The blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of scripture

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
With that logic, then no tradition should be considered worthwhile for any purpose. But even Scripture said to hold onto unwritten teachings/traditions, meaning there can be traditions of God-as well as traditions of men. We error when we wish to believe that the bible was intended to serve as a clear and exhaustive catechism.
Tradition doesn't have to equal Scripture to remain an authority. It can inform and complete an understanding of Scripture, and where it contradicts Scripture be discarded. The issue is Catholics claim the same thing that the Pharisee's did in appealing to an "oral law," with the Pharisee's saying it was given alongside the Torah by Moses. Their claim held a lot more sway, though, since there was a levitical priesthod explicitly set up in the OT that could have kept such an oral law. There's no need to elevate men's opinions and decisions, no matter how ancient, to the level of Scripture itself. And it certainly isn't an either/or proposition where any interpretation bears the same weight no matter how far divorced from the text or historical positions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Don't blame the Bible if you can't understand it. The Bible is considered by Christians and Jews to be the Word of God. All the misunderstandings and poor interpretations, as well as the immense amount of stuff added onto it, especially by the Catholic church, doesn't alter that fact.

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone contains God's pure, unadulterated truth and wisdom. Nothing that humans add to it or subtract from it can change that -- ever.
Jesus never said that. I wonder who told you?
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If that's accepted, you proved Scripture alone is sufficient contrary to his complaint.
How? Many Christians believe baptism just gets you wet, but does nothing.
The speculation was essentially the same with whether it was regenerative and where it fits in the economy of salvation. The verbiage is different, but that's because there are so many different avenues its been explored under.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
What makes you think that the CC has the handle on the truth? There are so many distortions of the Word and add-ons -- the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and their (often questionable) teachings, a separate priesthood (similar to the OT), veneration of Mary (a minor figure in the NT), rituals upon rituals, confession to and absolution by someone other than God, and all the other stuff that has been added on to pure faith, etc. It's no wonder that the Bible has lost its (deserved) place of prominence in the CC.

The Bible has been given to us as the perfect Word of God. If our understanding is not perfect, that doesn't mean that it doesn't stand alone as the truth. Sola scriptura.
You say they're distortions but we can prove all those things Scriptural. The Word is perfect, your interpretation is whats wrong. No authority.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,118
5,678
49
The Wild West
✟472,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Tradition doesn't have to equal Scripture to remain an authority. It can inform and complete an understanding of Scripture, and where it contradicts Scripture be discarded. The issue is Catholics claim the same thing that the Pharisee's did in appealing to an "oral law," with the Pharisee's saying it was given alongside the Torah by Moses. Their claim held a lot more sway, though, since there was a levitical priesthod explicitly set up in the OT that could have kept such an oral law. There's no need to elevate men's opinions and decisions, no matter how ancient, to the level of Scripture itself. And it certainly isn't an either/or proposition where any interpretation bears the same weight no matter how far divorced from the text or historical positions.

I am not sure we can say this is purely a Roman Catholic concept, but rather, the idea of relying on Apostolic, and later, Patristic traditions as a teaching authority, which in the West evovled into the Magisterium, really can be interpreted in a more positive light, as a necessary reaction to the Arians, who, without modifying the words of scripture, imparted to the text a radically different meaning. This caused the fourth century anti-Arian St. Hilary of Poitiers to famously (and I think correctly) declare that scripture is in the interpretation and not the meaning.

As an example of what St. Hilary was worried about, consider the Semi-Arian (homoiousian) creed adopted by the Robber Council of Seleucia in the city of New Rome (Constantinople) on December 31st, 359 AD:

We believe in one sole and true God, the Father Almighty, creator and maker of all things: And in one only-begotten Son of God who before all ages and before all beginning and before all conceivable time and before all comprehensible substance (οὐσίας) was begotten impassibly from God through whom the ages were set up and all things came into existence, begotten as only-begotten, sole from the sole Father, like to the Father who begot him, according to the Scriptures, whose generation nobody understands except the Father who begot him.

Him we know to be the only-begotten Son of God, who came down from the heavens at the Father's bidding in order to put an end to sin, and was born (γεννηθέντα) from Mary the Virgin, and went around with his disciples and fulfilled all the strategy (οἰκονομίαν) according to his Father's will; he was crucified and died and went down to the subterranean places and fulfilled his mission there, and the gate-keepers of Hell (Hades) shuddered when they saw him; and he rose from the dead on the third day and conversed with his disciples and fulfilled all the dispensation (οἰκονομίαν) and when the forty days were fulfilled he was taken up into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again on the last day of the resurrection in his Father's glory to reward everyone according to his deeds:

And in the Holy Spirit whom the only-begotten of God Jesus Christ himself promised to send to the race of men, the Paraclete, according to the text [conflation of Jn 16.7, 13f.; 14.16f; 15.26].

