The Lord Jesus and St. John the Beloved, the apostle holding the scroll of the Gospel that he wrote Curious Catholic said...
mga panibagong katanungan lang po father,
regarding the interpretation naman po, nung time na isinulat po ba ang isang gospel o epistle eh mayroon na pong pamamaraan ng pag-interpret nito ng tama? as in exactly the way the author meant it???
gospel of john po uli as example, masasabi po ba natin na nung naisulat na ito, may itinuro po yung author nun na kaya nya sinimulan ng "in the beginning" e dahil gusto nya po talaga ito i-parallel sa genesis???
salamat
January 8, 2010 4:52 PM
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
Answers to additional questions:
[regarding the interpretation naman po, nung time na isinulat po ba ang isang gospel o epistle eh mayroon na pong pamamaraan ng pag-interpret nito ng tama? as in exactly the way the author meant it???]
Of course, there is the proper interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures so that the real and true meaning of the Word of God will reach the Faithful without contamination of errors and heresies.
First, St. Peter the Apostle has this to say:
2 Peter 1:20-21 (King James Version)
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
St. Peter reminds us that our private interpretation of the Bible must be avoided. Why? We are not gifted with grace to give the correct interpretation of the Bible. That grace was handed on to the CHURCH:
1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version)
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH IS THE CHURCH. That is why the Church was founded by Jesus so that it will teach us God's Word purely and unadulteratedly. And also to guide us in our journey of salvation until the Second Coming of Christ.
Unfortunately some preachers claimed to be more knowledgeable than the Church founded by Jesus and established their own invented church, fellowship or religion.
[gospel of john po uli as example, masasabi po ba natin na nung naisulat na ito, may itinuro po yung author nun na kaya nya sinimulan ng "in the beginning" e dahil gusto nya po talaga ito i-parallel sa genesis???]
We don't have published books or writings or recorded voice or videos of St. John explaining the Gospel that he has handed down piece by piece, line by line. However, the Church has given us constant and unchanging interpretations of the Bible and particularly of the Gospel of John such as:
[1] John 1:1 refers to the Divinity of Jesus and His pre-existence. Thus, the 'In the beginning' there is not just the beginning of Creation as in Genesis but prior to that. It refers to the Eternal Life of the One and Triune God before Creation.
[2] John 1:14 refers to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity.
[3] John 6 The Bread of Life Discourse refers to the Holy Eucharist
[4] Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1 refer to the Virgin Birth of Christ
[5] Matthew 16:18-19 refers to the Foundation of the Church, the Papacy and the election of St. Peter as the First Pope.
And many others.
On the other hand, there are passages of the Gospel and of the Bible that there is no definitive interpretation. The Church and the faithful are free to interpret it spiritually, morally and doctrinally provided that the interpretation is not heretical and does not contradict Christian Morality. The passages that can be interpreted this way are mostly the Parables, Stories and the Poems contained in Sacred Scriptures.
January 9, 2010 2:15 PM
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
Good afternoon Fr. Abe and happy new year!
ReplyDeleteI have a few questions regarding this article. It is based on this statements:
[St. Peter reminds us that our private interpretation of the Bible must be avoided. Why? We are not gifted with grace to give the correct interpretation of the Bible.
THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH IS THE CHURCH. That is why the Church was founded by Jesus so that it will teach us God's Word purely and unadulteratedly. And also to guide us in our journey of salvation until the Second Coming of Christ.]
If you don't mind me asking, how does one arrive at the conclusion from the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed the church established by Christ (among other churches that have the same claim) if "we are not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible"? Does a person simply accept the claims of the RCC without doing a personal verification?
And if ever the person can do a verification on his own, how can he be sure that he has the right understanding since you said "we are not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible"?
I'm sorry if that is a series of questions but I hope you can be of assistance. Thank you and God bless.
Superb!!!
ReplyDeleteReply to Bro. Gerry Soliman 1
ReplyDelete[Good afternoon Fr. Abe and happy new year!]
Hello there. Good afternoon, Bro. Gerry and Happy New Year too.
Nice to hear from you again. I haven't heard from you again about the Woman Clothed with the Sun. It's alright, I understand that you are busy.
I am enjoying your exchange with Bro. Isahel Alfonso of CFD Davao. I'm planning to collect your exchange and post it here completely because it's very hard to read them in separated parts from one blog to another.
[I have a few questions regarding this article. It is based on this statements:
If you don't mind me asking, how does one arrive at the conclusion from the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed the church established by Christ (among other churches that have the same claim) if "we are not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible"?]
My statement that you have quoted above is interconnected with the quote from St. Peter that no prophecy of scriptures is of any private interpretation. The warning is given because the Scriptures are subject to various personal interpretations and there is also the danger of errors and heresies. In addition, Apostle Peter insists that the individual Christians can interpret the Scriptures but they have to avoid private interpretations. He thus reminds the believers by saying so that there is an official interpreter of the Scriptures and it is not the individual Christians since not all are given the grace to be the official and definitive interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures. And St. Paul named that authority: The Church.
What I mean then is that the truth of faith contained in the Scriptures is being given to the faithful through the Church whose members wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and whose leadership was tasked to teach and maintain orthodoxy. And, the individual believers are not the official interpreter of the Scriptures but the Church Authority. Relying then to the belief of ME AND THE BIBLE ALONE is dangerous because it makes each and every Bible carrying believer the definitive interpreter of the Scriptures. That belief is dangerous because it leads to doctrinal chaos. Each Christian reader will become Supreme Authority on Faith and Morals. And each personal doctrinal or moral opinion will become absolutely correct even though they are essentially contrary to each other. Thus, since both of us are reading the Bible and are heavily quoting from it then we can both claim to be correct which is absurd.
Now going to your question: "how does one arrive at the conclusion from the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed the church established by Christ (among other churches that have the same claim) if "we are not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible"?
I consider this question defective by nature [sorry to say] because it is already operating by Sola Scriptura standard. It is based on the conviction that one will find the identity of the true Church by following the Bible Alone. This is absurd for me because the Bible doesn’t categorically states that the true Church is not the Catholic Church, the true Church is the Reformed Baptist Church but the Southern Baptist is wrong, the Jesus Is Lord Movement of Eddie Villanueva is the true Church but the Jesus Miracle Crude of Almeda is not.
The fact that the debates among Christian apologists are intense and on-going without any end in sight testify to the fact that operating in Sola Scriptura principle is defective and unworkable.
Reply to Bro. Gerry Soliman 2
ReplyDeleteHow can we know the real Church then if not by Sola Scriptura alone?
First, finding and having the true faith is a GRACE from God. It is God’s gift. He leads the people whom He wants to receive the fullness of revelation to the right path according to his plan. St. Paul was led to the true Church by the divine intervention of Christ in Damascus incident and not from Sola Scriptura.
Second, by being guided by a faithful teacher of the true Church as the Ethiopian Eunuch had experienced. There is the presence of the Scripture but there is also the presence of the Apostle St. Philip. This is to show that studies the Sacred Scriptures must be guided by the authority of the Church.
"How does one arrive at a conclusion from the Bible"... Who told you that we can arrive at a conclusion which is the true Church by simply reading the Bible? Where did Jesus state or promised that the people will arrive at a true faith simply by reading the Bible Alone? Where is that in Scripture? In fact, some converts during the Apostolic Time such as the jail guards believed in Jesus not from reading the Bible but from actual preaching of the Apostles or the early Christians. There is a case of a village in Tibet, after watching a film about the life of Jesus they converted to Christianity en masse.
Sorry for the late reply. You sent the question on Sunday which was a busy day for us priests and ministers of the Church. Then yesterday, I only answered short questions from Catholic leaders because my mind was pre-occupied by practical concerns in our school.
Thank you and God bless you too.
Greetings Fr. Abe,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response.
[I am enjoying your exchange with Bro. Isahel Alfonso of CFD Davao. I'm planning to collect your exchange and post it here completely because it's very hard to read them in separated parts from one blog to another.]
Thank you for reading my articles as well.
[Sorry for the late reply.]
It's okay. I am also not able to respond immediately to queries sent to me.
[I haven't heard from you again about the Woman Clothed with the Sun. It's alright, I understand that you are busy.]
I haven't written it yet because Atty. Llasos hasn't responded to my question. His answer will form part of my article. As much as possible I try write from all possible angles. I'm sorry if there is a misunderstanding here.
Anyway, I appreciate the response but I think there is also misunderstanding here. I made a comment regarding to your article about Private Interpretaion and I was expecting it would stay on that topic. Though it is a part of Sola Scriptura, I am not here to defend this doctrine. Maybe some other time (sooner or later).
In your answer I would like to ask for a clarification on this statement:
[In addition, Apostle Peter insists that the individual Christians can interpret the Scriptures but they have to avoid private interpretations.]
I find it contradicting. Isn't interpretation by the individual Christian similar to private interpretation? If so, how can you say a Christian can intrepret it individually but avoiding private intepretation? If not, how do you define private interpretation?
Now for the rest of your comments, I can see that you really reject sola scriptura but that's not the focus of my comment although you saw the word "Bible". I will rephrase my question:
Given this year 2010 there is the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical Church, Iglesia ni Cristo, 7th Day Adventist, Mormon, and Ang Dating Daan, how does an individual conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed God's church if he is not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible and other appropriate sources such as history and tradition? Does he accept her claims, no questions asked?
Now your answer might include the grace of God. But if you were to include it, how will your answer differ if the same individual in the above question said, "I have become an INC by the grace of God."?
Please feel free to respond at your most convenient time. Thank you and God bless.
Thank you very much Bro. Curious Catholic. You've sent your message when I have not yet published the message of Bro. Gerry Soliman. Hope you will learn more in our discussion. God bless you.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 1
ReplyDelete[Thank you for reading my articles as well.]
I have read some but not all. I was invited by Bro. Isahel to read your exchanges and I did. Your syllogisms are so delightful.
[It's okay. I am also not able to respond immediately to queries sent to me.]
Thank you so. How nice of you.
[I haven't written it yet because Atty. Llasos hasn't responded to my question. His answer will form part of my article. As much as possible I try write from all possible angles. I'm sorry if there is a misunderstanding here.]
Bro. Mars have been pre-occupied these days. He is finishing his Masters of Laws major in Constitutional Law and he has further developed his work as a law professor. His book on Mariology is about to be published also and we are looking forward to it.
I accept your apology but I do not consider your non-reply as an offense at all. We apologists know and must understand the limitations of each other.
[Anyway, I appreciate the response but I think there is also misunderstanding here. I made a comment regarding to your article about Private Interpretaion and I was expecting it would stay on that topic. Though it is a part of Sola Scriptura, I am not here to defend this doctrine. Maybe some other time (sooner or later).]
