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

[Luvtosew]

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

tqualey,
Yes I’ve read John many times, but have never seen it as meaning his flesh. also in 1Cor 11:29 neither my Catholic Bible, or KJV or NIV mention flesh but body.

Yes of course I believe one should not partake of the Lords Supper unworthy, without first confessing mortal sins, and also one needs to approach it in awe and reverence, but I do believe Paul was talking about feasting and drinking go on, more of a party scene, in those days they all brought food and ate together.

You know its just not that one choose not to believe, its just that one can’t in their heart believe its the flesh of Jesus or even agree with the sacrifice at Mass.

I guess the point is , how one interprets the Bible, it does seem the DR latest edition Bible has much more interpretation of scripture in it than say the earlier online version, even more and different footnotes than my NAB 1970 version, so how Protestants interpret the Bible is obviously different than how the RCC does. The point is also that individuals Catholics may find different meaning in parts of scripture than say another Catholic reading the same, and likewise same with Protestants.

I understand full well that the RCC says one must believe everything they teach and every dogma or doctrine, but sometimes one just can’t. I mean a person can’t be forced to believe something. I do feel I’m being honest, as I believe also that Protestants believe what they do for the same reason.

God Bless.

 

[PRmerger]

I have nothing against calling them Father, that is not an issue with me.

Okay.

So then how do you respond to a Protestant who tells you, “Well, you’re contradicting Scripture. It specifically says in Scripture not to call a man father, and yet this is not an issue with you?”

Is this where you would tell the Protestant, “Well, I think Matthew was wrong when he wrote that Jesus said that. After all, no man can be infallible, so this must be one of the places where Matthew was wrong.”

 

[Nicea325]

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?

That is not what I said. I said ANY Catholic is free to interpret scripture freely as he or she chooses,but at the end of the day, the church has the final interpretation.Yes the Church is the one with “the” interpretation,take it or leave it. Did not the church give one official and ratified Trinitarian doctrine? Or does it have multiple doctrines based on hundreds of individual interpretations?

 

[Nicea325]

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?

Yes the CC allows latitude because it is not a sin or crime. But again,you are not understanding,the Church has the final interpretation as oppose to Protestanism where there is none. Precisely why I asked you: Who does? The pastor? The individual? Which denomination out of thousands?

Are you and I allowed to read the U.S. Constitution freely and interpret it as we choose? Yes because it is no crime,but in the end…who decides what it truly says and means? You? Me? The citizens or the government?

 

[Luvtosew]

Okay.

So then how do you respond to a Protestant who tells you, “Well, you’re contradicting Scripture. It specifically says in Scripture not to call a man father, and yet this is not an issue with you?”

Is this where you would tell the Protestant, “Well, I think Matthew was wrong when he wrote that Jesus said that. After all, no man can be infallible, so this must be one of the places where Matthew was wrong.”

What would I say to a Protestant if he asked me, I’ve never been in that situation although I know Prostestants, but I would just tell them thats how we refer to Priests, I certaintly wouldn’t get into a Bible arguement about it.

I don’t believe that would be a major difference between Protestants and Catholics as I imagine they refer to their men as Pastor or Rev.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

The dogma of the Assumption was formally defined in 1950, but that does not mean that it was only starting to be believed in 1950. In fact, the belief goes back to the earliest centuries of the Church.

Just like the dogma of the Trinity wasn’t formally defined until 300 years after the revelation of Christ. However, it would be whacky to say that it wasn’t believed until the 4th century.

That this dogma of the Assumption was defined later (1950) does not mean it was “created” at that time. It simply means that the Church in her wisdom saw fit to formally declare something, which was believed from the earliest days of Christianity, as a dogmatically revealed truth of God.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Publisher,

I think it wold be appropriate to make a comment -
**
I would think most Protesants have a similar understanding in many ways…there is no SINGLE understanding among Protestants…**

None of the Protestants - or, anyone else for that matter - have the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Christ promised His Spirit to guide and protect His Church. So, it really isn’t a ‘similar understanding’. And, the proof of that statement is that the 30,000+ Protestant denominations all differ on material aspects of their interpretation of Scripture.

I realize that there are issues that have not been defined by the Catholic Church and people can differ as to what it means. These make for great discussions. The distinction is that none of these issues impact on your eternal salvation. For example, how long did it take God to create everything (the Genesis account) - no one ‘knows’ but everyone has an idea… Now, take Matthew 16:18 where Christ declares that He is founding His Church on Peter - none of the Protestants accept Apostolic Succession leading from Christ to Peter to Benedict XVI. I am truly always amazed when I hear about these ‘literal understandings of Scripture’ - its literal with six 24-hour days for Creation … but, not literal when Christ says we must eat His Flesh if we are to have life!