The word ousia, because when it was naively inserted by our fathers though not familiar to the masses, it caused disturbance, and because the Scriptures do not contain it, we have decided should be removed, and that there should be absolutely no mention of ousia in relation to God for the future, because the Scriptures make no mention at all of the ousia of the Father and the Son. Nor should one hypostasis be applied to the Person (prosopon) of the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit.

But we declare that the Son is like the Father in all respects (ὄμοιον κατὰ πάντα), as the holy Scriptures also declare and teach. And let all the heresies which have already been previously condemned, and any others which have recently grown up opposed to the creed set out here, be anathema.

So here we see a creed, which is not verbally incompatible or incongruous with Scripture, and which indeed attempts to discredit the pure orthodox creed of Nicea on the basis that the Nicene Creed uses the term “homoousios”, meaning of one essence, to accurately describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, and also which is somewhat dishonestly written to appeal to anti-intellectualism, with the sentence “Nor should one hypostasis be applied ro the Person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” cleverly constructed so as to suggest that the extra-biblical term hypostasis should not be applied at all. These are of course literary deceptions; the Synod of Ancyra was composed of semi-Arians whose entire belief system was based on the concept that the Son was of like essence to the Father (homoiousios) as opposed to a different essence (the view of the Anomeans, or extreme Arians) and the Nicene Orthodox Christians of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of whom all members on CF.com who truly believe in the Statement of Faith, which includes the Nicene Creed, are potentially a part (this is of course an area of ecclesiological controversy, which is why I say potentially, although I personally am inclined towards maximalism in this regard).

Indeed, concern over the misrepresentation of the meaning of scripture continued to haunt many Church Fathers, particularly those in the West. This concern was a major motivation for the writings of St. Vincent of Lerins, who also, in his quest to derive an objective test for orthodoxy, famously said “Whatever has always been believed everywhere, by everyone, is properly called Catholic” (which in this case, has the meaning of doctrinally orthodox, since in those days, before the Chalcedonian Schism, the estrangement of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Maronite-Syriac Orthodox schism*, and the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation, all of the faithful were a part of a large, diverse and loosely organized Catholic Church, which nonetheless, after the anathematization of the Semi Arians, Macedonians, and other heretics which had infiltrated the church with Imperial assistance at the Second Council of Constantinople in 381, did enjoy a brief period, until the disastrous appointment of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople, of far-reaching doctrinal Orthodoxy, with only one major heretic in the midst, that being Pelagius, who did not enjoy either widespread episcopal support or Imperial patronage.

So if we understand the beginnings of the idea of authoritative interpretation, and why it mattered, I think it is possible to view and understand church tradition in a more sympathetic manner.

I myself am very much a fan of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which expands upon the Anglican model of Scripture, Tradition and Reason to add Experience. I myself like to further expand this into a “Quintilateral” by defining experience in both personal experience, which is subjective but very important, particularly in mystical theology, which is a great love of mine, to the more objective domain of the shared historical experience of the Church.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How? Many Christians believe baptism just gets you wet, but does nothing.
Because you appealed to Scripture alone as the authoritative voice. If we can confirm that James and Peter meant to convey that baptism itself is saving we need not appeal to any external magisterium to impose an interpretation. We can settle our disagreement through discussing and defending various interpretations. This may involve introducing tradition, logic, historical criticism, literary criticism, and other lesser lights but ultimately the goal is to determine what Scripture says.

I am not sure we can say this is purely a Roman Catholic concept, but rather, the idea of relying on Apostolic, and later, Patristic traditions as a teaching authority, which in the West evovled into the Magisterium, really can be interpreted in a more positive light, as a necessary reaction to the Arians, who, without modifying the words of scripture, imparted to the text a radically different meaning. This caused the fourth century anti-Arian St. Hilary of Poitiers to famously (and I think correctly) declare that scripture is in the interpretation and not the meaning.

