Magisterium correctly interprets scripture. who correctly interprets Magisterium?

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by fhansen

He needed the Church in order to hear about the true God, just like everyone else.

We disagree. After all, how are we ever called to the Church, if we cannot hear God first?

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by Anneymay

that is as good as saying that the bible is not the word of God.
Anneymay

The Bible, or whatever parts of it you have, is not the word of God. It is a compilation of writings by men, the words of men, inspired by God, not dictated by Him.

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by Gaber

But then, I guess even if one did, they'd still have their mind to contend with as far as interpreting THAT!

Depends on how detailed your visions are, I guess.

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by fhansen

Gaber, I wonder if we're aren't talking past each other. I personally know the experience of being receptive to grace-and of receiving it in big doses in any case. But I can't help but wonder if you don't end up trying to squeeze Saint Teresa et al to fit into a mold that doesn't quite work. Most Christians have a sense that there's more to it all-that there's something to go beyond to. They may or may not believe this is possible in this life. They may end up living with a sort of quasi-comfortable satisfaction...

But where I really see the difference is that, in Christianity, God is seen as a personal, yet transcendent, being and while you seem to regard this concept as largely anthropomorphic, we see it as a superior revelation-closer to the truth-than the notion that God is merely transcendent/all-pervasive. We recognize that no words can adequately express God, and no mind can adequately conceive of God, and yet we still believe that the direct experience of God can be had, in some manner, and that there is something to say-and probably something more specific to say about "Him"after said experience than you might have to say-probably because of the personalistic aspect of it. And this personalistic concept still seems to me superior to a non-personalistic one.

We are God, in that we are part of Him, expressions of Him (or potentially so, at least), much like our own creations are expressions of us-but the relationship is even more intimate than that IMO. We can breach that relationship, however, by willfully turning from this Beauty, this perfect wisdom and goodness, to lesser "goods", falling into the muck and mire of ego-driven pursuits and agendas. But I still believe that dualism is never completely absent. We can't not exist-because God wills us to exist. But our existence is still dependent on Him, whereas His is not dependent on anything. Anyway I''m certain there's much to explore-so much we don't know-and I'm always interested in your contributions under your various incarnations-but I still think we're often speaking of different things.

Lovely post. (<----not sarcasm )

[ivebeenshown]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

The Bible, or whatever parts of it you have, is not the word of God. It is a compilation of writings by men, the words of men, inspired by God, not dictated by Him.

The Catholic Church teaches otherwise.

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

[MartyJZ]

Originally Posted by bmonk

The difference between the Protestant and Catholic cases you gave are these:

1. The Protestant tendency to continue to splinter from disagreements over interpretation means that they tend not to listen to opposing voices and positions, so the Holy Spirit may have a harder time getting through. Of course, one might say the same about the Catholic Magisterium....

2. The effort to be open to the Holy Spirit is only on the interpreters' part for Protestants; for Catholics it is on both sides: the Magisterium and the Faithful both are able to ask the Spirit's guidance in their efforts to understand and express the faith.

I don't think that I meant either of these two conclusions.

Regarding point 1: I do believe that many divergent groups do listen to each other, but the point is that they are not bound by any demands to agree especially if it is a non-essential of the faith.

Regarding point 2: I was addressing the original point of the thread: who interprets the Magisteriun correctly. Sure an average Catholic can ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help them interpret the Magisterium's pronouncements, but they have the same dilemma as the Protestants. They don't have an infallible way of interpreting the matter. Ultimately, interpretation has to come down to faith and action. Am I being faithful to this doctrine as far as I understand it? Am I absolutely sure I understand correctly what the Magisterium (or Scripture) is teaching.

Both Protestants and Catholics believe that the Scripture and/or the Magisterium are absolutely infallible, but both groups cannot provide a 100% verifiable proof that their interpretations of each are correct. That is where faith steps in. It has a lens outside of what is seen and it focuses on the spiritual. But can we hold onto the Ultimate Absolute Truth (God) with anything scientifically verifiable? Definitely not!

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown

The Catholic Church teaches otherwise.

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

The Church does not teach otherwise, the quote notwithstanding. When it says "word of God" it is: not literal words given by God in some exact order to be written down. Otherwise the CCC wouldn't decribe parts as written in "figurative language."

The Church freely discusses changes made, endings tacked on, and parts that may have been additions to original texts.

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

The Church does not teach otherwise, the quote notwithstanding. When it says "word of God" it is: not literal words given by God in some exact order to be written down. Otherwise the CCC wouldn't decribe parts as written in "figurative language."

The Church freely discusses changes made, endings tacked on, and parts that may have been additions to original texts.