Ha, ha, ha… That is the problem when you are merely asking questions but you do not lay your position on the table Bro. Gerry. I don’t know where you are going and you have not stated whether you oppose my position or not, so I have to test waters.
To avoid speculations please present your positions well. Don’t just ask questions because I know that you know our position beforehand. Our Catholic doctrines are well-presented in our published manuals of faith such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is for sale in major bookstores all over the world and is also available in the web for free.
On your part, I only know that you critique the Catholic Faith but I know nothing about your church affiliation or the name of your religion. Isn’t that very revealing? A Christian apologist must proclaim his faith. That is his duty. We are not commanded by Jesus to simply critique others’ faith but to shout our faith on the rooftop. How come I don’t know your faith and your church? Who is your pastor? Where do you worship? What manner of worship are you doing during your common act of praise? Mine is not hidden to you. The Catholic Faith: Doctrines and Morals are in black and white as well as our manner of worship. I hope you do not belong to the Secret Society that is Freemasonry.
Also, will you please be so kind to provide your own answers to your questions after I have given mine. As you can see Gerry, I am not treating you the way I treat the anonymous defenders of INC or ADD or Born Again. I respect people with identity and faces. You are discussing with me as a human person then I will respond to you with respect proper for a human person. Not anonymous, not wearing pseudo-names or the mask of a cartoon, super hero or a robot.
As fellow humans and Christians, let us lay our cards on the table.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 2
ReplyDelete[In your answer I would like to ask for a clarification on this statement:]
Ok. Let us clarify then.
[“In addition, Apostle Peter insists that the individual Christians can interpret the Scriptures but they have to avoid private interpretations.”
I find it contradicting. Isn't interpretation by the individual Christian similar to private interpretation?]
Where is the contradiction there?
Is there any contradiction with ‘YOU CAN’ and ‘DON’T DO IT’?
Christians CAN Interpret Scriptures. This refers to the ability of the believers to interpret Scriptures. I don’t think that you deny this.
Christians are commanded TO AVOID PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. This one does not deny christians’ ability or capacity to interpret but of providing guidance and admonishing the believers to avoid certain manner of interpreting the Scriptures, namely Private Interpretation. This is from St. Peter. Do you have any problem with it?
* I can sing but my elder sister just jokingly told me last Christmas not to sing because the weather is good and It might change abruptly. He, he, he…
* Drivers can drive at public roads but they are commanded by legitimate authority to stop when red light appears on traffic signs.
* Students can speak but they can be ordered to be silent during certain period of time during class hours.
* Lawyers are free to interpret the Constitution but they are commanded to follow the interpretation of the Supreme Court on matters already decided upon with finality.
I don’t see the contradiction. Please clarify your statement and provide reasons for your saying so.
Besides, the very words themselves give the distinction: INTERPRETATION and PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. It is private interpretation which must be avoided not interpretation itself. Will you still insist that INTERPRETATION and PRIVATE INTERPRETATION are the same?
[If so, how can you say a Christian can intrepret it individually but avoiding private intepretation? If not, how do you define private interpretation?]
The former question, I think, has been settled by clarification above. Now to the latter, concerning the definition of private interpretation let me remind you that the Bible has not given a Definition of what Private Interpretation is. Unless you can point it out to me clearly, explicitly and categorically. Chapter and verse please!
Since the Bible didn’t give a Definition the application of Sola Scriptura then will be useless and of no avail. Thus, our position is that the definition must come from the authority established by the Lord Jesus Himself in which the Bible and the Truth of Faith have been entrusted: The Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth.
Now, I can easily give you the definition of the Church but I want to know first what your own Definition of Private Revelation is. Do you have such definition? Is the church where you belong has given you that Definition? Who or Which will provide the definition for you? Is it you yourself or your pastor or your church? In any of the three where and what is the given definition?
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 3
ReplyDelete[Now for the rest of your comments, I can see that you really reject sola scriptura but that's not the focus of my comment although you saw the word "Bible".]
Of course Gerry and you know why. I cannot accept a Dogma merely invented by Martin Luther.
[I will rephrase my question:
Given this year 2010 there is the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical Church, Iglesia ni Cristo, 7th Day Adventist, Mormon, and Ang Dating Daan, how does an individual conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed God's church if he is not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible and other appropriate sources such as history and tradition? Does he accept her claims, no questions asked?]
O NO, NO, NO GERRY. I didn’t write this: “…he is not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible and other appropriate sources such as history and tradition.” You have added “other appropriate sources such as history and tradition.” EXCUSE ME BUT I DIDN’T SAY THAT. Where did you get that? And why did you ADD that? That is committing the Crime of Luther that is, adding ALONE in the passages of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. O NO, NO, NO GERRY. That is foul.
To accept your addition to my statement is dangerous. It is almost like denying man’s ability to search and find the truth. It is like denying certitude of knowledge and of faith. O NO, NO, NO GERRY. Don’t do that to me please. How can I say such a thing when Catholics recognize the importance of Apostolic Tradition and History.
If the Bible cannot settle for you the debate concerning the Identity of the True Church, then go to history… look for its Apostolic origin. Find the historical record of origin of each claimant. INC started only in 1914 and not at all founded by Christ but by Manalo, ADD is recently invented by Soriano, Born Again are mostly newly invented or offshoots of modern or contemporary made sects. That basic fact alone that they themselves made and recorded disproves their claim.
Man’s use of reason includes studies of the historical origin of those claiming to be the True Church. If their claim of being the True Church is not validated by the historical records of their church then obviously it is fake. My Baptist classmate in high school invited me to join their fellowship and used the famous passage to entice me: “Unless you are born again…” I told him: “That passage is existing for centuries, yet your fellowship is newly invented. In fact, it was established by your Pastor Nesty ___ . He is my neighbour and I know that he was formerly belonging to the other group but he left because he had a fight with another head pastor there.”
[Now your answer might include the grace of God. But if you were to include it, how will your answer differ if the same individual in the above question said, "I have become an INC by the grace of God."?]
The grace of God is of course the main factor for our search for truth because God is Truth and He is the Way to truth as well. I don’t think that any of us will deny that. Besides the grace from on high, the person must be open to the truth and must utilize the full power of his intellect in his search. Even if Jesus Himself is speaking to the people if they are not open to the Truth like the Pharisees then it will not be beneficial for them. Then the practical help of the Church Authority is needed. Even if the person is open to the truth if the person that guided him is a heretic it is possible that the guy will succumb to heresies rather than to the truth of faith.
How about you Gerry? How will you determine the true Church? Have you found the true Church? If yes, how? If no, how come?
[Please feel free to respond at your most convenient time. Thank you and God bless.]
Thank you and God bless you too.
Good evening Fr. Abe.
ReplyDelete[His book on Mariology is about to be published also and we are looking forward to it.]
Really? I'm sure that would be an interesting book to read. I want to get a copy, so if it is not too much to ask kindly make an announcement if it is available. Thanks.
[A Christian apologist must proclaim his faith. That is his duty. We are not commanded by Jesus to simply critique others’ faith but to shout our faith on the rooftop.]
Ha ha ha, and to solve that I will just put my articles of faith in my blog. Thanks for reminding me.
[Also, will you please be so kind to provide your own answers to your questions after I have given mine. As you can see Gerry, I am not treating you the way I treat the anonymous defenders of INC or ADD or Born Again. I respect people with identity and faces. You are discussing with me as a human person then I will respond to you with respect proper for a human person. Not anonymous, not wearing pseudo-names or the mask of a cartoon, super hero or a robot.
As fellow humans and Christians, let us lay our cards on the table.]
Fair enough. Like I said before, the focus what we are discussing is Private Interpretation.
As an introduction, a person who joins a certain church followed only one of two routes:
A - He accepted the claim of the church without asking questions and without analysis.
B - He read the appropriate references (Bible, tradition, history, etc.) and analyzed for himself, and from there arrived at a decision to join that particular church.
Route B implies private interpretation. For me, private interpretation simply means how the individual understands something. It's a technical but neutral terminology. It can lead to one of two results namely, right or wrong. Whether you like it or not, people always do private interpretation regardless of whom or what they are reading, watching, or listening to; it is part of a system we call communication.
Now you said that Christians are to avoid private interpretation. But tell me honestly, and similar to what I have asked, how does one arrive at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is God's true church without engaging in private interpretation of references? Does that person take Route A?
Making the problem worse, there are plenty of churches claiming to be God's church. So how does an individual tell which one is rightfully dividing the word of truth?
to be continued...
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteNow let me clarify a few things:
[You have added “other appropriate sources such as history and tradition.” EXCUSE ME BUT I DIDN’T SAY THAT. Where did you get that? And why did you ADD that? That is committing the Crime of Luther that is, adding ALONE in the passages of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. O NO, NO, NO GERRY. That is foul.]
There is no intention to misrepresent you. It's just that you are resisting to answer the question on some pre-conceived idea that I was discussing sola scriptura. Remember that I quoted you correctly the first time in my first comment, so there is no intention to misrepresent. It is just that I was adjusting to your preference. So I added the words tradition and history so that we can proceed.
In fairness, you did give an answer:
[It is almost like denying man’s ability to search and find the truth.
If the Bible cannot settle for you the debate concerning the Identity of the True Church, then go to history… look for its Apostolic origin.
Man’s use of reason includes studies of the historical origin of those claiming to be the True Church.]
Well now, do these not involve private intepretation?
By the way, the INC also quotes from history books and other references. In their proof against the deity of Christ, they quote from history books that says this teaching was only made in the 4th century. As to Revelations 7:2, they will quote some encyclopedia that the Philippines is the in far east. What can you say about this verification as a supplement to the Bible? Did it end up agreeing with the Roman Catholic Church?
And lastly, you quoted 2nd Peter 1:20 to say that private interpretation must be avoided. But here how I understand the verse: The verse isn't saying to avoid private interpretation. It is only saying that the prophecy of Scripture did not come from private interpretation. Read how it is rendered in the Douay Rheims:
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is MADE by private interpretation. For prophecy CAME not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Thank you and God bless.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 4
ReplyDelete[Good evening Fr. Abe.]
Good day to you Bro. Gerry.
[Really? I'm sure that would be an interesting book to read. I want to get a copy, so if it is not too much to ask kindly make an announcement if it is available. Thanks.]
The texts are already sent to the publishing house and they are now being printed. We have to wait for some months for the completion of the printing and the formal launching ceremony.
[Ha ha ha, and to solve that I will just put my articles of faith in my blog. Thanks for reminding me.]
Very nice. Please be specific.