As an example of what St. Hilary was worried about, consider the Semi-Arian (homoiousian) creed adopted by the Robber Council of Seleucia in the city of New Rome (Constantinople) on December 31st, 359 AD:



So here we see a creed, which is not verbally incompatible or incongruous with Scripture, and which indeed attempts to discredit the pure orthodox creed of Nicea on the basis that the Nicene Creed uses the term “homoousios”, meaning of one essence, to accurately describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, and also which is somewhat dishonestly written to appeal to anti-intellectualism, with the sentence “Nor should one hypostasis be applied ro the Person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” cleverly constructed so as to suggest that the extra-biblical term hypostasis should not be applied at all. These are of course literary deceptions; the Synod of Ancyra was composed of semi-Arians whose entire belief system was based on the concept that the Son was of like essence to the Father (homoiousios) as opposed to a different essence (the view of the Anomeans, or extreme Arians) and the Nicene Orthodox Christians of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of whom all members on CF.com who truly believe in the Statement of Faith, which includes the Nicene Creed, are potentially a part (this is of course an area of ecclesiological controversy, which is why I say potentially, although I personally am inclined towards maximalism in this regard).

Indeed, concern over the misrepresentation of the meaning of scripture continued to haunt many Church Fathers, particularly those in the West. This concern was a major motivation for the writings of St. Vincent of Lerins, who also, in his quest to derive an objective test for orthodoxy, famously said “Whatever has always been believed everywhere, by everyone, is properly called Catholic” (which in this case, has the meaning of doctrinally orthodox, since in those days, before the Chalcedonian Schism, the estrangement of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Maronite-Syriac Orthodox schism*, and the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation, all of the faithful were a part of a large, diverse and loosely organized Catholic Church, which nonetheless, after the anathematization of the Semi Arians, Macedonians, and other heretics which had infiltrated the church with Imperial assistance at the Second Council of Constantinople in 381, did enjoy a brief period, until the disastrous appointment of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople, of far-reaching doctrinal Orthodoxy, with only one major heretic in the midst, that being Pelagius, who did not enjoy either widespread episcopal support or Imperial patronage.

So if we understand the beginnings of the idea of authoritative interpretation, and why it mattered, I think it is possible to view and understand church tradition in a more sympathetic manner.

I myself am very much a fan of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which expands upon the Anglican model of Scripture, Tradition and Reason to add Experience. I myself like to further expand this into a “Quintilateral” by defining experience in both personal experience, which is subjective but very important, particularly in mystical theology, which is a great love of mine, to the more objective domain of the shared historical experience of the Church.
Interpretation is a sticky matter, but I'm not sure I agree Arians didn't have to alter Scripture as they intentionally ignore pretty much the entire gospel of John save a few salacious tidbits. Modern day Arians recognize how damaging John 1:1 alone is to their position which is why their translation alters it(while their interlinear is true to the Greek). Ultimately, though, the question is one of goals. Are we seeking to understand Scripture, or assert human authority? It seems too often the magisterial churches are attempting the latter while demeaning Scripture as ineffective and in need of supplementary authorities(not simply requiring being historically informed).
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,118
5,678
49
The Wild West
✟472,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
What makes you think that the CC has the handle on the truth? There are so many distortions of the Word and add-ons -- the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops

The office of bishop is expressly mentioned in the New Testament, and in his pastoral epistles to St. Timothy, St. Paul gives the qualifications for serving as a bishop.

and their (often questionable) teachings,

Take issue as much as you wish with the Roman Catholic Church, but it was the Early Church Fathers, specifically, the bishops of the early church, who guided it through the persecutions and then attended the Ecumenical Councils, who defined the canon of sacred scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, and who anathematized Arius, the Gnostics, and other non-Christians who attempted to take over the early church.

a separate priesthood (similar to the OT),

This is a profoundly flawed argument, based on the older English word priest, which was an Anglicization of Presbyter, meaning Elder, being used to translate the word Kohan, meaning Priest, or Hierus, the Greek equivalent, or Pontifex, the Latin equivalent. This confused translation is one of the flaws with the King James Version which you have in many posts complained about, and in this particular case, you have a point, in that the KJV is very fast and loose when translating “presbyter” “hierus” “kohanim” “doulia” and “latria.”

veneration of Mary (a minor figure in the NT),

Mary is not a minor figure in the New Testament by any means; she appears in all four Gospels, and the first chapter of the Gospel According to Luke is dedicated to her. She plays a key role in the beginning of our Lord’s ministry, at the Wedding Feast in Cana, and in the events surrounding His passion and resurrection. She has a more prominent role in the New Testament than any members of the Twelve except for Saint Peter and Saint John the Divine. And furthermore, her motherhood of the incarnate word is repeatedly foretold verbally and typographically throughout the Old Testament.

