’re leaving is what you think Catholicism says. Not what she truly teaches.

And you are endeavoring to find a church that conforms to your beliefs, rather than changing your own views to be conformed to Christ’s.

 

[Luvtosew]

Hi, Luvtosew,

From time to time folks mistype a response, or were distracted when they were writing or what-have-you. In looking back at your previous statement it is my understanding that you really mean what you have said below.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Bible is inerrant (there is no error). Here are a couple of links that may be helpful:

stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2009/04/pope-speaks-on-inerrancy-of-scripture.html

cathtruth.com/catholicbible/inspire.htm

The Bible was written by sinful men - look at Peter who denied Christ - his writings are included in Sacred Scripture. The issue is that God inspired these human beings to write His Message of Salvation.

Notwithstanding your claim to being a Catholic for 50 years - your statement below is misleading to the point of being incorrect. The Bible is without error. Now, if you think it has an error you will have to present evidence of this to back up your statement. The Bible was written by sinful men - everyone who wrote any Book in the Bible was born with Original Sin. Probability is high they were also guilty of Actual Sin, too (let me use Peter again as the example). Yes, God is the Principal Author - but, He chose to use sinful men to write His Word.

I am not entirely sure what your point was when you wrote what you did … but, it really cries out for a major clarification. And, if you don’t believe me - just print out what you wrote and take it to your priest and ask him if you are correct.

God bless

Oh believe me I believe the Bible , and well I think in the three years I’ve been at this site, I probably have learned more about the RCC than many Catholics know and I will for sure pass on what I have learned to my family and friends, thank you.

 

[Luvtosew]

Oh, Luv, Luv, Luv–you have not irritated with your questions.

That you have great misinformation about Catholicism and have often proclaimed WRONG teachings as if they were Catholic teachings–that is what you have been called on the table for.

But never for asking questions.

It’s quite obvious that you did not understand the faith that you have lived 50 years–and that you cannot articulate, with Scripture verses to support, any allegedly divisive teaching of Catholicism.

You ought to learn your faith better, and then decide if you want to leave.

Right now what you’re leaving is what you think Catholicism says. Not what she truly teaches.

And you are endeavoring to find a church that conforms to your beliefs, rather than changing your own views to be conformed to Christ’s.

I think I know well what the RCC teaches after 3 years of reading and this site- and I couldn’t be more sure , I do appreciate your concern for my soul as I also have concern for yours.

 

[PRmerger]

I think I know well what the RCC teaches after 3 years of reading and this site- and I couldn’t be more sure , I do appreciate your concern for my soul as I also have concern for yours.

Ok.

So let’s see how you could articulate the Catholic Church’s teaching on this:

why do we call priests father, in light of the fact that it contradicts the Scripture which says, in Matthew, to “call no man ‘father’?”

Can you explain this very basic Catholic practice, Luv? How would a Catholic answer this?

 

[Luvtosew]

Ok.

So let’s see how you could articulate the Catholic Church’s teaching on this:

why do we call priests father, in light of the fact that it contradicts the Scripture which says, in Matthew, to “call no man ‘father’?”

Can you explain this very basic Catholic practice, Luv? How would a Catholic answer this?

Catholics refer to Priest as “father” as a term of endearment and respect. The priests provides for our spiritual welfare just as a father of a family provides food, shelter and love for his family. Priests, through the Eucharist, provide us with our Spiritual food; through Reconciliation, provide us with forgiveness; through mass and the Bible, they teach us about God and His teachings; they listen and give us advise; and by their vocation, they sacrifice their life in service for us and our families. The Priest is our spiritual Father and we are his spiritual children.

My spiritual Father is God and I am a child of God not a child of a Priest , God forgives sin, not priests, Of course how nice to be Catholic and sin and go to confession, easy,sin go to confession, heck read the Bible for 30 mins and get an indulgence, says right in my Bible,
saying that I have had some good enounters with Priest, and some are holy men, but in no way do I think of them as My Father, or that they are acting as Christ on earth.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholics refer to Priest as “father” as a term of endearment and respect. The priests provides for our spiritual welfare just as a father of a family provides food, shelter and love for his family. Priests, through the Eucharist, provide us with our Spiritual food; through Reconciliation, provide us with forgiveness; through mass and the Bible, they teach us about God and His teachings; they listen and give us advise; and by their vocation, they sacrifice their life in service for us and our families. The Priest is our spiritual Father and we are his spiritual children.

My spiritual Father is God and I am a child of God not a child of a Priest , God forgives sin, not priests, Of course how nice to be Catholic and sin and go to confession, easy,sin go to confession, heck read the Bible for 30 mins and get an indulgence, says right in my Bible,
saying that I have had some good enounters with Priest, and some are holy men, but in no way do I think of them as My Father, or that they are acting as Christ on earth.