[Fair enough. Like I said before, the focus what we are discussing is Private Interpretation.]
Yes, private interpretation indeed.
[As an introduction, a person who joins a certain church followed only one of two routes:]
Is it really limited to two? Is there a possibility of other routes? And despite the number of routes, whether two or more, is it possible for a human person to attain certitude of faith and discover the true Church?
[A - He accepted the claim of the church without asking questions and without analysis.]
How about accepting the claim of the Church with questions and analysis and be convinced of it?
How about asking questions and giving analysis with the intention of building his own church rather than search for the one established by Jesus?
How about asking questions and giving analysis yet they do not count at all because the vote of the majority is the determining factor?
How about being convinced of the truth of that church because it has been drilled in his mind since childhood? He studied and analyzed things sincerely and diligently but his mind is already affected by the biases he has acquired throughout the years?
How about being convinced otherwise but he prefers to stay because he will loose his job, it will cause problems in the family, etc.?
[B - He read the appropriate references (Bible, tradition, history, etc.) and analyzed for himself, and from there arrived at a decision to join that particular church.]
What do you mean of ‘for himself’? Are you referring to the basic fact that the person who interprets the references intends to impose his own understanding of the data or he considers his ‘personal good’ as the goal of his study?
[Route B implies private interpretation.]
O, really? Where is the Private Interpretation there? What you have presented above is not a private interpretation but Human Interpretation in general. Please differentiate for me the following:
(1) Interpretation
(2) Private Interpretation
(3) Public Interpretation
(4) Authoritative Interpretation
(5) Ecclesial Interpretation
What makes your [B] ‘private’ interpretation?
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 5
ReplyDelete[ For me, private interpretation simply means how the individual understands something.]
Ha, ha, ha... It sounds simply Interpretation to me Gerry. It fits the personal interpretation but it does not satisfy the ADJECTIVE ‘PRIVATE’. My hand carry Merriam-Webster Dictionary differentiates ‘Private’:
1. Belonging to or Intended for a particular individual or group (~ property)
2. Restricted to the individual: PERSONAL (~ opinion)
3. Carried on by individual independently (~ study)
4. Not holding public office (~ citizen)
5. Withdrawn from company or observation (~ place)
6. Not known publicly (~ dealings)
Since we are dealing with opinions on matters of Truth and Faith then we fall into no. 2 unless you want to go somewhere else.
The English word private refers to an opinion that is RESTRICTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Thus, it is obviously apparent in your repeated use of INDIVIDUAL and your stress of ‘FOR HIMSELF’. If we will apply Private Interpretation on the Biblical Texts it means that our interpretations shall be limited to the individual understanding of the texts and will result to the rejection of the Church.
[ It's a technical but neutral terminology.]
Technical? What do you mean? Do you want to tell us that it deals with mechanical and scientific matters? Or dealing with practical or scientific subjects? Or governed by strict rules to be followed?
Neutral? NEUTRAL? Are you sure? Neutral means it will not be favouring any position. It is indifferent. Meaning, in that individual’s search for truth he will not make any decision what is right and what is wrong. All are OK. All are fine. Everything is as good as the other. Ha, ha, ha... Is that right?
Please clarify these terms. It sounds dangerous. It will make all claimants of truths equal. It sounds as if you are rejecting Certitude of Knowledge and The Objective Nature of Truth and of Faith. It leads to Relativism. If you adhere to relativism please tell me so frankly.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 6
ReplyDelete[ It can lead to one of two results namely, right or wrong.]
So, there is a right or wrong. So then it is not Neutral. It discerns things, analyzes things and then there is a conclusion, decision or judgment. And in that conclusion, decision or judgment one is wrong and other is right. In Private Interpretation who makes that final judgment of which is erroneous and which is correct? Is it each and every individual or the established authority?
[Whether you like it or not, people always do private interpretation regardless of whom or what they are reading, watching, or listening to; it is part of a system we call communication.]
I already told you that human persons can interpret and therefore this reminder is not necessary. I do not deny human capacity to interpret or the fact that it is part of human communication. That insistence is non necessary. The fact that each human person can give their private interpretation on various subjects is also not in contention. The ability of man to give interpretation and even private interpretation is out of the question at bar. Rather, whether a Christian believer must employ Private Interpretation as his ultimate means of understanding the Sacred Scriptures to attain the True and Correct Faith. The Apostle Peter reminds us that no prophecy of Scriptures is of private interpretation.
[Now you said that Christians are to avoid private interpretation.]
It is not my statement. That is the statement of St. Peter the Apostle in his Epistle as presented in a non Catholic Bible KING JAMES VERSION. Why do you question the scholarship of KJV?
[But tell me honestly, and similar to what I have asked, how does one arrive at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is God's true church without engaging in private interpretation of references?]
The word private interpretation was rendered by NIV as ‘own interpretation’. Thus, private interpretation then is the person’s own interpretation rather than the official or authoritative interpretation. Thus,
• A lawyer gives a private interpretation if he presents and insists his ‘own’ interpretation of the Constitution. But he is not presenting a private interpretation when he gives and upholds the authoritative interpretation of the Supreme Court.
• A doctor gives a private interpretation if he presents and insists on his own understanding of the medical data but he is not doing so when he is upholding and applying the established interpretation of the official promulgation of World Health Organization on a medical case.
• A government official gives her private interpretation if she is simply giving her own idea about a government program. But, it stops being a private interpretation when she presents the official explanation of the President or of the Agency in which she is under. It becomes a Public Statement then.
• A priest or a minister or a pastor gives his private interpretation of the Scriptures if he merely expresses his own opinion or understanding of the Bible but his statement ceases to be a private opinion if he presents the official teaching of his church.
Thus, Private Interpretation is Personal Interpretation only. The Official Interpretation also involves the Person but it added the presence of the Authority. ONCE THE INTERPRETATION IS MADE WITH FINALITY BY THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY THEN IT CEASES TO BE A PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Thus, your claim above to equate every interpretation as Private Interpretation is misleading and does not hold water.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 7
ReplyDelete[Does that person take Route A?]
Gerry, it doesn’t mean that when you limited yourself to only 2 routes then you can limit me to your two routes. The issue of Interpretation, Private Interpretation and Authoritative Interpretation is not limited to two routes. Please get real and widen your understanding of the matter. You are becoming simplistic in your approach on the topic.
[Making the problem worse, there are plenty of churches claiming to be God's church. So how does an individual tell which one is rightfully dividing the word of truth?]
That is your problem because you interpret all personal interpretation as private interpretation so in effect each person will become the ultimate ground of truth. Thus, there will be chaos because in variety of judgments and conclusions each will claim to be correct. That problematic situation is the effect of the method that you have chosen for yourself.
Much more, the fact that there are many claimants to the truth all the more proves my assertion that each human person can interpret. Since every one can interpret it is but practical that there is variety of interpretations and claims and conclusions. And since you consider interpretation as the same with private interpretation then it will be impossible for you to solve the impasse and determine the truth among the sea of private interpretations. The absence or denial or refusal of an Authoritative Interpretation will make the variety of interpretations impossible to be judged upon.
So, once again Gerry I’m asking you: How will you determine with finality the truth of faith? Have you found the true faith or the true Church? How and which one?
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 8
ReplyDelete[There is no intention to misrepresent you.]
I want to believe that, indeed, you don’t have that intention. But why did you INSERT and ADD those words by putting them inside the bracket that claimed to be my statement? If you want to put History and Tradition on the table you could have formulated your own sentences for that. Instead of using your own statements you ADDED and INSERTED them in my own statements. Even if you are saying that there is no intention to misrepresent me your ACTION says OTHERWISE. Besides, how can you add something in my statement without intending to do such? It doesn’t jibe Gerry. Not at all!
[It's just that you are resisting to answer the question on some pre-conceived idea that I was discussing sola scriptura.]
All your questions I have answered. But look above and see that you have not answered most of my questions. Our readers can see for themselves. Try to put into bracket each and every question that I made and answer them one by one, point by point.
When I used Sola Scriptura I put it in my own statements not yours. Thus, it doesn’t give you justification to distort my statement by insertion or addition just because I expounded certain matter not according to your plan of discussion. Besides, you know that you uphold Sola Scriptura and you know that I reject it.
If you don’t want to discuss Sola Scriptura you just have to say it.
YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME A REASONABLE GROUND TO INSERT AND ADD TO MY STATEMENT. You are not uneducated Gerry. You are an apologist. You are a seasoned apologist. You have exchanged ideas with many people. You are fluent in English and an accountant. IF YOU CANNOT GIVE A VALID REASON FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, THEN, YOU DID ON PURPOSE.
[ Remember that I quoted you correctly the first time in my first comment, so there is no intention to misrepresent.]
You quoted me correctly the first time that’s why there is no problem the first time; our discussion was going on smoothly. You added and inserted in my statement the second time so there is a problem with the second time.
[It is just that I was adjusting to your preference.]
ADDING SOMETHING IN MY STATEMENT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT? I DIDN’T DO IT TO YOU WHICH MEAN IT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. NOW YOU ARE JUSTIFYING IT BY POINTING THE FINGER ON ME RATHER THAN ON YOURSELF.
YOU DID THAT AND THEREFORE THAT IS ‘YOUR’ PREFERENCE. IT IS GERRY SOLIMAN’S PREFERENCE, NOT MINE. I AM NOT USING YOUR MOUTH TO EXPRESS MY PREFERENCE. MY PREFERENCE ARE EXPRESSED IN MY OWN STATEMENTS, NOT SOMEBODY ELSE.
YOU DID NOT ADJUST YOURSELF TO MY PREFERENCE. YOU ADJUSTED MY STATEMENT TO SUIT YOUR PREFERENCE... BY ADDITION AND INSERTION.
[So I added the words tradition and history so that we can proceed.]
Where did you get the idea that ‘if you will not add those words we cannot proceed’? And where did you get the inspiration that by ADDING and INSERTING those words we can proceed? That is below the belt... rather twisting my mouth.
Our discussion was proceeding and was going well. Then you added and inserted important words in my statements which completely changed my position and affected the faith I am upholding. IT IS NOT SIMPLY ADDING, ITS DISTORTING.
How can we proceed if you are violating the position of the other side? You can speak for yourself but don’t try to speak for me by manipulating my statements. That is why we quote each other by putting into bracket each other’s statements. It means: THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE SAID. And from that we agree or disagree with one another.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 9
ReplyDelete[In fairness, you did give an answer:]
Of course I answered and I am answering.
[Well now, do these not involve private intepretation?]