And, as the Council of Ephesus correctly declared in opposition to Nestorius, Mary is the Theotokos, the Bearer of God, because Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and from the moment of His incarnation, His divinity did not part from his humanity for a blink of the eye, to paraphrase the Coptic Orthodox confiteor ante communionem.

rituals upon rituals,

Define “rituals,” and what you perceive as being excessive.

confession to and absolution by someone other than God,

In auricular confession, which is not solely practiced by Roman Catholics but which is also practiced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, some Methodists, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, confession is made directly to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, with the priest merely acting as a witness and as a spiritual advisor. And this sacrament can be extremely helpful, which is probably why Martin Luther did not do away with it; when I was with the OCA (I still consider myself to be with them, but on assignment, answering a calling to salvage traditional high church Congregationalism, which is in danger of being destroyed by heterodoxy in the UCC and indifference to liturgics in the non-UCC Congregational churches), I was greatly aided by their priests in a number of ways.

As far as absolution is concerned, all Christian clergy, who carry on the duties given by Christ to his Apostles, can forgive or retain sin, as explained by our Lord in Matthew Chapter 16. And for this reason, the liturgies of most churches, for example, the services of Holy Communion, Morning Prayer and Choral Evensong from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, feature a public, general confession followed by an Absolution of Sins (which in the case of Morning or Evening Prayer requires the presence of a minister).

and all the other stuff that has been added on to pure faith, etc.

Like what, exactly? There are Roman Catholic doctrines such as Papal Supremacy that I disagree with (for reasons that the Traditional Latin Mass community just discovered in a painful manner), but many criticisms of Roman Catholicism are predicated on false narratives and a false Protestant vs. Catholic narrative which ignores the historic existence and importance of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches, which ignores the role of the East-West schism in causing the Reformation (specifically, the reformation in Prague in the 15th century that led to the martyrdom of St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who founded the Moravian Church, which eventually survived against all odds, out of a desire to regain communion in both kinds and a vernacular liturgy, which they had enjoyed before Austria conquered the Czech Republic), and which ignores the beliefs of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, Philip Melancthon, and later Protestant leaders such as John and Charles Wesley, all of whom favored, among other things, frequent communion on the part of the laity and reverent, liturgical worship (even Calvin).

It's no wonder that the Bible has lost its (deserved) place of prominence in the CC.

That’s not a logical statement to make, given that Roman Catholics read the Bible as much as anyone, and especially given that since the introduction of the new three year lectionary, on which the Protestant Revised Common Lectionary is based, the scripture lessons in Catholic Mass are longer than before, and there is always a Psalm, an Old Testament Lesson, an Epistle, and a Gospel, (previously, only the Gallican, Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites, and the East Syriac Rite, had Old Testament lessons in the Eucharistic liturgy) and these lessons are read across three years, each dedicated to a specific Synoptic Gospel.

The Bible has been given to us as the perfect Word of God.

God alone is perfect, and the Word of God is Jesus Christ, as the Gospel According to John testifies.

If our understanding is not perfect, that doesn't mean that it doesn't stand alone as the truth. Sola scriptura.

On a sola scriptura basis, you have made five major errors in this thread, including denying the Scriptural basis for the episcopate, conflating presbyters with kohanim, denying the ability of ministers to bind and loose sins, mischaracterizing the role of the Virgin Mary in Scripture as minor, when in fact it is on a par with that of St. John the Baptist, and dramatically exceeds that of many other notable figures, including Saints Mary and Martha of Bethany, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Andrew the First Called, St. Thomas the Apostle, and the wicked Judas Iscariot, and attributing perfection to an inanimate object, confusing the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, with the written word, which is a created icon of him, written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, and edited by the Early Church under the same inspiration. As a creature created by men, and transcribed and copied many times, and not immune from transcription errors, Sacred Scripture is paradoxically an imperfect but inspired doctrine which describes, as much as any human could hope to describe, the beauty and perfection of an infinite God.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,118
5,678
49
The Wild West
✟472,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Because you appealed to Scripture alone as the authoritative voice. If we can confirm that James and Peter meant to convey that baptism itself is saving we need not appeal to any external magisterium to impose an interpretation. We can settle our disagreement through discussing and defending various interpretations. This may involve introducing tradition, logic, historical criticism, literary criticism, and other lesser lights but ultimately the goal is to determine what Scripture says.


