Roman Catholicism and Interpretation II
I thank you very much for your reply, Timothy. I have certainly learned a lot from them. But I still do disagree with you. Here's my reply to your latest response:
_______________________
I also highly doubt that the case of the Ethiopian would apply to everyone.
You certainly can’t find them in the writings of the church fathers, since they so often disagreed with another. Who has the truth? How can we know?
Both claim to follow Church tradition and have Apostolic Succession. Who is right?
No, I’m saying that people who pray sometimes believe that God “leads” them to do something that would fulfill it. The problem is, how do we know whether God is leading us? I’m certainly not saying that God leads us astray.
But I’m saying that to hold to prayer alone as a single means of solving problems can cause, ironically enough, problems.
There’s no tradition of man in that. But of course, your belief that Scripture cannot be interpreted by oneself leads you to say such a thing.
For example, a person prays to God to show him whether the Roman Catholic church is the true church. A few minutes later, he meets a Protestant pastor who tells him that the Roman Catholic church is an apostate church. Did God answer his prayer? Yes or no? Why or why not?
And I argued that although we agree that the scripture verifies our claims, the early church does not, because they were often divided on different issues. They certainly did not have one single uniform set of doctrines, because, again, they often disagreed with one another.
The early church was more Protestant than Roman Catholic, each with their minor differences, but unified in their teaching of salvation.
God bless.
_______________________
Can you cite historical proof for this claim? The Torah was considered sacred and stored in a tabernacle in each town's synangogue. Individuals did not own Torah nor did they have free access to Torah. Even today, there is a strict order of precedence regarding who is able to read the Torah in the synagogues. Cohanes first, followed by members of 'lessor' Jewish tribes. How did these individuals have 'access' to the scriptures?I speak of “access to scriptures” in the sense that ordinary Jews knew the words of the Old Testament from the reading of the Tanakh by authorities even though they might not have access to it in the written form all the time. Or are you saying that all their ideas are gained from High Priests/Rabbis?
As for 'understand them for themselves', does not scripture itself state:
Do you understand what you are reading Philip asked. How can I, [the Ethiopian] said, unless someone explains it to me. " Acts 8:30-31
I also highly doubt that the case of the Ethiopian would apply to everyone.
If individuals are the ones to do the interpreting, then why did Jesus need teach the apostles how to interpret scripture? If, as above, the Apostles had individual access to the scriptures and were free to study and interpret them, then why did Jesus have to spend so much time teaching the Apostles the intended meaning of the scriptures?Again, Jesus did not need to teach the Apostles everything. You can only see that he corrected some misinterpretations that Pharisaic Judaism had and as well as doing some expounding to the apostles. It would be an assumption to think that he thought the Apostles everything.
“What makes someone infallible? Apostolicity?”And how do we know whether someone is speaking the truth? How do we know if the Pope is speaking the truth? Does he not need to be infallible prior for us to have complete faith in him that he is telling the truth? Or do we test his every words? With Scripture? If so, we are interpreting scripture without him and then comparing it with his pronouncements. With tradition? If all we have to compare his words with is tradition, than how can he speak anything new? What is the use for a Pope, then?
Truth. Truth by its nature is infallible. If something is true, then how could it ever be fallible (false, wrong)?
Paul was infallible when he spoke he truth. The Pope is infallible when he speaks the truth regarding faith and morals. You and I are infallible when we speak the truth.
Yes, there were heresies. The church also addressed each heresy and always presented the infallible truth and, by and large, each heresy fell away. The early church is replete with the writings of the early bishops refuting the heresies with scripture and the true teaching of the apostles. Unfortunately, in the last several hundred years, many outside the Church have decided to revive and spread many of the old heresies.And what are these “carefully preserved” teachings? Where are they to be found?
That said, the Church has been extremely careful to preserve the true teaching of Jesus and His Apostles. No other church makes this claim and no other church devotes as many resources to preserving the truth of the scriptures as does the Catholic Church.
You certainly can’t find them in the writings of the church fathers, since they so often disagreed with another. Who has the truth? How can we know?
I know little of Christ's intentions except for what I read in the scriptures. I do know that Christ prayed to our heavenly Father that the Church would be one (John 17:21). So again...How can you be sure that you are interpreting John 17:21 correctly?
'Did Christ establish a single Church with one true (infallible) interpretation of scripture or did He establish many churches with as many differing (false, fallible) interpretations of scriptures?'
