catholic answers forum-- How to be Banned -- discussion a master-banner- not a master de-bater

bill99 · Sep 7, '13, 9:56 am

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
•Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
•2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
•Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
•Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
•Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.

PJM · #15 Sep 7, '13, 4:03 pm

Quote:

=bill99;11177652]

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,"

(Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
•Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
•2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
•Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
•Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
•Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.

Hi Bill, and THANKS fo joining us

There are TWO Infallible rules for right understanding of the Bible my friend.

1.2 Tim. 3:16 What the bible TEACHES must be God’s truth
And the 2nd. Mt. 4:4 And the entire bible MUST be used

“Never, can. May or DOES one
Verse; passage or teaching
Make void, invalidate or override another
Verse, passage or teaching”

Mt. 16: 18-19 “And I [GOD] say to thee: That thou art Peter; and [YOU this] upon this rock I will build my church, [SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I [GOD] will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

Eph 2: 19-20 “Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”

Jn. 21: 16-17 Jesus & Peter “He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

WAS this understood by the others? Undoubtedly and historically provable

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

I have a document with 50 bible Peter FIRST that also supports these facts.

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results
Result of search for "Cephas": 2786. Kephas kay-fas' of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.

There is more than this, but this makes the point.

God Bless you an please KEEP learning!

PJM · Sep 4, '13, 2:47 pm

Quote:

=richport29;11168588]Without clear teaching as to the specifics, how do you know that you have deviated? Your statement assumes that the pope and magisterium have an interpretation of a specific verse. You need to understand the standard before you know whether everything after the standard conforms. How do you know that your interpretation of Acts 15 conforms to the overall teaching of the Catholic Church? Would you not need the Catholic Church to interpret the texts so that you, as a pious Catholic, don't misinterpret the text?

A reasonable question?

Not really

If and when One is a Informed and fully Practicing Catholic one eithr KNOWs or KNOWS how to find it out.

Thruth is and shall always be singular, yes?

richport29 · Sep 3, '13, 5:37 am

Hello, everyone,

I have a question:

If the Council of Trent prohibited the private interpretation of Scripture, and the Pope and Magisterium have only infallibly interpreted a few verses, are Roman Catholic lay persons partaking of private interpretation when they attempt to interpret the Scriptures when in dialogue?

Gorgias · #12 Sep 3, '13, 10:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

Hypothetical situation (I think): If the Pope stated that a particularly complicated verse in Scripture had a certain meaning, would he be speaking infallibly? Even if he were not speaking "ex cathedra," would his statement influence or sway your own thinking to the extent that you felt obligated to agree with the Pope's interpretation, even though you previously had a very different interpretation?

meltzerboy,

I just wanted to make a point that I think that no one had yet addressed: in your scenario, for there to be any contention, then the pope would have to be saying that the verse of Scripture in question had one (and only one) possible interpretation. In other words, he would have to be saying that there is no other way to look at that verse. Short of such an assertion, a person could validly offer interpretations that differed (but did not contradict) the pope's, and there wouldn't be any problem with that...

**po18guy** · #13 Sep 3, '13, 10:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by richport29

Hello, everyone,

I have a question:

If the Council of Trent prohibited the private interpretation of Scripture, and the Pope and Magisterium have only infallibly interpreted a few verses, are Roman Catholic lay persons partaking of private interpretation when they attempt to interpret the Scriptures when in dialogue?

I originally made a series of posts from the catechism, but for the sake of pertinence, I can refer you to catechism sections 109-119 which refer specifically to the interpretation os the scriptures. Basically, we as Catholics have some latitude, but our efforts must be informed by and guided by the magisterium of the Church.

richport29 · #14 Sep 3, '13, 1:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

"I originally made a series of posts from the catechism, but for the sake of pertinence, I can refer you to catechism sections 109-119 which refer specifically to the interpretation os the scriptures. Basically, we as Catholics have some latitude, but our efforts must be informed by and guided by the magisterium of the Church."

Thank you, Po18guy,

I will definitely read that portion of the catechism. However, what do Catholics do when there is no guidance by the Magisterium? So, if no authoritative interpretation has been given, what authority does the layman have to interpret? And how binding will his interpretation be?

richport29 · #15 Sep 3, '13, 2:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

"I originally made a series of posts from the catechism, but for the sake of pertinence, I can refer you to catechism sections 109-119 which refer specifically to the interpretation os the scriptures. Basically, we as Catholics have some latitude, but our efforts must be informed by and guided by the magisterium of the Church."