You didn’t address Matthew’s verse that says “Call no man, Father”.

How does a Catholic respond to this apparent contradiction, Luv?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,
Does the LCMS view communion as the actual Body and Blood of Christ? Could it be said that one is receiving the “Flesh of Our Lord”?

And His blood, yes.
The Apology of the Augsburg Cnfessions says, in part,

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper **the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. **This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

This is most certainly true.

Jon

 

[Newsy]

And His blood, yes.
The Apology of the Augsburg Cnfessions says, in part,

This is most certainly true.

Jon

Thanks Jon!

 

[Newsy]

You know what,
I’d like to apologise to everyone on this whole message forum board for being such a stupid lifelong Catholic of over 50 years and asking questions that just seem to irritate many people, so yes sorry for my ignarance and asking too many questions. Next time I sit in Church I do wonder who is sitting next to me and if I’m doing all the moves right, if I take the host right, if I kneel right, I’m surprised no one has come and corrected me at Mass for something I may have done wrong. I never knew Catholics were taught to be so self righteous, and condeming, I have learned an awful lot since coming here and most of it is not good, although I must say there have been some wonderful kind people here, but not the majority I’m afraid. I have seem other posters beaten into the ground as well, and its very sad, and one wonders why Protestants don’t want to be Catholic, is it the Church itself or is it because of some of the members.

And Newsy a special apology for causing you to bang your head, I do hope it is not still hurting.

No apology necessary, I was probably a little harsh. And, no, my head does not hurt.

I would like to reiterate, you have not been “punished” for not understanding the Catholic Faith. You are not being “picked on” because you have been a Catholic for 50 years. The problem in this discussion has been a lack of proof. You have repeatedly accused the Church, but given no proof. You have evaded our questions, they were meant to make you prove your point. For example, if I came over and said that your child was a thief, you would want me to prove my accusation. The same goes for us, when you accuse the Church we love, we want you to prove your accusation. The burden of proof lies on the accuser.

On my journey to Rome, I found CAF to be very offensive and frustrating. Not that it was mean, but because it challenged me to back up my beliefs. All of the sudden, my opinion wasn’t enough in debates. It was a needed push to investigate the Truth.

In the years following Vat II, many Catholics “fell through the cracks”. A great disservice was done in educating Catholics. I am truly sorry if you fell into this catagory. Many “baby boomers” were poorly educated, not knowing the Faith, they fell away. They have raised their kids with almost no church. Now, we look in most churches, very few 20-40 year olds.

I am glad you are here, at CAF. I think that something keeps you asking questions, this is terrific. I am sorry if you think everyone is picking on you or your posts, their intention is to teach, not drive you away. I hope you will continue to study and grow in your faith journey.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Luvtosew,

Belief in the Bible is great! Your presumption about learning more about the Catholic Church in 3 years on this site is not well placed. You really have not demonstrated any real knowledge about the Catholic Faith - in fact, your posts have demonstrated quite the opposite.

I gather you will not be bringing your statements to your local priest to evaluate. Fine, this is your choice. But, please, do your family and friends a favor and do not willfully spread the misinformation about the Catholic Faith that you have spread on this site.

God bless

Oh believe me I believe the Bible , and well I think in the three years I’ve been at this site, I probably have learned more about the RCC than many Catholics know and I will for sure pass on what I have learned to my family and friends, thank you.

 

[Luvtosew]

You didn’t address Matthew’s verse that says “Call no man, Father”.

How does a Catholic respond to this apparent contradiction, Luv?

How would I respond to that if asked, We call them Father out of respect, same way we treat all people with respect. That is their title so that is how we address them , just as I’m sure some Protestants must called their spiritual teachers Pastor or Rev. I have nothing against calling them Father, that is not an issue with me. Acuturally I feel the RCC confessional is the best thing the RCC has, a place to unburden one soul and receive spiritual advice if needed, but I believe its God that only forgives sin, but auditory confession is good. Speaking of that I need to go.

why is there not a single understanding of Protestant of the Bible, who knows, probably because there are so many different Protestant demonimations, and one needs to be careful who they listen to. Also everyone who reads the Bible interprets the meaning different, but the main meaning of the Bible is there. Likewise I can say even on Ewtn one will hear different thoughts, a lady was on the other night saying how to ask the HS to help us before we start reading, and she also said even after reading the same passage for several years she can read it and suddenly get a different meaning, and she was discussing this with 2 Priest.