What may appear to be similarities on the exterior has profound differences just below the surface.

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?

 

[Luvtosew]

The dogma of the Assumption was formally defined in 1950, but that does not mean that it was only starting to be believed in 1950. In fact, the belief goes back to the earliest centuries of the Church.

Just like the dogma of the Trinity wasn’t formally defined until 300 years after the revelation of Christ. However, it would be whacky to say that it wasn’t believed until the 4th century.

That this dogma of the Assumption was defined later (1950) does not mean it was “created” at that time. It simply means that the Church in her wisdom saw fit to formally declare something, which was believed from the earliest days of Christianity, as a dogmatically revealed truth of God.

But before 1950 it wasn’t necessary to believe it was it. or was it?

 

[PRmerger]

What would I say to a Protestant if he asked me, I’ve never been in that situation although I know Prostestants, but I would just tell them thats how we refer to Priests, I certaintly wouldn’t get into a Bible arguement about it.

I don’t believe that would be a major difference between Protestants and Catholics as I imagine they refer to their men as Pastor or Rev.

Well, I am sad to say, Luv, that you still are not well versed in Catholicism even after being here 3 years, if you cannot answer the Protestant why we allegedly contradict Scripture and call priests Father.

The answer is that Catholics never contradict Scripture. We understand it in light of the faith which gave us these Scriptures, the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic Faith.

Here’s what you tell the Protestant:

There are many, many verses in Scripture in which the inspired writers call spiritual leaders “father”.

Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for **I became your father **in Christ Jesus through the gospel -1 Cor 4:15

I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one. -1 John 2:13

Incidentally, in Matt 23 Jesus also invokes us not to call anyone “teacher” or “master”. “As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.” Yet many non-Catholics have no problem calling someone “teacher”; and use the word “doctor”, which is Latin for “teacher”.

If you want to interpret the above verses to mean that Catholics are woefully sinning by calling their priests “Father,” and that Jesus meant we are to never literally call anyone “father,” “rabbi,” “master,” or “teacher,” then for consistency’s sake you’d better stop using the following words and phrases: Mister (means “Master”), Master of Ceremonies, Maitre d’, master of the house, master sergeant, magistrate (from the Latin “magistratus” for “master”), Master of Arts (M.A.), founding father, city father, snake doctor, and witch doctor, teacher, substitute teacher, student teacher, and so forth. And you’d best never let me hear you calling your Dad “father” and you’d better start addressing the guy who works at the synagogue as “hey, you” and wax as indignant toward Jews who won’t buy your ideas as you are toward Catholics. You might also want to start getting extremely indignant at the forced blasphemy every time you fill in a government form asking for “Father’s Name.” source.

THAT’S how a Catholic answers the objection that we are contradicting Matthew when we call priests father.

 

[PRmerger]

But before 1950 it wasn’t necessary to believe it was it. or was it?

Necessary for what?

 

[Nicea325]

Well, I am sad to say, Luv, that you still are not well versed in Catholicism even after being here 3 years, if you cannot answer the Protestant why we allegedly contradict Scripture and call priests Father.

The answer is that Catholics never contradict Scripture. We understand it in light of the faith which gave us these Scriptures, the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic Faith.

Here’s what you tell the Protestant:

There are many, many verses in Scripture in which the inspired writers call spiritual leaders “father”.

Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for **I became your father **in Christ Jesus through the gospel -1 Cor 4:15

I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one. -1 John 2:13

Incidentally, in Matt 23 Jesus also invokes us not to call anyone “teacher” or “master”. “As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.” Yet many non-Catholics have no problem calling someone “teacher”; and use the word “doctor”, which is Latin for “teacher”.

If you want to interpret the above verses to mean that Catholics are woefully sinning by calling their priests “Father,” and that Jesus meant we are to never literally call anyone “father,” “rabbi,” “master,” or “teacher,” then for consistency’s sake you’d better stop using the following words and phrases: Mister (means “Master”), Master of Ceremonies, Maitre d’, master of the house, master sergeant, magistrate (from the Latin “magistratus” for “master”), Master of Arts (M.A.), founding father, city father, snake doctor, and witch doctor, teacher, substitute teacher, student teacher, and so forth. And you’d best never let me hear you calling your Dad “father” and you’d better start addressing the guy who works at the synagogue as “hey, you” and wax as indignant toward Jews who won’t buy your ideas as you are toward Catholics. You might also want to start getting extremely indignant at the forced blasphemy every time you fill in a government form asking for “Father’s Name.” source.

THAT’S how a Catholic answers the objection that we are contradicting Matthew when we call priests father.