PO18guy,

Some initial questions: When the catechism states, ""It is the task of exegetes to work...", who are the exegetes?

Now, if the "exegetes" of 119 include laymen, how would you reconcile that freedom given to laymen with the Council of Trent's commandment against private interpretation (please consider that in the 16th century, no Catholic laymen would have dreamt that they were allowed to interpret Scripture privately under any circumstances)?

Also, how would you interact with 109-110 and 113? What would a Catholic laymen apply that to a text? How does a laymen know if he has correctly understood the sense of the historical author and the "Living Tradition of the whole Church"?

**po18guy** · #31 Sep 4, '13, 11:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

Hypothetical situation (I think): If the Pope stated that a particularly complicated verse in Scripture had a certain meaning, would he be speaking infallibly? Even if he were not speaking "ex cathedra," would his statement influence or sway your own thinking to the extent that you felt obligated to agree with the Pope's interpretation, even though you previously had a very different interpretation?

Coming back from far afield in this thread, if Benedict XVI provided a personal opinion on the meaning of a given verse or verses, I would very carefully listen to him. I consider him to be the greatest living theologian. Since I have willingly given up so many other personal beliefs to embrace Catholicism, I would listen carefully to whatever he said.

As to infallibility, all teachings contained in the normal magisterium of the Church may be considered to be infallible. Personal statements made by the Holy Father are not infallible, but that does in no way indicate that they are in error. Infallibility is normally used to combat heresy and to end dissension, as it was at the first council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15.

Out of 266 Popes, not a single one has changed a teaching of the Church. Just by the numbers, one or more of them should have - unless this whole thing about guidance by the Holy Spirit is true.

richport29 · #32 Sep 4, '13, 12:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

"Whoa! I believe that you have a distorted view both of the Catholic Church, and of the purpose, intent and practical result of the Council of Trent. You do understand that Trent was called in defensive reaction to rampant rebellion and heresy in the Church?"

How do I have a distorted view of the Catholic Church? Can you point to a legitimate example? I agree that there was a lot of corruption in the Roman Catholic Church at that time, which was a major point for Martin Luther, but the impetus for the Council of Trent was the Reformation. Just look at the subjects the Council interacted with, the majority of them had to do with the claims of the Reformation, including the Council's assertions on Scripture and its interpretation. Here are some sources that might lend you some help.

The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450-1700: A Reassessment of the Counter Reformation (1999)The Counter Reformation (1979)
The Counter Reformation: Religion and Society in Early Modern Europe (1995),
"The Catholic Reformation (1999)
The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola: Reform in the Church, 1495-1540 (Fordham University Press, 1992)
Counter-Reformation (2006)
The Counter-reformation: Catholic Europe and the Non-Christian World ( 2005)
The Counter-Reformation: The Essential Readings (1999)

Will you be dealing with my other points? I'm beginning to think that you are avoiding the main issues. If you are not interested in dialoguing, just say so. I neither want to waste your time, and I do not want to waste my time. If you do want to dialogue, please take the time to deal with all of my points as I have taken the time to deal with all of your points.

PJM · #33 Sep 4, '13, 12:55 pm

Quote:

=po18guy;11168176]Coming back from far afield in this thread, if Benedict XVI provided a personal opinion on the meaning of a given verse or verses, I would very carefully listen to him. I consider him to be the greatest living theologian. Since I have willingly given up so many other personal beliefs to embrace Catholicism, I would listen carefully to whatever he said.

As to infallibility, all teachings contained in the normal magisterium of the Church may be considered to be infallible. Personal statements made by the Holy Father are not infallible, but that does in no way indicate that they are in error. Infallibility is normally used to combat heresy and to end dissension, as it was at the first council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15.

Out of 266 Popes, not a single one has changed a teaching of the Church. Just by the numbers, one or more of them should have - unless this whole thing about guidance by the Holy Spirit is true.

Well done!

Thanks,

richport29 · #34 Sep 4, '13, 1:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

As long as one's own uderstanding fully conforms with the pope and magisterium's one cannot [impossible too] be in error, on a verse, passage or teaching.