No. Once the interpretation is an Official Interpretation that ceases to be a private interpretation, rather it is Authoritative Interpretation or Position. Once a person is grounded on the official stand of the legitimate authority then his interpretation is authoritative not private. That is the rule of jurisprudence, of sciences and of search for truth and of faith.
Will you be able to attain certitude of knowledge and of faith by private interpretation alone?
[By the way, the INC also quotes from history books and other references. In their proof against the deity of Christ, they quote from history books that says this teaching was only made in the 4th century. As to Revelations 7:2, they will quote some encyclopedia that the Philippines is the in far east. What can you say about this verification as a supplement to the Bible? Did it end up agreeing with the Roman Catholic Church?]
Ha, ha, ha... What you are pointing out to me here is that there are varieties of opinions in the market of ideas. Then, these opinions could be contradictory or contrary to one another. Then, there is a difficulty of attaining the truth because of the differences. I accept these and these are pretty obvious.
But my point is that even though there are differences of opinions and ideas, despite the market of ideas TRUTH CAN STILL BE ATTAINED. Certitude of Knowledge and Faith can still be attained. It is possible and it is attainable and indeed it is being upheld.
On your part, you have failed to answer categorically if Certitude of Knowledge is possible despite those differences and you have not answered my continues query whether Private Interpretation is the solution to that dilemma that you are presenting.
You keep on presenting the differences in opinions among religious groups yet you do not present a solution. If you present a problem then you are necessitated to present your solution. Will your dear Private Interpretation be that solution?
It appears to me that you are advocating Private Interpretation for our search for Truth of Faith and the true Church. And it also appears to me that you want to present as if Private Interpretation should be followed by each person in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. Am I right on these?
On my part, we believe that the application of Private Interpretation on the Sacred Scriptures is one of the main sources of the confusing ideas that you have enumerated above. How can the source of the problems be the solution?
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 10
ReplyDeleteWell, concerning our Catholic Solution to the problem that you have presented here it is:
1. FAITH, the true Faith, comes from God. It is a Grace from God. Therefore, regardless of the confusion in the world God will call and attract and draw His people to the true faith.
How did the Apostles become members of the true Church? Jesus called them!
How did the Eunuch become a baptized member of the Church? The Holy Spirit guided a genuine teacher of the faith to teach him.
How did Paul become a Christian and Apostle? Jesus intervened in the event of his life.
Thus, the Catholic Church teaches its members that the true faith can only be attained by asking God the grace to know His Will. That He will send forth His Holy Spirit upon us to discern wisely what is good and what is bad, to know what is right and what is wrong. Because Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding are gifts of the Holy Spirit as well.
2. The Authority of the Church
The person must be guided by the authority of the Church. Philip guided the Eunuch. The first 3,000 converts listened to Peter, Cornelius did the same, Paul conferred with Peter then Paul taught and guided others.
When bitter debates raged on about the necessity of Circumcision Paul and Barnabas didn’t implement Private Interpretation: they asked the Authority of the Church. The Elders called for Jerusalem Council and it was the Church Authority that settled it. Not Private Interpretation but the legitimate authority of the Church.
3. The Human Person’s openness to the Grace of God and his willingness to be guided by the Church.
Then, despite the fact that the grace of God enables man to find the truth and the Church Authority established by Jesus can guide properly if the human person will not be cooperative to the grace of God and to the authority of the Church then he will not attain the true faith.
You might say: BUT OTHERS CAN DENY THAT. THE INC OR ADD CAN QUOTE REFERENCES THAT SPEAKS OTHERWISE... Well, that’s true. Every people can always present an opposite opinion. But it doesn’t deny the fact that TRUTH can be attained by GRACE + CHURCH AUTHORITY + HUMAN REASON. Jesus was debated by Satan, opposed by the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Apostles experienced rejections but TRUTH PREVAILED as ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM. And the truth of faith is not negated by the presence of opposition but rather all the more makes it known. Truth shines in the darkness. And this truth is not attained through application of PRIVATE REVELATION ON SACRED SCRIPTURES.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 11
ReplyDelete[And lastly, you quoted 2nd Peter 1:20 to say that private interpretation must be avoided. But here how I understand the verse: The verse isn't saying to avoid private interpretation. It is only saying that the prophecy of Scripture did not come from private interpretation.]
Ha, ha, ha... If that is your interpretation of the text then it supports more our position. If no prophecy of Scripture came from private interpretation then we cannot prophesy about the Scriptures coming from our private interpretation. If the prophecy of Sacred Scriptures is not made of private interpretation it is foolish to formulate doctrines based on a method that the Holy Spirit Himself avoided. The two translations that have been provided, one Catholic [Douay-Rheims] and another Protestant [King James Version] have something in common: PRIVATE REVELATION VS INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. St. Peter favoured Inspiration and rejected Private Revelation . It is not of the will of man says St. Peter in 2 Peter 1:21. Yet, Mr. Gerry Soliman seems to insists on PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
Why is it that Private Revelation is incompatible with the Biblical Interpretation?
Private Revelation starts and ends with man. The origin and goal of private interpretation is the human person. But the prophecy of Scriptures are not from human persons but from God, thus the Catholic Church calls her believers to search the will of God in Scriptures not our will. As Jesus stated in the Our Father: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” [Matthew 6:10]. Until death the Lord taught us to look at the will of God and not ours: “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my willl, but thine, be done.” [Luke 22:42]. It is a call to read the Scriptures in accordance with the Spirit and in communion with the Church.
Is there a statement in there that supports the position that from then on Christians must create, make, produce and apply their own private interpretations on Sacred Scriptures? Private Interpretation has been rejected by the Holy Spirit as a method in formulating the prophecies of the Sacred Scriptures. And He did that despite the fact that those He employed in setting into writing the texts of the Bible were human persons: Moses, David, Solomon, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude and others.
It means that when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Paul, James and Jude wrote together with the writers of the Old Testament THEY DIDN’T APPLY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. SO, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS INDESPENSABLE TO HUMAN PERSONS? There are persons who can write and preach and testify about God, the Church and the Faith who did not follow much more implement Private Interpretation.
Rejection and avoidance of Private Interpretation is possible and indeed operative under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If the lawyers and teachers can provide authoritative interpretation of ideas, how much more the Christian believers who are seeking the truth from the Spirit of God?
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 12
ReplyDelete[Read how it is rendered in the Douay Rheims:
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is MADE by private interpretation. For prophecy CAME not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.]
It does not change anything. It all the more upheld our position that private interpretation should be rejected. The prophecies that are NOT MADE OF Private Interpretation must not be subjected to Private Interpretation.
Whether we use the King James Version or the Douay-Rheims version one clear truth is present there: THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION WHEN HE INSPIRED THE BIBLICAL WRITERS IN SETTING THE SCRIPTURES INTO WRITING.
We, Catholics, reject what the Holy Spirit rejected and what the Holy Writers refused to apply. How about you Gerry? Do you apply it? Do you prefer to implement it? Will you insist to implement it? Is truth to be found using Private Interpretation in Sacred Scriptures despite the fact that such a method of interpretation is a NO, NO to the Spirit of God?
[Thank you and God bless.]
God bless you too Gerry and thank you.
Response to #4
ReplyDelete[Is it really limited to two? Is there a possibility of other routes? And despite the number of routes, whether two or more, is it possible for a human person to attain certitude of faith and discover the true Church?]
If you have another HONEST way of joining a particular church then please state it here.
[How about accepting the claim of the Church with questions and analysis and be convinced of it?
How about asking questions and giving analysis with the intention of building his own church rather than search for the one established by Jesus?]
That’s Route B.
[How about asking questions and giving analysis yet they do not count at all because the vote of the majority is the determining factor?]
Do you count this as an honest decision to join a church?
[How about being convinced of the truth of that church because it has been drilled in his mind since childhood? He studied and analyzed things sincerely and diligently but his mind is already affected by the biases he has acquired throughout the years?]
That’s Route A.
[How about being convinced otherwise but he prefers to stay because he will loose his job, it will cause problems in the family, etc.?]
Do you count this as an honest decision to join a church?
[What do you mean of ‘for himself’? Are you referring to the basic fact that the person who interprets the references intends to impose his own understanding of the data or he considers his ‘personal good’ as the goal of his study?]
For “himself” meaning he exercised independence to analyze the evidences presented to him. He may have prayed to God for guidance but he was not influenced by other humans on how to do things.
[O, really? Where is the Private Interpretation there? What you have presented above is not a private interpretation but Human Interpretation in general. Please differentiate for me the following:]
I’ll differentiate them to you in a form of dialogues:
[(1) Interpretation]
“What’s the meaning of this?”
[(2) Private Interpretation]
“This is how I understand it.”
[(3) Public Interpretation]
“This is how the people or government understands it.”
[(4) Authoritative Interpretation]
“This is how the authorities understand it.”
[(5) Ecclesial Interpretation]
“This is how the church or church authority understands it.”
[What makes your [B] ‘private’ interpretation?]
It is an understanding derived from the independent analysis of the individual.
Response to #5
ReplyDelete[Since we are dealing with opinions on matters of Truth and Faith then we fall into no. 2 unless you want to go somewhere else.
The English word private refers to an opinion that is RESTRICTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Thus, it is obviously apparent in your repeated use of INDIVIDUAL and your stress of ‘FOR HIMSELF’. If we will apply Private Interpretation on the Biblical Texts it means that our interpretations shall be limited to the individual understanding of the texts and will result to the rejection of the Church.]
It is restricted in a sense that the person exercised independence. It does not necessarily follow that the person will reject the church.
[Technical? What do you mean? Do you want to tell us that it deals with mechanical and scientific matters? Or dealing with practical or scientific subjects? Or governed by strict rules to be followed?]
Yes. It’s part of the communication process. I’m sure you learned in school how a person processes the information in his mind in order to understand what is being communicated to him.
Response to #6
[Neutral? NEUTRAL? Are you sure? Neutral means it will not be favouring any position. It is indifferent. Meaning, in that individual’s search for truth he will not make any decision what is right and what is wrong. All are OK. All are fine. Everything is as good as the other. Ha, ha, ha... Is that right?
Not so. Take for example, driving. It is neutral. It is HOW you drive that is subject for judgment. Talking is also neutral, but it is what you say that that is subject for judgment. So, private interpretation is neutral. It is what is being interpreted is subject for judgment.
[So, there is a right or wrong. So then it is not Neutral. It discerns things, analyzes things and then there is a conclusion, decision or judgment. And in that conclusion, decision or judgment one is wrong and other is right. In Private Interpretation who makes that final judgment of which is erroneous and which is correct? Is it each and every individual or the established authority?]
What is right or wrong is not the private interpretation itself but the result of that interpretation.