Interpretation is a sticky matter, but I'm not sure I agree Arians didn't have to alter Scripture as they intentionally ignore pretty much the entire gospel of John save a few salacious tidbits. Modern day Arians recognize how damaging John 1:1 alone is to their position which is why their translation alters it(while their interlinear is true to the Greek).

The difference between the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are the modern day Arians who specifically altered John 1:1, and Arius and his followers from antiquity, is that the classical Arians were extremely intellectually advanced, whereas the J/Ws, to put it bluntly, are not.

Indeed, the Arians got around John 1:1 by stating that Christ was God according to honor and function, having been created in the perfect likeness of the Father, and in the case of the Semi-Arians, being of like essence to the Father. You should really read On the Incarnation, by Athanasius, and the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis or the Fount of Knowledge by John Damascene, which epitomizes the Panarion and contains additional information on more recent developments in Arianism, and the rise of Islam, or the writings against the Arians by St. Isidore of Seville, who is known as the “Western Athanasius.”

If you examine Arianism closely, you can see how amazingly subtle and pernicious it is, and frankly, the only reason we are able to use John 1 and Matthew 28:29 as proof texts for the Trinity is because the only Arians around today, the J/Ws, were lacking in intellectual rigor, and it did not occur to them to research the historical Arians of antiquity or their beliefs, but instead made the enormous strategic faux pas of manipulating the Bible text, which proves to all educated Christians that they are frauds. But had they reconstructed and reused the Arian Christological model, that could have led to a cataclysmic tragedy on a par with the massive Unitarian apostasy among the Congregationalist churches of New England.

Ultimately, though, the question is one of goals. Are we seeking to understand Scripture, or assert human authority? It seems too often the magisterial churches are attempting the latter while demeaning Scripture as ineffective and in need of supplementary authorities(not simply requiring being historically informed).

Well, the way I look at it, I am less equipped to understand scripture than the likes of St. Chrysostom, or the Cappadocians, or Origen, or Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the Reformers, or John Wesley. And I don’t think, if we look at a biography of the likes of Wesley or Cranmer or Chrysostom or Basil the Great or Origen or Athanasius, that they were to any extent attempting to impose their will over kt.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The difference between the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are the modern day Arians who specifically altered John 1:1, and Arius and his followers from antiquity, is that the classical Arians were extremely intellectually advanced, whereas the J/Ws, to put it bluntly, are not.

Indeed, the Arians got around John 1:1 by stating that Christ was God according to honor and function, having been created in the perfect likeness of the Father, and in the case of the Semi-Arians, being of like essence to the Father. You should really read On the Incarnation, by Athanasius, and the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis or the Fount of Knowledge by John Damascene, which epitomizes the Panarion and contains additional information on more recent developments in Arianism, and the rise of Islam, or the writings against the Arians by St. Isidore of Seville, who is known as the “Western Athanasius.”

If you examine Arianism closely, you can see how amazingly subtle and pernicious it is, and frankly, the only reason we are able to use John 1 and Matthew 28:29 as proof texts for the Trinity is because the only Arians around today, the J/Ws, were lacking in intellectual rigor, and it did not occur to them to research the historical Arians of antiquity or their beliefs, but instead made the enormous strategic faux pas of manipulating the Bible text, which proves to all educated Christians that they are frauds. But had they reconstructed and reused the Arian Christological model, that could have led to a cataclysmic tragedy on a par with the massive Unitarian apostasy among the Congregationalist churches of New England.
I'm not sure the Arian position as stated holds grammatically, still. Moffatt's translation that is so often abused by the JWs today brings out the grammatical subtlety that while theos is being used as a noun, it's an adjectival noun. That is to say, John 1:1 is speaking of what the Word is by nature. Still, that does require more defense than the modern version the structure of John 1 still makes it exceedingly difficult to read it in any way other than affirming the full deity(and full incarnation) of Christ on grammar alone. Factor in that John was using an existing Stoic/Alexandrian philosophy about the "Logos" as the ultimate universal truth then that he is speaking of essential nature comes out even clearer.