Mt. 16:15-19
John 17:14-20
John 20:21-22
Mark 16: 15-16
Mt. 28:16-20

ALL and individually prove this fact

Without clear teaching as to the specifics, how do you know that you have deviated? Your statement assumes that the pope and magisterium have an interpretation of a specific verse. You need to understand the standard before you know whether everything after the standard conforms. How do you know that your interpretation of Acts 15 conforms to the overall teaching of the Catholic Church? Would you not need the Catholic Church to interpret the texts so that you, as a pious Catholic, don't misinterpret the text?

richport29 · #35 Sep 4, '13, 1:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

"Actually, I did not. What I meant was that no one has the authority to artificially limit or constrict the meaning of God's word. There is a meaning of scripture which has been handed on to us by the Apostles, and while that is our guide, it cannot contain every possible meaning of scripture. My apologies for being unclear. You must bear with me, as Catholics are a tad bit battle weary from the innumerable and unrelenting attacks on the faith. Sadly, this has been the case since the rebellion of 1517.

I must tell you that the request/demand for an infallible interpretation of each verse of scripture is a common snare laid by malicious anti-Catholics who pop in here from time to time. Even though they reject the concept of infallibility (while failing to understand how limited it is), they still make that unreasonable demand, waiting to pounce upon any and all answers they receive. I, in no way, accuse you of such activity.

You really should open a thread in the Sacred Scripture forum regarding interpretation and authority. You will get a much clearer picture and many more responses from members far superior to me."

You state that there is a meaning which has been handed down by the Apostles, but what is that meaning? The Scriptures are not this abstract thing "up there," they are individual books, with different genres, written within particular historical contexts, by particular authors. Although the Scriptures may have core messages, one does not arrive at those core messages without understanding the particulars. Thank you for your apology. Rest assured, I may be here to dialogue with you and understand your position, and see the consistency in your position, I am not here to ensnare you. But, you must realize that I, as a critical thinker, will point out inconsistencies, just as you would if you were to see inconsistencies in a conversation. Would you like to terminate the conversation at this time?

richport29 · #36 Sep 4, '13, 1:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

"As long as one's own uderstanding fully conforms with the pope and magisterium's one cannot [impossible too] be in error, on a verse, passage or teaching.

Mt. 16:15-19
John 17:14-20
John 20:21-22
Mark 16: 15-16
Mt. 28:16-20

ALL and individually prove this fact

"

What do these verses prove? And have they been interpreted infallibly for you to know what they mean according to the Catholic Church's teaching?

PJM · #37 Sep 4, '13, 2:47 pm

Quote:

=richport29;11168588]Without clear teaching as to the specifics, how do you know that you have deviated? Your statement assumes that the pope and magisterium have an interpretation of a specific verse. You need to understand the standard before you know whether everything after the standard conforms. How do you know that your interpretation of Acts 15 conforms to the overall teaching of the Catholic Church? Would you not need the Catholic Church to interpret the texts so that you, as a pious Catholic, don't misinterpret the text?

A reasonable question?

Not really

If and when One is a Informed and fully Practicing Catholic one eithr KNOWs or KNOWS how to find it out.

Thruth is and shall always be singular, yes?

**po18guy** · #38 Sep 4, '13, 2:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by richport29

How do I have a distorted view of the Catholic Church?

You're kidding.

richport29 · #39 Sep 4, '13, 3:09 pm

"If and when One is a Informed and fully Practicing Catholic one eithr KNOWs or KNOWS how to find it out".

So, you're saying that as a non-Catholic I can't really know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because it's an inside group with secret knowledge? Furthermore, I'm trying to get informed, but it seems to me like the "inside knowledge" is so cloak and dagger. I thought the Roman Catholic Church is transparent so that all can see how truthful it is? You know, I've done a lot of reading, from Aquinas to Kuhn, to Cardinal Newman, and I don't think I have ever heard an argument like the one you have given me.

richport29 · #40 Sep 4, '13, 3:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

"You're kidding."

PO18,

Was this suppose to be a sarcastic question? If it is, this is very much in line with an ad hominem argument, as if you are trying to attack my integrity or intentions. If it is not, I would suggest that you actually interact with my thoughts. I have been intentional to argue from historical data, ask a lot of questions, and seek to learn what you believe. If you are not interested, just tell me you do not desire to discuss anything further. I have already asked you 2x or 3x if you wanted to end the conversation.