[I already told you that human persons can interpret and therefore this reminder is not necessary. I do not deny human capacity to interpret or the fact that it is part of human communication. That insistence is non necessary. The fact that each human person can give their private interpretation on various subjects is also not in contention. The ability of man to give interpretation and even private interpretation is out of the question at bar. Rather, whether a Christian believer must employ Private Interpretation as his ultimate means of understanding the Sacred Scriptures to attain the True and Correct Faith. The Apostle Peter reminds us that no prophecy of Scriptures is of private interpretation.]
Let me challenge that thinking. Can you arrive at the conclusion that the Church of Rome is the infallible church established by Christ and is the legitimate authority without using private interpretation of references? If so, please demonstrate.
[It is not my statement. That is the statement of St. Peter the Apostle in his Epistle as presented in a non Catholic Bible KING JAMES VERSION. Why do you question the scholarship of KJV?]
Sorry, but your opinion of the verse from the KJV does not represent the scholarship of the KJV.
[Thus, Private Interpretation is Personal Interpretation only. The Official Interpretation also involves the Person but it added the presence of the Authority. ONCE THE INTERPRETATION IS MADE WITH FINALITY BY THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY THEN IT CEASES TO BE A PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Thus, your claim above to equate every interpretation as Private Interpretation is misleading and does not hold water.]
We’ll see about that. Similar to what I have asked, how do you identify the legitimate authority? Please demonstrate that to me without engaging in Private Interpretation.
Response to #7
ReplyDelete[Gerry, it doesn’t mean that when you limited yourself to only 2 routes then you can limit me to your two routes. The issue of Interpretation, Private Interpretation and Authoritative Interpretation is not limited to two routes. Please get real and widen your understanding of the matter. You are becoming simplistic in your approach on the topic.]
Not really, the two routes are the honest routes that a person can take in joining a church. Can you tell me how did you become a Roman Catholic? Was it by the majority vote of your peers or family? Were you paid, coerced, or blackmailed in to joining? There are no honest routes other than the two. You may employ some cases that appear to be different but ultimately, it will end up with either of the two. If you know some other honest routes, then please tell me.
[That is your problem because you interpret all personal interpretation as private interpretation so in effect each person will become the ultimate ground of truth. Thus, there will be chaos because in variety of judgments and conclusions each will claim to be correct. That problematic situation is the effect of the method that you have chosen for yourself.
Much more, the fact that there are many claimants to the truth all the more proves my assertion that each human person can interpret. Since every one can interpret it is but practical that there is variety of interpretations and claims and conclusions. And since you consider interpretation as the same with private interpretation then it will be impossible for you to solve the impasse and determine the truth among the sea of private interpretations. The absence or denial or refusal of an Authoritative Interpretation will make the variety of interpretations impossible to be judged upon.]
You gave that statement under the assumption that you have identified the infallible interpreter. Granting that there is an infallible church to resolve the numerous conflicts of private interpretations, how can you be sure that it is the Church of Rome who is the infallible interpreter? You may say by history, well you would still have do some interpretations there.
The point of this is that you would still use private interpretation in order to arrive at a personal judgment that the Church of Rome is the true infallible interpreter, not the INC, nor the ADD etc.; unless of course, you took Route A.
[So, once again Gerry I’m asking you: How will you determine with finality the truth of faith? Have you found the true faith or the true Church? How and which one?]
I’ll answer this in the way end. Please keep on reading for now.
Response to #8
[ADDING SOMETHING IN MY STATEMENT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT? I DIDN’T DO IT TO YOU WHICH MEAN IT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. NOW YOU ARE JUSTIFYING IT BY POINTING THE FINGER ON ME RATHER THAN ON YOURSELF.
YOU DID THAT AND THEREFORE THAT IS ‘YOUR’ PREFERENCE. IT IS GERRY SOLIMAN’S PREFERENCE, NOT MINE. I AM NOT USING YOUR MOUTH TO EXPRESS MY PREFERENCE. MY PREFERENCE ARE EXPRESSED IN MY OWN STATEMENTS, NOT SOMEBODY ELSE.
YOU DID NOT ADJUST YOURSELF TO MY PREFERENCE. YOU ADJUSTED MY STATEMENT TO SUIT YOUR PREFERENCE... BY ADDITION AND INSERTION.
Our discussion was proceeding and was going well. Then you added and inserted important words in my statements which completely changed my position and affected the faith I am upholding. IT IS NOT SIMPLY ADDING, ITS DISTORTING.]
What do you suppose I will benefit by adding those two words? What would be the problem to your entire position by adding those two words? Did it change the thought that you still reject private interpretation? So what’s the impact against your statement?
Response to #9
ReplyDelete[No. Once the interpretation is an Official Interpretation that ceases to be a private interpretation, rather it is Authoritative Interpretation or Position. Once a person is grounded on the official stand of the legitimate authority then his interpretation is authoritative not private. That is the rule of jurisprudence, of sciences and of search for truth and of faith.]
Granting without conceding that there is a legitimate authority of the faith, I am asking you how does a person identify that infallible authority? You got the ADD, you got the INC, etc. Before you can get any interpretation right, you have to burden a person first to identify the infallible church. And if you are saying that there are evidences to do so, wouldn’t that person exercise private interpretation on the available data to determine the infallible church?
[But my point is that even though there are differences of opinions and ideas, despite the market of ideas TRUTH CAN STILL BE ATTAINED. Certitude of Knowledge and Faith can still be attained. It is possible and it is attainable and indeed it is being upheld.
Well, concerning our Catholic Solution to the problem that you have presented here it is:
1. FAITH
2. The Authority of the Church
3. The Human Person’s openness to the Grace of God and his willingness to be guided by the Church.]
You keep on saying there should be a legitimate authority or infallible interpreter. But Fr. Abe we are in 2010. There are thousands of churches claiming to be God’s church. Thousands are claiming to have the correct understanding of Scriptures, tradition, and history. So before a man can get a correct interpretation of Scripture he is burdened to look for the infallible church, if such one exists.
The truth has always been contained in the Scriptures. It need not be attained but learned. It is the authority because it is God’s word. I know that you have your own teaching on what the Scriptures are and how it came to be. For me, the authority of the Scriptures wasn’t given by the church and neither the church declared its inspiration.
[Then, despite the fact that the grace of God enables man to find the truth and the Church Authority established by Jesus can guide properly if the human person will not be cooperative to the grace of God and to the authority of the Church then he will not attain the true faith.]
Then it is not Private Interpretation that is the cause why there are divisions and wrong decisions. It is the attitude of a person that destroys everything. A person can have a private interpretation that is in accordance with church interpretation. But if the person is stubborn and insist in his wrong interpretation, then don’t blame Private Interpretation, blame his attitude.
[You might say: BUT OTHERS CAN DENY THAT. THE INC OR ADD CAN QUOTE REFERENCES THAT SPEAKS OTHERWISE... Well, that’s true. Every people can always present an opposite opinion. But it doesn’t deny the fact that TRUTH can be attained by GRACE + CHURCH AUTHORITY + HUMAN REASON. Jesus was debated by Satan, opposed by the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Apostles experienced rejections but TRUTH PREVAILED as ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM. And the truth of faith is not negated by the presence of opposition but rather all the more makes it known. Truth shines in the darkness. And this truth is not attained through application of PRIVATE REVELATION ON SACRED SCRIPTURES.]
Like I said, you put another burden in man to look for the infallible church. The truth has always been in the Scriptures.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 10
ReplyDeleteNow it is time for me to answer your question:
[On your part, you have failed to answer categorically if Certitude of Knowledge is possible despite those differences and you have not answered my continues query whether Private Interpretation is the solution to that dilemma that you are presenting.
You keep on presenting the differences in opinions among religious groups yet you do not present a solution. If you present a problem then you are necessitated to present your solution. Will your dear Private Interpretation be that solution?
It appears to me that you are advocating Private Interpretation for our search for Truth of Faith and the true Church. And it also appears to me that you want to present as if Private Interpretation should be followed by each person in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. Am I right on these?
On my part, we believe that the application of Private Interpretation on the Sacred Scriptures is one of the main sources of the confusing ideas that you have enumerated above. How can the source of the problems be the solution?]
We both agree that the grace of God is a factor. We both agree Scriptures tell the truth, and in the Bible faith comes from hearing the word of God. The Bible tells the church should preach the gospel. But after hearing the gospel, doesn’t a person make a decision whether to believe it or not? How does one make a decision? Would he not require credible data? What will he do with these data if you tell him that private interpretation is a no-no? “Oh don’t process in your mind what we said, don’t analyze, don’t come up with an understanding, just accept it without asking questions.” Is this what you mean to avoid Private Interpretation?
Tell me honestly Fr. Abe, did someone decide for you to join the Church of Rome? Oh, you may have been born a Roman Catholic; so let me ask if someone decided for you to stay in your church? It is your personal decision Fr. Abe to be with your church. And to arrive at that personal decision, you have processed the teachings of your church in your own mind and arrive at the interpretation that your church is the true church. An interpretation not made for you by your church but by yourself. The very same interpretation that you tell other people to avoid. Unless you will tell me that you took Route A, ha ha ha.
You cannot deny that when God himself spoke to people, the people had to process in their mind what has been said to them. Some decided to accept Him, some decided to reject Him. What’s the common denominator of their personal decision? Private Interpretation of what has been said. And we’re not even discussing sola scriptura.
Even if you say that there are people who consulted the apostles about the Scripture they still have to process in their own mind whatever that consultant advised. The Bereans of Acts 17:11 had to read the Scriptures to verify if Paul is telling the truth.
I may agree with some of the methods or processes that you know to arrive at the truth. But no matter what method or process you give, Fr. Abe, you cannot bypass private interpretation because the individual has to make a personal decision from there.
Yes, private interpretation can go wrong at times but that depends on the capacity and attitude of the individual. But for you to say to avoid private interpretation is to deprive the individual the right to decide. God can use any means for man to hear the truth. But man has to make the decision to accept or reject God. How does he arrive at a personal or private decision? Private Interpretation. Unless you’re telling me that everyone should take Route A.
You might be saying at this point something like “Oh so you admit that private interpretation can go wrong. That’s why we need an infallible authoritative church.” As I have been telling, this burdens the person to look for the infallible interpreter before he can get any correct interpretation. How will he manage to do that with certainty?
Response to #11 and #12
ReplyDeleteNow let’s deal with your interpretation of 2nd Peter 1:20-21.
[If that is your interpretation of the text then it supports more our position. If no prophecy of Scripture came from private interpretation then we cannot prophesy about the Scriptures coming from our private interpretation. If the prophecy of Sacred Scriptures is not made of private interpretation it is foolish to formulate doctrines based on a method that the Holy Spirit Himself avoided.]