Also my Nab bible footnotes say different things that someone else later RCC Bible…dont ask for specifics , I’m not going back to the place it was discussed. and well over the years hasn’t the RCC view on things changed? I mean it wans’t that long ago was it that the BVM was said to be assumed into heaven?

I realize the whole Bible for RCC is about the Eucharist, but I also stumbled on Bible Church Checklist-Catholic 101 , and a list of 22 things they list to ask Protestant churches, maybe we should post them and go through them one by one. I mean this is a Bible thread right, (the issues I have with the last supper and sacrifice at the Mass) is not about what this thread is about.

 

[Publisher]

There’s no single Protestant understanding for the same reason there is no single Catholic understanding…just review the thread in Sacred Scripture on this forum.

Why don’t Catholics have a single understanding of scripture…“Catholics believe all the same things” is often said on this board…not so it seems…yet Protestants are to have a “single understanding”?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Respect and charity toward other users please.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Luvtosew,

Concerning the, “Call no man Father” question - these links may be helpful:

catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/father.htm

God bless

How would I respond to that if asked, We call them Father out of respect, same way we treat all people with respect. That is their title so that is how we address them , just as I’m sure some Protestants must called their spiritual teachers Pastor or Rev. I have nothing against calling them Father, that is not an issue with me. Acuturally I feel the RCC confessional is the best thing the RCC has, a place to unburden one soul and receive spiritual advice if needed, but I believe its God that only forgives sin, but auditory confession is good. Speaking of that I need to go.

why is there not a single understanding of Protestant of the Bible, who knows, probably because there are so many different Protestant demonimations, and one needs to be careful who they listen to. Also everyone who reads the Bible interprets the meaning different, but the main meaning of the Bible is there. Likewise I can say even on Ewtn one will hear different thoughts, a lady was on the other night saying how to ask the HS to help us before we start reading, and she also said even after reading the same passage for several years she can read it and suddenly get a different meaning, and she was discussing this with 2 Priest.

Also my Nab bible footnotes say different things that someone else later RCC Bible…dont ask for specifics , I’m not going back to the place it was discussed. and well over the years hasn’t the RCC view on things changed? I mean it wans’t that long ago was it that the BVM was said to be assumed into heaven?

I realize the whole Bible for RCC is about the Eucharist, but I also stumbled on Bible Church Checklist-Catholic 101 , and a list of 22 things they list to ask Protestant churches, maybe we should post them and go through them one by one. I mean this is a Bible thread right, (the issues I have with the last supper and sacrifice at the Mass) is not about what this thread is about.

 

[Nicea325]

There’s no single Protestant understanding for the same reason there is no single Catholic understanding…just review the thread in Sacred Scripture on this forum.

Why don’t Catholics have a single understanding of scripture…“Catholics believe all the same things” is often said on this board…not so it seems…yet Protestants are to have a “single understanding”?

Not presented accurate at all. Any Catholic may interpret scripture freely,but in the end,the church has the final interpretation. Now under Protestanism? Who determines what is the final interpretation? The pastor? The individual? Which denomination out of thousands?

 

[Luvtosew]

Hi, Luvtosew,

Concerning the, “Call no man Father” question - these links may be helpful:

catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/father.htm

God bless

Thank you for the links, and well I agree with that , there are many words that should not be taken literally in the bible, but what I don’t understand is

how does one decide what we should take literally or what we should not? Either we almost have to take it all literally or all not literally.

so then this brings me to John 6 recourse when Jesus refers to his flesh,
how do we know he is speaking literally
and not using a hyperbole?

hy·per·bo·le   /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
noun Rhetoric .

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

God Bless

 

[Publisher]

Not presented accurate at all. Any Catholic may interpret scripture freely,but in the end,the church has the final interpretation. Now under Protestanism? Who determines what is the final interpretation? The pastor? The individual? Which denomination out of thousands?

So you’re saying that all Catholics have the exact same understanding of each passage of scripture? Are you saying that every passage of scripture has been interpreted by the Catholic church? Are you saying that there is only ONE Catholic understanding of scripture?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Luvtosew,

Glad to help.