**po18guy** · #41 Sep 4, '13, 3:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by richport29

What do these verses prove? And have they been interpreted infallibly for you to know what they mean according to the Catholic Church's teaching?

I must, at this point, inform you that you "appear" to be following a very predictable pattern of certain non-Catholics who enter CAF with pre-conceived and incorrect notions of the Catholic faith. Thus armed, and with little apparent desire to dialog, they seek to trap Catholics with a line of unreasonable questioning, only to subsequently proclaim they they have once again disproved, or revealed the falseness of the Catholic faith.

Normally, when this is pointed out to them, CAF Catholics are accused of failing to address "points" and then of somehow insulting or victimizing the poster. Frequently, insults are then hurled at Catholicism in general before said member is banned for violating the forum rules that they, as a Christian, agreed to obey.

Now, this pattern can continue and no one will learn a thing - or you, as a welcome guest here, can employ a touch of humility, admit that you may not know the actual truth of the Catholic faith, and we can learn from each other.

Well?

richport29 · #42 Sep 4, '13, 3:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

I must, at this point, inform you that you "appear" to be following a very predictable pattern of certain non-Catholics who enter CAF with pre-conceived and incorrect notions of the Catholic faith. Thus armed, and with little apparent desire to dialog, they seek to trap Catholics with a line of unreasonable questioning, only to subsequently proclaim they they have once again disproved, or revealed the falseness of the Catholic faith.

Normally, when this is pointed out to them, CAF Catholics are accused of failing to address "points" and then of somehow insulting or victimizing the poster. Frequently, insults are then hurled at Catholicism in general before said member is banned for violating the forum rules that they, as a Christian, agreed to obey.

Now, this pattern can continue and no one will learn a thing - or you, as a welcome guest here, can employ a touch of humility, admit that you may not know the actual truth of the Catholic faith, and we can learn from each other.

Well?"

Please don't play the victim. If you are going to accuse me of something, please prove it. You can look at all the posts again, and see for yourself that I have been asking questions; interacting with your thoughts; and not attacking anyone here. So far the last two posts have had nothing to do with the issues at hand, and I have tried to steer the conversation back to the main issue. If you don't want to talk, and feel like I am not humble, that I have insulted you, etc., just say, "hey, I don't want to talk anymore." But, if by chance, you do want to continue to talk, stick to the issues.
If your next post does not steer back to the issues at hand, and you continue to claim unsupported accusations, etc., I'm done.

meltzerboy · #43 Sep 4, '13, 3:47 pm

Thank you all for your replies. I think I have a handle now concerning the Catholic viewpoint on the issue. To tell the truth, I didn't expect such heated debate in this thread, which just goes to show that posting any thread, like launching an air strike, may have unintentional consequences.

**po18guy** · #44 Sep 4, '13, 3:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by richport29

"If and when One is a Informed and fully Practicing Catholic one eithr KNOWs or KNOWS how to find it out".

So, you're saying that as a non-Catholic I can't really know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because it's an inside group with secret knowledge? Furthermore, I'm trying to get informed, but it seems to me like the "inside knowledge" is so cloak and dagger. I thought the Roman Catholic Church is transparent so that all can see how truthful it is? You know, I've done a lot of reading, from Aquinas to Kuhn, to Cardinal Newman, and I don't think I have ever heard an argument like the one you have given me.

Look, let's stop playing games. You want to learn about the faith, get a copy of Catholicism for Dummies. Read up, then ask questions.

**po18guy** · #45 Sep 4, '13, 3:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

Thank you all for your replies. I think I have a handle now concerning the Catholic viewpoint on the issue. To tell the truth, I didn't expect such heated debate in this thread, which just goes to show that posting any thread, like launching an air strike, may have unintentional consequences.

I enjoy your questions and I thank you for them.

catholic answers forum-- How to be Banned -- discussion a master-banner- not a master de-bater

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

working4christ2 --PJM is offline Veteran Member--Mt 16:18 — Peter only the first Christian? catholic answers forum

catholic answers forum 4 dummies If and when One is a Informed and fully Practicing Catholic one eithr KNOWs or KNOWS how to find it out.

If the Council of Trent prohibited the private interpretation of Scripture, and the Pope and Magisterium have only infallibly interpreted a few verses,

Papal Interpretation of Scripture-So, you're saying that as a non-Catholic I can't really know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because it's an inside group with secret knowledge?