I don’t know what your logic here is. But are you saying the since the prophecy of Scripture is not made of private interpretation we should also not make private interpretations when we read the Bible? I’m sorry but that logic is self defeating. Why? Because it is telling me to stop my mind from processing the words I read or hear. So how can I even understand it the way you do if my mind will not function to interpret? How can the communication process be completed? How do you expect me to understand it the way you do if I just read it and do not process it in my mind for interpretation?
Many times Christ asked “Did you not read?”, “How do you read it?” The pronouns used here is “you”, the individuals themselves whom Christ is talking to. He makes people process the words they read. Christ did not ask, “What’s the interpretation of the people who sat in Moses’ seat?” In fact he never asked it. This means he makes people think of the words in the Scripture.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 13
ReplyDelete[If you have another HONEST way of joining a particular church then please state it here.]
It is very interesting that you have the courage to capitalize the word HONEST despite the fact that you have been CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADDING AND INSERTING IN MY STATEMENT. That is an act of DISHONESTY AND TREACHERY in a gentlemanly exchange of ideas among apologists of our kind.
After you have been caught doing so instead of taking responsibility and apologizing for your DISHONESTY you tried to insinuate yourself by invoking my use of Sola Scriptura and now you have added another alibi: “that you didn’t benefit from it.”
A person of your kind should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. You are pointing finger on the other side whose position you’ve tried to DISTORT.
Imagine, a seasoned apologist has to resort to ACT OF DISTORTION in a gentlemanly discussion, and then when CAUGHT IN THE ACT he resorts to FINGER POINTING and series of ALIBIS instead of being man enough to admit his apologetic BLUNDER.
UNTIL YOU TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR ACT OF DISTORTION AND DISHONESTY, AND REPAIR THE DAMAGE THEN YOU DON’T HAVE THE CREDIBILITY TO SPEAK OF HONESTY.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 14
ReplyDelete***How about accepting the claim of the Church with questions and analysis and be convinced of it?
How about asking questions and giving analysis with the intention of building his own church rather than search for the one established by Jesus?***
[That’s Route B.]
The First Question is Route B but the Second One is NOT. It is neither Route A nor B. Ha, ha, ha...
These are two separate questions yet you intentionally joined them to make the second one appear as B.
The Second Question involves AMBITION and PERSONAL BUSINESS affecting his decision and not CONVICTION.
***How about asking questions and giving analysis yet they do not count at all because the vote of the majority is the determining factor?***
[Do you count this as an honest decision to join a church?]
Ha, ha, ha... When you introduced your two routes you didn’t mention the adjective HONEST WITH the term DECISION. HOW COME YOU HAVE SUDDENLY ADDED IT NOW? Look here:
[As an introduction, a person who joins a certain church followed only one of two routes:
A - He accepted the claim of the church without asking questions and without analysis.
B - He read the appropriate references (Bible, tradition, history, etc.) and analyzed for himself, and from there arrived at a decision to join that particular church.]
You categorically and definitely DECLARED: “a person who joins a certain church followed only one of two routes”. After making your ONLY ONE OF TWO ROUTES ABSOLUTE now you are tempering them by using the word ‘Honest Decision’, eh. Why? Haven’t you taken into consideration DISHONESTY?
Honest or Dishonest that is one of the routes in joining the Church.
Here in Sorsogon there are two Baptist pastors who had a disagreement. So, they separated. The members voted whom to follow. A friend idolizes the other pastor because of his good preaching and intelligence, but he decided to follow the other because his father voted in favour of the one he likes less. Ha, ha, ha... A very beautiful exposition of your TWO ROUTES. Ha, ha, ha...
***How about being convinced of the truth of that church because it has been drilled in his mind since childhood? He studied and analyzed things sincerely and diligently but his mind is already affected by the biases he has acquired throughout the years?***
[That’s Route A.]
The First Question is A, the Second is Not. Because he studied and analyzed, meaning he asked questions contrary to A which states WITHOUT QUESTION. Ha, ha, ha... What is that A or B?
***How about being convinced otherwise but he prefers to stay because he will loose his job, it will cause problems in the family, etc.?***
[Do you count this as an honest decision to join a church?]
AGAIN YOU ARE HIDING IN THE SKIRT OF ‘HONEST’ EH. HE, HE, HE... HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE CAUGHT UNDER THE SKIRT OF YOUR ONLY ONE OF TWO ROUTES: “a person who joins a certain church followed ONLY one of two routes” . WHEN YOU PRESENTED YOUR TWO ROUTES THERE IS NO STATEMENT AT ALL SAYING THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO HONEST DECISIONS.
Besides, not all decisions to join or stay in a certain Church are due to honest decision. NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE HONEST. THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE FREQUENTLY CAUGHT IN DISHONESTY YET DROWNING IN ALIBIS.
I have personally interviewed some people who worked abroad in the Middle East and they decided to convert to the religion of the manager so that they can maintain the job and be given better treatment.
There are intelligent people who are knowledgeable in Scriptures but they are changing the faith for the sake of MARRIAGE – TO BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED TO THE BELOVED OR TO PRESERVE MARRIAGE – AND TO GAIN A JOB THAT IS GREATLY NEEDED. Ha, ha, ha... Where are they in your TWO ROUTES?
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 15
ReplyDelete***What do you mean of ‘for himself’? Are you referring to the basic fact that the person who interprets the references intends to impose his own understanding of the data or he considers his ‘personal good’ as the goal of his study?***
[For “himself” meaning he exercised independence to analyze the evidences presented to him. He may have prayed to God for guidance but he was not influenced by other humans on how to do things.]
YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST HERE AGAIN. I’m asking you the meaning of your statement ‘for himself’. Instead, you moved the quote and simply presented – for ‘himself’. It changes the meaning. Your statement is: “and analyzed for himself”.
If you are saying that “he exercised independence to analyze the evidences presented to him.” You should have used “BY HIMSELF”. Instead, you stated “for himself”. “For” implies an action toward something and that thing is a person the ‘himself’. Thus, THE GOAL AND DIRECTION AND PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS IS THE PERSON AND NOT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. Since you are claiming that “ROUTE B IMPLIES PRIVATE INTERPRETATION” THEN, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS SELF-SERVING. IT IS NO WONDER THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED IT FOR THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS SELF-SERVING: “IT IS FOR HIMSELF” RATHER THAN “FOR TRUTH” OR “FOR FAITH” OR “FOR THE TRUE CHURCH” OR “FOR GOD”.
[He may have prayed to God for guidance but he was not influenced by other humans on how to do things.]
WAIT, WAIT, WAIT... YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST HERE GERRY. THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE:
[B - He read the appropriate references (Bible, tradition, history, etc.) and analyzed for himself, and from there arrived at a decision to join that particular church.]
It is clear from this ROUTE B [which you claim to be Private Revelation] that the individual is affected by other persons because he read Bible, Tradition, History which all involved “other humans” then you are saying now that: “He may have prayed to God for guidance but he was not influenced by other humans on how to do things”. THAT IS CONTRADICTORY.
If you have read the Bible then you are influenced by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. And if you have read Tradition then you are influenced by the Church Fathers who are humans. And if you have read History then you must have been influenced by the historians and scholars of various ages. IT DOES NOT FIT. Your reasoning is not consistent at all.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 16
ReplyDelete***O, really? Where is the Private Interpretation there? What you have presented above is not a private interpretation but Human Interpretation in general. Please differentiate for me the following:***
[I’ll differentiate them to you in a form of dialogues:]
Where are the DIALOGUES? You have given me MONOLOGUES!!! Ha, ha, ha... You are being DISHONEST again.
***[(1) Interpretation]***
[“What’s the meaning of this?”]
THAT IS NOT INTERPRETATION, THAT IS ASKING QUESTION. HA, HA, HA... THAT IS INQUIRY. HA, HA, HA...
THAT IS NOT INTERPRETATION. THAT IS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT A THING IS. HA, HA, HA...
[(2) Private Interpretation]
“This is how I understand it.”
[(3) Public Interpretation]
“This is how the people or government understands it.”
[(4) Authoritative Interpretation]
“This is how the authorities understand it.”
[(5) Ecclesial Interpretation]
“This is how the church or church authority understands it.”
[What makes your [B] ‘private’ interpretation?]
HA, HA, HA... THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DIFFERENTIATING NO. 2-5. IT MEANS THAT BY YOUR OWN MONOLOGUES YOU HAVE ATTESTED TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE TRULY DIFFERENT. They are distinct from one another and ONE CAN EXIST SEPARATELY FROM THE OTHER by doing so you have refuted your claim that one cannot do without Private Interpretation.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 17
ReplyDelete[It is an understanding derived from the independent analysis of the individual.]
Ha, ha, ha... It sounds simply Interpretation to me Gerry. It fits the personal interpretation but it does not satisfy the ADJECTIVE ‘PRIVATE’. My hand carry Merriam-Webster Dictionary differentiates ‘Private’:
1. Belonging to or Intended for a particular individual or group (~ property)
2. Restricted to the individual: PERSONAL (~ opinion)
3. Carried on by individual independently (~ study)
4. Not holding public office (~ citizen)
5. Withdrawn from company or observation (~ place)
6. Not known publicly (~ dealings)
Since we are dealing with opinions on matters of Truth and Faith then we fall into no. 2 unless you want to go somewhere else.
The English word private refers to an opinion that is RESTRICTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Thus, it is obviously apparent in your repeated use of INDIVIDUAL and your stress of ‘FOR HIMSELF’. If we will apply Private Interpretation on the Biblical Texts it means that our interpretations shall be limited to the individual understanding of the texts and will result to the rejection of the Church.
YOUR MEANING OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS NOT SUPPORTED EVEN BY DICTIONARY. I DON’T KNOW WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? YOU HAVE MADE AN AUTHORITY OUT OF YOUR ONLY TWO ROUTES WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY HAVING LOOPHOLES AND YOUR ‘OWN’ INVENTED MEANING OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT EVEN THE DICTIONARY DOESN’T PROVIDE FOR CONSIDERATION.
Response to #5
***[Since we are dealing with opinions on matters of Truth and Faith then we fall into no. 2 unless you want to go somewhere else.
The English word private refers to an opinion that is RESTRICTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Thus, it is obviously apparent in your repeated use of INDIVIDUAL and your stress of ‘FOR HIMSELF’. If we will apply Private Interpretation on the Biblical Texts it means that our interpretations shall be limited to the individual understanding of the texts and will result to the rejection of the Church.]***
[It is restricted in a sense that the person exercised independence. It does not necessarily follow that the person will reject the church.]