And how ironic those saying it is wrong to call a priest father neglect to mention this:

And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.(Matt 23:10)

 

[Luvtosew]

Necessary for what?

Necessary to believe in the Assumption of Mary?

 

[pismopal]

apparently Islam doesn’t believe the RCC.

So here again you are claiming that you get to do something, but saying that Catholics can’t
Now where did I say this? As a Catholic you can believe whatever you like, but the RCC states that one needs to believe the teachings of the Church, and since I don’t believe in the “Real Presence” as being real flesh and real blood, but I believe it in a spritual sense, then I’m not allowed or do I wish to participate in the Catholic communion anymore, but if you believe that its fine with me. It doesn’t matter if if wrong or right its what one believes.

I’m sure if I told a polygamist it was wrong he would just look at me and laugh, but I would still believe it was wrong.

Do you actually read what you write…think what you write? I have read some other things you have said on other threads that leave me scratching my head as to why you would be here if not just to entertain yourself. The above nonsense is just not even worthy of serious interaction except perhaps on “Answerbag”…so I am not.

 

[Luvtosew]

And how ironic those saying it is wrong to call a priest father neglect to mention this:

And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.(Matt 23:10)

I’ll try to remember all that, but I don’t really think Protestants care that much about what we call Priests as never has anyone asked me.

 

[PRmerger]

Necessary to believe in the Assumption of Mary?

No, not “necessary to”.

Necessary* for.* Necessary for what?

 

[Luvtosew]

Do you actually read what you write…think what you write? I have read some other things you have said on other threads that leave me scratching my head as to why you would be here if not just to entertain yourself. The above nonsense is just not even worthy of serious interaction except perhaps on “Answerbag”…so I am not.

Probably other posts we’ve had different views on I imagine. I say what I mean, if that leaves you scratching your head I’m sorry.

 

[Luvtosew]

No, not “necessary to”.

Necessary* for.* Necessary for what?

for Catholics to believe it. Don’t Catholics have to believe what the RCC teaches?
as far as dogmas go.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Luvtosew,

Your responses are truly unique.

In previous posts you claimed to be a Catholic for the past 50 years, yet in this post you claim not to believe in the Real Presence (the Body [Flesh], Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist under the appearance of Bread and Wine) Let’s be clear about two things:

1.) No one is forcing you to believe anything. You are totally responsible for your conscience and the preparation of your soul for the Particular Judgment.

2.) You can not have it both ways: either you believe what the Catholic Church teaches or, as in the post just presented, deny what it teaches - and if so, you are no longer a Catholic.

If you don’t like this, I suggest to speak with your local priest [again, show him what you have written and find out what he thinks of these statements] and consider going to confession and then finding out from the priest where there is RCIA program or similar catechtical program that you can attend. Otherwise, you might as well find a religion that agrees with your understanding of the Bible, Protestant argument/belief and the freedom to believe as you will.

In my opinion, I just do not understand how you can claim to be a Catholic. As I read your posts, you have demonstrated no honest knowledge of what the Catholic Church teaches, you are calmly denying matters of Faith and the misinformation you have provided are tragic. Do as you will, but please do not claim to be a Catholic.

God bless

tqualey,
Yes I’ve read John many times, but have never seen it as meaning his flesh. also in 1Cor 11:29 neither my Catholic Bible, or KJV or NIV mention flesh but body.

Yes of course I believe one should not partake of the Lords Supper unworthy, without first confessing mortal sins, and also one needs to approach it in awe and reverence, but I do believe Paul was talking about feasting and drinking go on, more of a party scene, in those days they all brought food and ate together.

You know its just not that one choose not to believe, its just that one can’t in their heart believe its the flesh of Jesus or even agree with the sacrifice at Mass.

I guess the point is , how one interprets the Bible, it does seem the DR latest edition Bible has much more interpretation of scripture in it than say the earlier online version, even more and different footnotes than my NAB 1970 version, so how Protestants interpret the Bible is obviously different than how the RCC does. The point is also that individuals Catholics may find different meaning in parts of scripture than say another Catholic reading the same, and likewise same with Protestants.

I understand full well that the RCC says one must believe everything they teach and every dogma or doctrine, but sometimes one just can’t. I mean a person can’t be forced to believe something. I do feel I’m being honest, as I believe also that Protestants believe what they do for the same reason.

God Bless.

 

[andrewstx]

Tqualy (sp) could you please explain the Catholic definition of innerant to me? I can’t beleive it is the same as the Protestant Fundamental idea of literal fact.

Like God instantly zapped everything into being in six 24 hour periods. That every word of the bible is literal fact. That the sun stayed still?

 

[andrewstx]

Please accept my appology for misspelilng your name. I had a bad stroke. And sometimes you need to explain things to me bluntly to get your point across.