Let me answer your question on “How does one decide…” The Catholic Church has not taken a position on every verse in the Bible. People are free to believe what they will on some items. For example: the Genesis account of Creation. You are free to believe that God created everything in six 24-hour days (at one extreme), that the Big Bang happened about 14 billion years ago (the other extreme) or some other combination of days as you wish! And, yes I know that there are those who are truly passionate about one extreme or the other… but, the Catholic Church is not championing either. What the Church has required us to believe if we claim to be Catholics is that God freely chose to create everything out of nothing. How he did this and over what length of time is immaterial - the focus is totally on God’s Act of Creation. It runs directly counter to the Atheist who claims that God does not exist and we are here by sheer chance. Here is a link: catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

Now, look at John 6 as one part of puzzle. It is divided into 3 sections: feeding of the 5,000 by His Own Power, control of nature by His Own Power, and then offering Something that would be other-wise impossible - and requiring Faith. Initially, the Jews thought he was using a metaphor or a hyperbole - but, there is this moment of true realization that Christ intends His listeners to take Him literally. Here is the entire 6th chapter of John as a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_6 My suggestion is to read it along with the commentary and progress to John 6:53. Here is where the Jews refuse to believe “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Continue reading and you will see they scoffed at Christ’s statements (“This is a hard saying…” or “This is crazy talk - let’s get out of here!” to paraphrase the Jews) and they left Him. Note: Christ did not run after them and say something like, “You misunderstood me - I was just giving an example!” That did not happen.

We do not know how many people heard Christ say this but a large number left. So many left that Christ turns to His Apostles to find out if they were leaving, too! This was a real crisis or turning point in Christ’s public ministry. This is the first time anyone had left because of a doctrinal dispute.

The Magisterium has declared that Christ’s statement about us eating His Flesh must be taken literally if you claim to be a Catholic. This is no mere symbol or metaphor on steroids - this is literally true. How this happens is a mystery - our requirement as Catholics is to believe Christ’s words literally. Here is an interesting link:cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a044.html

Please note: John 6 chronologically happens before the Last Supper. Matthew, Mark and Luke and confirm that Christ took bread and said, “This is My Body” - and not something like, “This is just a symbol of my body… or this is a memorial of my body … or this is a nice idea about my body” nothing like that. Look at St. Paul in 1Cor 11:29 where he tells these people that they are eating the Lord’s Flesh and will be judged if they do so improperly. St. Paul did not think the Eucharist was a mere memorial.

Now, put these parts together - and I think you will see that you have a more complete Biblical picture. Join all of this to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and you have solid doctrine.

God bless

Thank you for the links, and well I agree with that , there are many words that should not be taken literally in the bible, but what I don’t understand is

how does one decide what we should take literally or what we should not? Either we almost have to take it all literally or all not literally.

so then this brings me to John 6 recourse when Jesus refers to his flesh,
how do we know he is speaking literally
and not using a hyperbole?

hy·per·bo·le   /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
noun Rhetoric .

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

God Bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Publisher,

I think what is being said is that the Catholic Church has defined and taught as matters of faith certain elements in the Bible. These items, e.g., God created everything out of nothing, God specifically infused an immortal soul into man (man just did not evolve from some kind of ‘primordial soup’) that Jesus Christ proclaimed that He would freely give us His Flesh to eat and we do this at the Eucharist. Practicing Catholics “have the exact same understanding…” of these passages.

Other passages, such as did the sun really stand still … are up to the individual. The issue is that God could have certainly performed a distinct miracle to provide more sunlight for a battle - and that such an act is not outside the Power of God. In my last post to Luvtosew I provided some references that you may find of benefit.

God bless

So you’re saying that all Catholics have the exact same understanding of each passage of scripture? Are you saying that every passage of scripture has been interpreted by the Catholic church? Are you saying that there is only ONE Catholic understanding of scripture?

 

[Publisher]

Hi, Publisher,

I think what is being said is that the Catholic Church has defined and taught as matters of faith certain elements in the Bible. These items, e.g., God created everything out of nothing, God specifically infused an immortal soul into man (man just did not evolve from some kind of ‘primordial soup’) that Jesus Christ proclaimed that He would freely give us His Flesh to eat and we do this at the Eucharist. Practicing Catholics “have the exact same understanding…” of these passages.

Other passages, such as did the sun really stand still … are up to the individual. The issue is that God could have certainly performed a distinct miracle to provide more sunlight for a battle - and that such an act is not outside the Power of God. In my last post to Luvtosew I provided some references that you may find of benefit.

God bless

Understood…I would think most Protesants have a similar understanding in many ways…there is no SINGLE understanding among Protestants…but neiither is there a SINGLE understanding of every biblical passage among Catholics…probably for similar reasons in many instances…friend Nicea seemed to indicate that was not the case…at least how I read his response…and if that is not the case…I fail to see the purpose of his/her repsonse otherwise since the Catholic church does not require a SINGLE understanding of biblical passages but allows a latitude of belief of things not seen as “essential”…even among it’s prieshood…

The title of this thread had no qualifiers…burt asked “why” there wasn’t a “single Protestant understanding”…why does it make a difference when Catholics do not have a single understanding of the Bible on every issue either?