HA, HA, HA... CONTRADICTIONS GERRY... YOU ARE FALLING INTO CONTRADICTIONS.
You have stated that Route B which is Private Interpretation for you implies the individual reading the Bible, Tradition and History. THAT IS NOT INDEPENDENCE. THAT IS DEPENDENCE!!! Ha, ha, ha...
Then, Private interpretation is “Restricted to the individual” based on Merriam-Webster. It necessarily rejects the Church. It rejects Tradition and History. The focus is what’s good “for himself”.
Private Interpretation is indeed an exercise of Independence... INDEPENDENCE FROM WHAT? From Church, Tradition and History because the interpretation is restricted or limited to the personal opinion of the individual. It is making the Individual the Supreme Authority on the prophecy of Scriptures. But the Supreme Interpreter of the Scriptures is the Holy Spirit who rejected Private Interpretation when He moved the Biblical Writers to set the Divine Revelation into writings.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 18
ReplyDelete***[Technical? What do you mean? Do you want to tell us that it deals with mechanical and scientific matters? Or dealing with practical or scientific subjects? Or governed by strict rules to be followed?]***
[Yes. It’s part of the communication process. I’m sure you learned in school how a person processes the information in his mind in order to understand what is being communicated to him.]
Interpretation in general is part of the Communication Process. Then there are varieties of Interpretation and Private Interpretation is one of them. There are instances in the communication process wherein PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS NOT NEEDED AND IS REJECTED, as in the COMMUNICATION PROCESS OF WRITING THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES. Human beings like Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, etc. DIDN’T USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION because of that the prophecy of Scriptures and the Truth of Faith are NOT MADE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
Response to #6
***[Neutral? NEUTRAL? Are you sure? Neutral means it will not be favouring any position. It is indifferent. Meaning, in that individual’s search for truth he will not make any decision what is right and what is wrong. All are OK. All are fine. Everything is as good as the other. Ha, ha, ha... Is that right?***
[Not so. Take for example, driving. It is neutral. It is HOW you drive that is subject for judgment. Talking is also neutral, but it is what you say that that is subject for judgment. So, private interpretation is neutral. It is what is being interpreted is subject for judgment.]
IT IS INTERPRETATION THAT IS NEUTRAL. It is HOW you interpret that is subject for judgment. That “HOW YOU INTERPRET” that is REJECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT IS CALLED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 19
ReplyDelete*** [So, there is a right or wrong. So then it is not Neutral. It discerns things, analyzes things and then there is a conclusion, decision or judgment. And in that conclusion, decision or judgment one is wrong and other is right. In Private Interpretation who makes that final judgment of which is erroneous and which is correct? Is it each and every individual or the established authority?]***
[What is right or wrong is not the private interpretation itself but the result of that interpretation.]
WRONG. IF THE METHOD IS WRONG THEN THE RESULT IS WRONG. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A METHOD INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES THEREFORE IT IS BOUND TO LEAD TO WRONG RESULTS.
THE ONE WHO GIVES THE JUDGMENT CONCERNING WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG IS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL USING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. Thus, Private Interpretation can only give an opinion of what is right and what is wrong but it is the authority that will determine with finality what is right and what is wrong.
***[I already told you that human persons can interpret and therefore this reminder is not necessary. I do not deny human capacity to interpret or the fact that it is part of human communication. That insistence is non necessary. The fact that each human person can give their private interpretation on various subjects is also not in contention. The ability of man to give interpretation and even private interpretation is out of the question at bar. Rather, whether a Christian believer must employ Private Interpretation as his ultimate means of understanding the Sacred Scriptures to attain the True and Correct Faith. The Apostle Peter reminds us that no prophecy of Scriptures is of private interpretation.]***
[Let me challenge that thinking. Can you arrive at the conclusion that the Church of Rome is the infallible church established by Christ and is the legitimate authority without using private interpretation of references? If so, please demonstrate.]
IF YOU WANT ME TO DEMONSTRATE IT DEBATE ME ON ‘THE TRUE CHURCH’ BUT FIRST, GIVE ME THE FULL AND EXACT IDENTITY OF YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. ANSWER ME THE QUESTION:
1. Have you found the True Church?
2. What Is It?
3. Are you are member of that True Church?
4. What are the reasons why you believe that your church is the True One?
EVERY TIME YOU ARE SQUEEZED TO THE WALL YOU ARE RUNNING TO THAT DRAMATIZATION OF ASKING ME WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH. YOU HAVE TOLD ME TO FOCUS OUR TOPIC ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND YOU KEEP ON INSERTING THE ISSUE OF THE TRUE CHURCH OR OF PROVING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS THE TRUE ONE, OR TO PROVE TO YOU WHICH CHURCH IS THE INFALLIBLE ONE, ETC.
IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE ME ON ECCLESIOLOGY TELL ME SO. BUT REMOVE THE MASK OF YOUR CHURCH.
NO TREACHERY, GERRY. YOU ARE USING ANOTHER ACT OF TREACHERY. YOU ARE DROPPING THE NAME OF MY CHURCH AND OUR DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY AS AN SCAPEGOAT YET I DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL IS YOUR CHURCH OR FELLOWSHIP. OR WHO IS THE DEVIL GOVERNING YOUR GROUP OR WHAT KIND OF RULES IMPLEMENTED IN YOURS.
YES, MY CHURCH IS CALLED CHURCH OF ROME. HOW ABOUT YOURS? WHERE IS IT IN CAVITE? I WANT TO SEE AND CHECK YOUR CHURCH AND ITS MEMBERS AND ITS LIFESTYLE AND ITS DOCTRINES.
I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO LAY YOUR CARDS ON THE TABLE BECAUSE MINE IS ON THE TABLE. YOU ARE NOT ONLY DISHONEST. YOU ARE TREACHEROUS IN YOUR STYLE. YOU ARE DEMANDING FROM ME SOMETHING THAT YOU YOURSELF REFUSES TO GIVE.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 20
ReplyDelete***[It is not my statement. That is the statement of St. Peter the Apostle in his Epistle as presented in a non Catholic Bible KING JAMES VERSION. Why do you question the scholarship of KJV?]***
[Sorry, but your opinion of the verse from the KJV does not represent the scholarship of the KJV.]
By what authority do you reject my claim? By your PRIVATE INTERPRETATION? Ha, ha, ha... Don’t make me laugh. Not only the KJV but another Protestant or shall we say Evangelical translated Bible favours our position on 2 Peter 1:20-21:
2 Peter 1:20-21 (Amplified Bible) 20[Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving). 21For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit.
HA, HA, HA... IT IS NOT A MATTER OF ANY PERSONAL OR PRIVATE OR SPECIAL INTERPRETATION! That is in verse 20. Your claim enters only in v. 21 “For no prophecy ever originated because of some man willed it....” HA, HA, HA... NOT A MATTER OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
***[Thus, Private Interpretation is Personal Interpretation only. The Official Interpretation also involves the Person but it added the presence of the Authority. ONCE THE INTERPRETATION IS MADE WITH FINALITY BY THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY THEN IT CEASES TO BE A PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Thus, your claim above to equate every interpretation as Private Interpretation is misleading and does not hold water.]***
[We’ll see about that. Similar to what I have asked, how do you identify the legitimate authority? Please demonstrate that to me without engaging in Private Interpretation.]
HA, HA, HA... YOUR FAVORITE SCAPEGOAT! WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR BACK ON THE WALL YOU SUDDENLY DIVERT TO IDENTIFICATION OF AUTHORITY. THAT IS ANOTHER TOPIC. OUR TOPIC HERE IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN RELATION TO CHURCH AUTHORITY... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 2 PETER 1:20-21. HE, HE, HE..
Response to #7
***[Gerry, it doesn’t mean that when you limited yourself to only 2 routes then you can limit me to your two routes. The issue of Interpretation, Private Interpretation and Authoritative Interpretation is not limited to two routes. Please get real and widen your understanding of the matter. You are becoming simplistic in your approach on the topic.]***
[Not really, the two routes are the honest routes that a person can take in joining a church.]
HA, HA, HA... BUT WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE TWO ROUTES PREVIOUSLY YOU DIDN’T MENTIONED OF ‘HONEST’ ROUTES. HA, HA, HA... YOU CLAIMED THAT THERE ARE ‘ONLY’... ‘ONLY’... ‘ONLY’ ONE OF TWO ROUTES. HA, HA, HA...
NOW, TO LESSEN THE IMPACT OF YOUR MISTAKE YOU HAVE DEVISED ‘HONEST’ ROUTES. HA, HA, HA...
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 21
ReplyDelete[ Can you tell me how did you become a Roman Catholic? Was it by the majority vote of your peers or family? Were you paid, coerced, or blackmailed in to joining? There are no honest routes other than the two. You may employ some cases that appear to be different but ultimately, it will end up with either of the two. If you know some other honest routes, then please tell me.]
HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE NOW EMPLOYING DRAMATIZATIONS. BUT DRAMATIZATIONS WILL NOT HELP YOU ESCAPE GERRY. WHY DID YOU ADD THE WORD HONEST TO YOUR ROUTES WHICH PREVIOUSLY YOU STATED TO BE “ONLY-ONE-OF-TWO-ROUTES”. HA, HA, HA... NOW, YOU MAKE THEM “THEY ARE NO HONEST ROUTES”.
HA, HA, HA... EVEN IN HONEST ROUTES GERRY THEY ARE STILL MORE THAN TWO. HA, HA, HA... BECAUSE THE MEANS THAT GOD USES TO BRING HIS PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH IS MULTIPLE. WHO CAN FATHOM THE MIND OF THE LORD? WHO CAN SCRUTINIZE HIS WAYS? As St. Paul wrote not out of his Private Interpretation, he, he, he:
Romans 11:33 (English Standard Version) 33Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
TO CLAIM THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO HONEST ROUTES TO THE TRUTH OR TO THE TRUE FAITH IS TOO MUCH STRETCH OF AUTHORITARIAN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 22
ReplyDelete***[That is your problem because you interpret all personal interpretation as private interpretation so in effect each person will become the ultimate ground of truth. Thus, there will be chaos because in variety of judgments and conclusions each will claim to be correct. That problematic situation is the effect of the method that you have chosen for yourself.
Much more, the fact that there are many claimants to the truth all the more proves my assertion that each human person can interpret. Since every one can interpret it is but practical that there is variety of interpretations and claims and conclusions. And since you consider interpretation as the same with private interpretation then it will be impossible for you to solve the impasse and determine the truth among the sea of private interpretations. The absence or denial or refusal of an Authoritative Interpretation will make the variety of interpretations impossible to be judged upon.]***
[You gave that statement under the assumption that you have identified the infallible interpreter. Granting that there is an infallible church to resolve the numerous conflicts of private interpretations, how can you be sure that it is the Church of Rome who is the infallible interpreter? You may say by history, well you would still have do some interpretations there.]