Well, the way I look at it, I am less equipped to understand scripture than the likes of St. Chrysostom, or the Cappadocians, or Origen, or Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the Reformers, or John Wesley. And I don’t think, if we look at a biography of the likes of Wesley or Cranmer or Chrysostom or Basil the Great or Origen or Athanasius, that they were to any extent attempting to impose their will over kt.
There absolutely are human authorities, authors in better position to offer interpretations and who have more training to give an opinion. But simply gaining broad acceptance doesn't necessarily mean they fit in that group. Augustine, for example, has been discredited in numerous areas as the centuries have gone on both intellectually and Biblically. So appealing to their name as an authority may not be entirely appropriate. The issue is more giving men authority based on office rather than their qualifying why their opinion holds weight. As a modern example, if Bill Mounce weighed in on a doctrinal issue that involved Greek grammar it would likely be safe to defer to him, but it is the quality of his scholarship that recommends him and is not an authority of his person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,895
601
Virginia
✟153,535.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The office of bishop is expressly mentioned in the New Testament, and in his pastoral epistles to St. Timothy, St. Paul gives the qualifications for serving as a bishop.



Take issue as much as you wish with the Roman Catholic Church, but it was the Early Church Fathers, specifically, the bishops of the early church, who guided it through the persecutions and then attended the Ecumenical Councils, who defined the canon of sacred scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, and who anathematized Arius, the Gnostics, and other non-Christians who attempted to take over the early church.



This is a profoundly flawed argument, based on the older English word priest, which was an Anglicization of Presbyter, meaning Elder, being used to translate the word Kohan, meaning Priest, or Hierus, the Greek equivalent, or Pontifex, the Latin equivalent. This confused translation is one of the flaws with the King James Version which you have in many posts complained about, and in this particular case, you have a point, in that the KJV is very fast and loose when translating “presbyter” “hierus” “kohanim” “doulia” and “latria.”



Mary is not a minor figure in the New Testament by any means; she appears in all four Gospels, and the first chapter of the Gospel According to Luke is dedicated to her. She plays a key role in the beginning of our Lord’s ministry, at the Wedding Feast in Cana, and in the events surrounding His passion and resurrection. She has a more prominent role in the New Testament than any members of the Twelve except for Saint Peter and Saint John the Divine. And furthermore, her motherhood of the incarnate word is repeatedly foretold verbally and typographically throughout the Old Testament.

And, as the Council of Ephesus correctly declared in opposition to Nestorius, Mary is the Theotokos, the Bearer of God, because Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and from the moment of His incarnation, His divinity did not part from his humanity for a blink of the eye, to paraphrase the Coptic Orthodox confiteor ante communionem.



Define “rituals,” and what you perceive as being excessive.



In auricular confession, which is not solely practiced by Roman Catholics but which is also practiced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, some Methodists, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, confession is made directly to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, with the priest merely acting as a witness and as a spiritual advisor. And this sacrament can be extremely helpful, which is probably why Martin Luther did not do away with it; when I was with the OCA (I still consider myself to be with them, but on assignment, answering a calling to salvage traditional high church Congregationalism, which is in danger of being destroyed by heterodoxy in the UCC and indifference to liturgics in the non-UCC Congregational churches), I was greatly aided by their priests in a number of ways.

As far as absolution is concerned, all Christian clergy, who carry on the duties given by Christ to his Apostles, can forgive or retain sin, as explained by our Lord in Matthew Chapter 16. And for this reason, the liturgies of most churches, for example, the services of Holy Communion, Morning Prayer and Choral Evensong from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, feature a public, general confession followed by an Absolution of Sins (which in the case of Morning or Evening Prayer requires the presence of a minister).



Like what, exactly? There are Roman Catholic doctrines such as Papal Supremacy that I disagree with (for reasons that the Traditional Latin Mass community just discovered in a painful manner), but many criticisms of Roman Catholicism are predicated on false narratives and a false Protestant vs. Catholic narrative which ignores the historic existence and importance of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches, which ignores the role of the East-West schism in causing the Reformation (specifically, the reformation in Prague in the 15th century that led to the martyrdom of St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who founded the Moravian Church, which eventually survived against all odds, out of a desire to regain communion in both kinds and a vernacular liturgy, which they had enjoyed before Austria conquered the Czech Republic), and which ignores the beliefs of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, Philip Melancthon, and later Protestant leaders such as John and Charles Wesley, all of whom favored, among other things, frequent communion on the part of the laity and reverent, liturgical worship (even Calvin).