Yes, this is so. It is reflected in changes in new editions of the Catholic Bible, in fact. But when I hear such piety about "The Word of God" taken to be literalism, I am again reminded of the woman who had good useful occasion to learn a foreign language. She refused on the grounds that "God writ the Bible in English, and that's good enough for me."

And if, say, we are considering Hebrew or Aramaic texts, we must also remember such trivial factors as THFCTTHTHBRWWSWRTTNWTHTPNCTTNRCPSRVWLS. So if you read the George Lamsa transaltion of the Bible, he being a native speaker of Aramaic, we will find that the "inerant Word" is often piously or ignorantly mistranslated.

There are also questions of authorship, such as Paul and Peter. In short, there is lots of room for interpretation, even without the many significant factors that never cross the pious mind of an ordinary reader. Hence my signature:

[ivebeenshown]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

The Church does not teach otherwise, the quote notwithstanding. When it says "word of God" it is: not literal words given by God in some exact order to be written down. Otherwise the CCC wouldn't decribe parts as written in "figurative language."

The Church freely discusses changes made, endings tacked on, and parts that may have been additions to original texts.

I meant otherwise in regards to you saying that the bible is not the word of God. I agree with the rest of what you stated ("It is a compilation of writings by men, the words of men, inspired by God, not dictated by Him.") I should have truncated the quote further.

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown

I meant otherwise in regards to you saying that the bible is not the word of God. I agree with the rest of what you stated ("It is a compilation of writings by men, the words of men, inspired by God, not dictated by Him.") I should have truncated the quote further.

I should learn to let go of this issue and shut the heck up.

sigh

Maybe my gifts of the Holy Spirit will start to kick in with my Medicare.

[bmonk]

Originally Posted by MartyJZ

I don't think that I meant either of these two conclusions.

Regarding point 1: I do believe that many divergent groups do listen to each other, but the point is that they are not bound by any demands to agree especially if it is a non-essential of the faith.

Regarding point 2: I was addressing the original point of the thread: who interprets the Magisteriun correctly. Sure an average Catholic can ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help them interpret the Magisterium's pronouncements, but they have the same dilemma as the Protestants. They don't have an infallible way of interpreting the matter. Ultimately, interpretation has to come down to faith and action. Am I being faithful to this doctrine as far as I understand it? Am I absolutely sure I understand correctly what the Magisterium (or Scripture) is teaching.

Both Protestants and Catholics believe that the Scripture and/or the Magisterium are absolutely infallible, but both groups cannot provide a 100% verifiable proof that their interpretations of each are correct. That is where faith steps in. It has a lens outside of what is seen and it focuses on the spiritual. But can we hold onto the Ultimate Absolute Truth (God) with anything scientifically verifiable? Definitely not!

I think the problem is asking for a 100% assurance. Do we ever get that in this life, apart from trivial or very simple problems and questions? Not in my experience.

What we do get are reasonable assurances, and close approximations, that we can improve if we really want to spend enough time.

On the other hand, we can see the divergence on interpretations and the problems that brings among those who rely on Sola Scriptura, and the consensus on important matters among the Catholics throughout the world, and for centuries. Which has a track record of being more correct?

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

I should learn to let go of this issue and shut the heck up.

sigh

Maybe my gifts of the Holy Spirit will start to kick in with my Medicare.

Don't count on it!

[MartyJZ]

Originally Posted by bmonk

On the other hand, we can see the divergence on interpretations and the problems that brings among those who rely on Sola Scriptura, and the consensus on important matters among the Catholics throughout the world, and for centuries. Which has a track record of being more correct?

What is considered important matters? I believe that evangelical Protestants have a solid consensus on important matters of the faith: diety of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scripture-just to name a few. They also have a consensus on social teachings as well, such as the sanctity of marriage and life.

The problem is not the divergence of interpretations; for example, even faithful Catholics do not agree whether Sacred Tradition derives from Scripture (albeit in microscopic form) or has an independent source. A divergence of interpretations helps the faithful to grow. Yes, a lot of interpretations are wrong, but at the same time, this helps the faithful. Vincent of Lerins believes that these false doctrines arise to test the church; are they of the true faith or not.

Obviously, false interpretations will not go away overnight. How long did the Arian controversy last? It is important to have sound doctrine and interpretations. Sometimes sound doctrine takes a while to sort out. What matters is that God will lead the church to a proper understanding of the truth, in His time.

[Spirithound]

Originally Posted by Anneymay

When I took the bible as literal, there was no more confusion. I have heard all the of talk about it just being stories and parables...but is it really? ...

Have you ever taken John 6 literally?

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by Spirithound

Have you ever taken John 6 literally?

How about Mark 4:33,34?