"I can't give you proof that my interpretation is the infallible one ..."I don’t think you understood me. I do believe that my interpretation is correct (although I also believe that I may be wrong). What I mean is that my interpretation is not infallible in a sense because I am not an apostle or someone like that. Rather, my interpretation will have to be proved on its correctness to scripture, its ability to withstand criticism, its explanatory power, its coherance etc.
Then, why should I or anyone else follow your interpretation of scripture? You don't believe that you have the truth.
This is why I and 1.5 billion Catholics and Orthodox (75% of Christians worldwide) follow the Church's interpretation as it can be verified back to the earliest days of the Church. Every Catholic doctrine is found 100% in scripture, either explicitly (baptism) or implicitly (Trinity). I can read document after document from the earliest days of the Church to the most recent and verify a clear and consistent interpetation of the scripture that has never changed.Let me see. Catholics and Orthodox both follow the Church’s interpretation. If so, do explain to me as to why there are differences between Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. (See here and here)
Both claim to follow Church tradition and have Apostolic Succession. Who is right?
"... prayer alone doesn't get things solved. People who pray sometimes are led into different things."
This seems an odd statement from a Bible Christian. Surely you are not suggesting that God leads anyone astray by answering prayer?
No, I’m saying that people who pray sometimes believe that God “leads” them to do something that would fulfill it. The problem is, how do we know whether God is leading us? I’m certainly not saying that God leads us astray.
But I’m saying that to hold to prayer alone as a single means of solving problems can cause, ironically enough, problems.
This almost sounds as if the Bible were being abused for divination and fortune telling. In charity, we will assume otherwise.Let’s keep it in context. You were talking about praying to God to show you the truth of the Roman Catholic church. I said that this cannot be done, because sometimes people pray to God and end up with different conclusions. Rather, I say that we ought to pray to God that he will show us the truth through the study of scriptures when dealing with doctrinal issues.
Where in scripture did Jesus or any Apostle ever tell us to pray and then seek the answer to our prayer in scripture? This sounds like a tradition of man.
There’s no tradition of man in that. But of course, your belief that Scripture cannot be interpreted by oneself leads you to say such a thing.
Why limit God? Could not God answer prayer through a visitor to a blog? Could God not answer prayer through a "chance meeting" with a stranger during the day? Why limit Almighty God to a printed book?Again, the context is that of the truth of the RC church. To repeat, I said that this issue can only be decided through the Bible and prayer, but not through prayer alone.
For example, a person prays to God to show him whether the Roman Catholic church is the true church. A few minutes later, he meets a Protestant pastor who tells him that the Roman Catholic church is an apostate church. Did God answer his prayer? Yes or no? Why or why not?
"That's real bad form from you- quoting generalizations and vague statements. For that matter, switch the words "Roman" and "Catholic" with "Protestant" and you get some damning statements against the RC church."I don’t think you get my point, but it doesn’t really matter anyway. What I was saying was that the quote you gave was a very unclear one and didn’t do anything to prove your position, only to restate it. I said that if you were to switch Roman Catholic with Protestant in that quote, then that quote would be saying some negatives against the Roman Catholic church, as well as exalting Protestant churches. As for the Roman Catholic church's on non-Catholic churches, I have to disagree.
Actually, you don't get damning statements against the RC Church. The Church has always seen non-Catholic churches as possessing incomplete truth. God in his mercy has allowed every Christian church to possess enough truth for its members to attain salvation. Most Catholics have the utmost respect and love for our fellow Christians who are outside the Church.
As a Catholic, I offer rides to Mormon missionaries that I see walking under the hot summer sun. I offer glasses of water to JW missionaries canvassing our neighborhood. I seldom see similar Christian charity offered to these Christians by non-Catholics.That's certainly wonderful, but your point is? Protestants, like your Pope, are after all not impeccable. They make mistakes too, and have their faults. I don’t think you mean to say that all non-Catholics (not only the ones in your neighborhood) are like that, right?
Again, you misunderstand infallibility. I argued to the truth of the Church's interpretation which can be verified both from scripture and the early church fathers.
And I argued that although we agree that the scripture verifies our claims, the early church does not, because they were often divided on different issues. They certainly did not have one single uniform set of doctrines, because, again, they often disagreed with one another.
The early church was more Protestant than Roman Catholic, each with their minor differences, but unified in their teaching of salvation.
God bless.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, August 06, 2006 at 8:10 PM.
|