That’s not a logical statement to make, given that Roman Catholics read the Bible as much as anyone, and especially given that since the introduction of the new three year lectionary, on which the Protestant Revised Common Lectionary is based, the scripture lessons in Catholic Mass are longer than before, and there is always a Psalm, an Old Testament Lesson, an Epistle, and a Gospel, (previously, only the Gallican, Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites, and the East Syriac Rite, had Old Testament lessons in the Eucharistic liturgy) and these lessons are read across three years, each dedicated to a specific Synoptic Gospel.



God alone is perfect, and the Word of God is Jesus Christ, as the Gospel According to John testifies.



On a sola scriptura basis, you have made five major errors in this thread, including denying the Scriptural basis for the episcopate, conflating presbyters with kohanim, denying the ability of ministers to bind and loose sins, mischaracterizing the role of the Virgin Mary in Scripture as minor, when in fact it is on a par with that of St. John the Baptist, and dramatically exceeds that of many other notable figures, including Saints Mary and Martha of Bethany, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Andrew the First Called, St. Thomas the Apostle, and the wicked Judas Iscariot, and attributing perfection to an inanimate object, confusing the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, with the written word, which is a created icon of him, written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, and edited by the Early Church under the same inspiration. As a creature created by men, and transcribed and copied many times, and not immune from transcription errors, Sacred Scripture is paradoxically an imperfect but inspired doctrine which describes, as much as any human could hope to describe, the beauty and perfection of an infinite God.

The ritual of kissing the pope’s ring seems unusual and the uniforms, kissing baby statues, swinging smoke, reading from two different books on stage and few others.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,118
5,678
49
The Wild West
✟472,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The ritual of kissing the pope’s ring seems unusual

On the contrary, this is the historic customary greeting for anyone, male or female, that one finds worthy of veneration, including presbyters in the Anglican, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches, among others.

and the uniforms,

CFD8E485-062A-4303-ADC1-B72434FEFADB.jpeg


You mean like these?* They’re called “vestments” by the way.

kissing baby statues,

The pious custom of kissing an icon of our Lord in his cradle is beyond reproach. Most Christian churches worldwide have icons.

swinging smoke,

Its called incense, more specifically, frankincense; it is the sap from various trees and was offered to the Baby Jesus along with gold and myrhh (which the Roman church, the Orthodox church, the Anglicans, Lutherans and other Protestants use in the sacrament of confirmation; also myrhh miraculously flows from some icons and the relics of some saints). Offering incense to our Lord in church is a tradition so old, it dates back to Judaism. It also smells lovely. Most liturgical churches, including the Anglicans, some Lutherans, the Orthodox, the Assyrians and the Roman Catholics use incense.

reading from two different books on stage and few others.

Those would be the Epistle and the Gospel, in a traditional Latin mass, and there is no “stage”; the area at the front of the church which contains the altar is properly called the apse.

It is evident from your post that you have perhaps only one or twice in your life visited a liturgical church, are unaware of the large number of Protestant liturgical churches, and frankly, are missing out on quite a lot, because I feel those of us who believe that worship, in all of its aspects, should be exquisitely beautiful, have a great deal to offer the church, which the non denominational megachurch with a praise band just can’t appreciate.

*Those are all Lutheran and Anglican bishops
 
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,895
601
Virginia
✟153,535.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
On the contrary, this is the historic customary greeting for anyone, male or female, that one finds worthy of veneration, including presbyters in the Anglican, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches, among others.



View attachment 302983

You mean like these?* They’re called “vestments” by the way.



The pious custom of kissing an icon of our Lord in his cradle is beyond reproach. Most Christian churches worldwide have icons.



Its called incense, more specifically, frankincense; it is the sap from various trees and was offered to the Baby Jesus along with gold and myrhh (which the Roman church, the Orthodox church, the Anglicans, Lutherans and other Protestants use in the sacrament of confirmation; also myrhh miraculously flows from some icons and the relics of some saints). Offering incense to our Lord in church is a tradition so old, it dates back to Judaism. It also smells lovely. Most liturgical churches, including the Anglicans, some Lutherans, the Orthodox, the Assyrians and the Roman Catholics use incense.



Those would be the Epistle and the Gospel, in a traditional Latin mass, and there is no “stage”; the area at the front of the church which contains the altar is properly called the apse.

It is evident from your post that you have perhaps only one or twice in your life visited a liturgical church, are unaware of the large number of Protestant liturgical churches, and frankly, are missing out on quite a lot, because I feel those of us who believe that worship, in all of its aspects, should be exquisitely beautiful, have a great deal to offer the church, which the non denominational megachurch with a praise band just can’t appreciate.

*Those are all Lutheran and Anglican bishops

its called the "fisherman's ring" used up to 1842 as a seal for documents. now its on the hand of the pope and they get down on one knee and kiss it as a sign of devotion to the catholic church the pope seat.

the uniforms is like the pharisees use to do.

kissing the knee of a baby statue is perverted.

the magi wasn't swinging it as smoke, that was in jars not burned as incense. but buddhism, islam, hinduism, paganism, all do as well.

whole lot of theater going on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Because you appealed to Scripture alone as the authoritative voice. If we can confirm that James and Peter meant to convey that baptism itself is saving we need not appeal to any external magisterium to impose an interpretation. We can settle our disagreement through discussing and defending various interpretations. This may involve introducing tradition, logic, historical criticism, literary criticism, and other lesser lights but ultimately the goal is to determine what Scripture says.
How we know that the letters of James and Peter is, itself Sacred Tradition informed by the Magisterium.
Interpretation is a sticky matter, but I'm not sure I agree Arians didn't have to alter Scripture as they intentionally ignore pretty much the entire gospel of John save a few salacious tidbits. Modern day Arians recognize how damaging John 1:1 alone is to their position which is why their translation alters it(while their interlinear is true to the Greek). Ultimately, though, the question is one of goals. Are we seeking to understand Scripture, or assert human authority? It seems too often the magisterial churches are attempting the latter while demeaning Scripture as ineffective and in need of supplementary authorities(not simply requiring being historically informed).
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How we know that the letters of James and Peter is, itself Sacred Tradition informed by the Magisterium.
While this is one of the strongest objections to sola scriptura, it's not true. The canon of Scripture was not curated by a council or any priestly official, the canon that developed naturally within the church was given recognition. We know they are Scripture because they were used authoritatively and maintained authoritative status for centuries. There is no question about the NT canon, critics like Luther who initially wanted to remove James to an appendix were defeated without any need for appealing to a magisterium. Same as the 7 deuterocanonical books, they are not elevated to the same level as Scripture proper by magisterium decree and remain a secondary authority.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
While this is one of the strongest objections to sola scriptura, it's not true.
You're quite right about that. There is no mention of "Sacred Tradition" being the equal of Holy Scripture anywhere in the Bible.

The canon of Scripture was not curated by a council or any priestly official, the canon that developed naturally within the church was given recognition.
Also true. By the time of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, only three or four books that were accepted had not already been acclaimed by the churches of Christianity as inspired writings...and these are rarely referred to even today, with the exception of Revelation, which we know is a vision and not something to be taken literally.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
with the exception of Revelation, which we know is a vision and not something to be taken literally.
Something often missed about Revelation is it's a letter, with the keys for interpreting the more esoteric aspects given in the introduction. Most of the difficulty interpreting it comes from failure to properly identify the type of literature it is.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Something often missed about Revelation is it's a letter, with the keys for interpreting the more esoteric aspects given in the introduction. Most of the difficulty interpreting it comes from failure to properly identify the type of literature it is.
Not even St. John claims that it's literally accurate, saying instead that it is what he saw (in a vision).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not even St. John claims that it's literally accurate, saying instead that it is what he saw (in a vision).
Yeah, though I think we have to be careful with what we mean by "literally accurate" when discussing it. As with all prophecy there is/has been/will be a literal fulfillment but that fulfillment is couched in symbolic language. Parsing what aspects are literal and what are symbolic comes with some difficulty, especially things relating to times and timelines. Though often what's missed in Revelation is that it is intended as a moral/ethical/practical instruction letter yet so often we see it divided where the "7 letters" are treated differently than the vision proper. It all ties together with a central message that is more important than the prophetic value.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
its called the "fisherman's ring" used up to 1842 as a seal for documents. now its on the hand of the pope and they get down on one knee and kiss it as a sign of devotion to the catholic church the pope seat.
It's customary to kiss the ring of any bishop, in fact. But it's not required.

the uniforms is like the pharisees use to do.
As you can see in the picture, there isn't much of any "uniform" showing, since there are almost as many vestments as bishops being shown.

whole lot of theater going on.
This is a personal observation of mine, I admit, but I can hardly think of ANY denomination, Protestant or Catholic, which does not have what might be called a script, certain lines that are spoken, predictable gestures and sayings, etc. -- a "whole lot of theatre," in other words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeyondET
Upvote 0