I AM NOT USING THE WORD INFALLIBLE CHURCH. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THAT OUT ASKING ME EARLIER TO DEMONSTRATE THE ROMAN CHURCH AS INFALLIBLE CHURCH. YOU ARE THE ONE USING IT AS AN ESCAPE GOAT. DID I EVER MENTION IN THIS EXCHANGE THE INFALLIBLE CHURCH? I’M ARGUING FOR INTERPRETATION + CHURCH AUTHORITY.
THE IDENTITY OF THE TRUE CHURCH IS NOT IN CONTENTION HERE. THIS IS NOT AN EXCHANGE ABOUT WHICH ONE IS THE TRUE CHURCH. THIS IS NEITHER AN RCC-INC DEBATE NOR RCC-BAPTIST DEBATE. DON’T JUMP INTO THAT. HA, HA, HA...
[The point of this is that you would still use private interpretation in order to arrive at a personal judgment that the Church of Rome is the true infallible interpreter, not the INC, nor the ADD etc.; unless of course, you took Route A.]
HA, HA, HA... THAT IS YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE FACT IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DIDN’T EMPLOY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE APOSTLES DIDN’T USE IT AS WELL IN THEIR PREACHING AND WRITING. THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH AS THE TRUE CHURCH IS NOT BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL’S PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT THE WORDS AND ACTIONS OF THE LORD JESUS WHO BUILT HIS CHURCH.
***[So, once again Gerry I’m asking you: How will you determine with finality the truth of faith? Have you found the true faith or the true Church? How and which one?]***
[I’ll answer this in the way end. Please keep on reading for now.]
HOW THRILLING!
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 23
ReplyDeleteResponse to #8
[ADDING SOMETHING IN MY STATEMENT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT? I DIDN’T DO IT TO YOU WHICH MEAN IT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. NOW YOU ARE JUSTIFYING IT BY POINTING THE FINGER ON ME RATHER THAN ON YOURSELF.
YOU DID THAT AND THEREFORE THAT IS ‘YOUR’ PREFERENCE. IT IS GERRY SOLIMAN’S PREFERENCE, NOT MINE. I AM NOT USING YOUR MOUTH TO EXPRESS MY PREFERENCE. MY PREFERENCE ARE EXPRESSED IN MY OWN STATEMENTS, NOT SOMEBODY ELSE.
YOU DID NOT ADJUST YOURSELF TO MY PREFERENCE. YOU ADJUSTED MY STATEMENT TO SUIT YOUR PREFERENCE... BY ADDITION AND INSERTION.
Our discussion was proceeding and was going well. Then you added and inserted important words in my statements which completely changed my position and affected the faith I am upholding. IT IS NOT SIMPLY ADDING, ITS DISTORTING.]
[What do you suppose I will benefit by adding those two words?]
WHO KNOWS? I NOTICED YOUR ADDITION AND INSERTION. THUS, IT PREVENTED YOU TO USE YOUR ADDITION AND INSERTION ACCORDING TO YOUR PLAN AND INTENTION. BENEFICIAL OR NOT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS STILL FOUL. YOU CORRUPTED MY STATEMENT.
I DON’T WANT TO ACCUSE YOU BUT YOU DID THAT ACT. THAT IS TREACHEROUS. THAT IS VIOLATING MY WORDS. YOU SHOULD HAVE RESPECTED MY WORDS AS I AM TO YOURS. YOU ARE FOND OF ADDING WORDS. YOU DID IT TO ME, THEN NOW YOU DID IT TO YOUR TWO ROUTES WHICH SUDDENLY GOT THE INJECTION OF ‘HONEST’ .
[What would be the problem to your entire position by adding those two words?]
FIRST, YOU GAVE ME THE PROOF THAT YOU ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY IN YOUR ACTIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE CHANGING MY STATEMENTS AND THEREFORE I HAVE TO BE EXTRA CAREFUL NEXT TIME. THAT ACT IS FOUL. YOU CORRUPTED MY POSITION.
[ Did it change the thought that you still reject private interpretation? So what’s the impact against your statement?]
YES, IT DID CHANGE. YOU MADE IF APPEAR AS IF IM STATING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT GIFTED TO GIVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF TRADITION AND HISTORY. I didn’t write this: “…he is not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible and other appropriate sources such as history and tradition.”
FOR A ROMAN CATHOLIC THIS IS A DANGEROUS STATEMENT... To accept your addition to my statement is dangerous. It is almost like denying man’s ability to search and find the truth. It is like denying certitude of knowledge and of faith.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE OK FOR PROTESTANTS BUT UNACCEPTABLE TO CATHOLICS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU ARE DEFENDING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT WE ARE ONE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE APOSTLES AND THE BIBLICAL WRITERS IN REJECTING ITS APPLICATION ON THE PROPHECIES OF THE SCRIPTURES.
MUCH MORE, THAT POSITION COULD BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO YOUR CAUSE.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 24
ReplyDeleteResponse to #9
***[No. Once the interpretation is an Official Interpretation that ceases to be a private interpretation, rather it is Authoritative Interpretation or Position. Once a person is grounded on the official stand of the legitimate authority then his interpretation is authoritative not private. That is the rule of jurisprudence, of sciences and of search for truth and of faith.]***
[Granting without conceding that there is a legitimate authority of the faith, I am asking you how does a person identify that infallible authority?]
IF YOU ARE NOT CONCEDING THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY THEN YOU ARE NOT GRANTING IT AT ALL.
IF YOU WANT TO ENTER INTO A DEBATE ON IDENTIFYING THAT INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY, YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS SUCH FIRST. BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT CONCEDE THAT THERE IS SUCH AN INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY IT IS USELESS FOR ME TO IDENTIFY IT TO YOU. WHAT FOR? WHY DO I HAVE TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING THAT YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE ITS EXISTENCE? HA, HA, HA...
IF YOU CONCEDE TO IT THEN LET US GIVE OUR OWN CHURCH IDENTITY AND ARGUE WHICH ONE IS TRUE. HE, HE, HE... IF YOU THINK THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST THEN I WILL PROVE ITS EXISTENCE AND YOU DENY THAT THERE IS SUCH. BUT THAT DOESN’T BELONG TO THIS EXCHANGE. HE, HE, HE...
HOW CLEVER YOU ARE GERRY. NOT REALLY CLEVER BUT CUNNING.
[ You got the ADD, you got the INC, etc. Before you can get any interpretation right, you have to burden a person first to identify the infallible church. And if you are saying that there are evidences to do so, wouldn’t that person exercise private interpretation on the available data to determine the infallible church?]
YEAH, THEY ARE EFFECTS OF FULL APPLICATION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. HA, HA, HA...
[But my point is that even though there are differences of opinions and ideas, despite the market of ideas TRUTH CAN STILL BE ATTAINED. Certitude of Knowledge and Faith can still be attained. It is possible and it is attainable and indeed it is being upheld.
Well, concerning our Catholic Solution to the problem that you have presented here it is:
1. FAITH
2. The Authority of the Church
3. The Human Person’s openness to the Grace of God and his willingness to be guided by the Church.]
[You keep on saying there should be a legitimate authority or infallible interpreter. But Fr. Abe we are in 2010. There are thousands of churches claiming to be God’s church. Thousands are claiming to have the correct understanding of Scriptures, tradition, and history. So before a man can get a correct interpretation of Scripture he is burdened to look for the infallible church, if such one exists.]
THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE TO ENLIGHTEN US WITH YOUR GREAT WISDOM FROM YOUR ANTI-BIBLICAL PRIVATE INTERPRETION. TELL US WHAT IS THE TRUTH? WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? I WANT TO VISIT YOUR PLACE AND YOUR PASTOR IN CAVITE TO SEE THE TRUTH EXISTING, PERSONIFIED IN YOUR FELLOWSHIP AND CHURCH. SO WHAT IS IT? HE, HE, HE...
I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE BIBLICAL PASSAGE REJECTING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION YET YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME A PASSAGE SUPPORTING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THEN I HAVE GIVEN OUR CRITERIA OF ATTAINING THE TRUE CHURCH BUT YOU DO NOT GIVE YOUR OWN AND MUCH WORSE YOU ARE HIDING THE IDENTITY OF YOUR CHURCH. WHAT IS THAT FREEMASONRY, SATANISM, OR WHAT? DO YOU PRACTICE SPIRIT OF THE GLASS AND TAROT CARDS IN YOUR WORSHIPS THAT YOU ARE AFRAID OF THEM?
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 25
ReplyDelete[The truth has always been contained in the Scriptures.]
AMEN. ALLELUIA. BUT THAT TRUTH IS NOT GIVEN TO US THROUGH PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. AND THE SCRIPTURES WERE NOT WRITTEN OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
[ It need not be attained but learned.]
THAT TRUTH IS GIVEN AS A GRACE. EVEN IF YOU TRIED TO LEARN IT IF THERE IS NO GUIDANCE AND INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THEN IT IS OF NO AVAIL.
[ It is the authority because it is God’s word.]
IT IS THE AUTHORITY BECAUSE IT IS GOD’S WORD, AND THE CHURCH IS ALSO THE AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED BY JESUS BECAUSE IT IS HIS BODY. IT IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.
[I know that you have your own teaching on what the Scriptures are and how it came to be. For me, the authority of the Scriptures wasn’t given by the church and neither the church declared its inspiration.]
THIS IS UNBIBLICAL. THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES CAME FROM GOD BUT HANDED ON TO THE CHURCH. IT WAS THE CHURCH LEADERS WHO WROTE THEM, PREACHED THEM, TAUGHT THEM CORRECTLY AND HANDED THEM FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER.
THE CHURCH IS PRIOR TO THE BIBLE. THE LORD ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH FIRST BEFORETHE BIBLE.
***[Then, despite the fact that the grace of God enables man to find the truth and the Church Authority established by Jesus can guide properly if the human person will not be cooperative to the grace of God and to the authority of the Church then he will not attain the true faith.]***
[Then it is not Private Interpretation that is the cause why there are divisions and wrong decisions.]
NON COOPERATION IS NOT FOCUSED ON ATTITUDE BUT ON ACTION... REFUSAL TO COOPERATE TO THE GRACE OF GOD AND TO UNITE ONESELF TO THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A CONCRETE MANIFESTATION OF THAT NON-COOPERATION. IT IS BASICALLY PROCLAIMING ONESELF AS THE SUPREME INTERPRETER OF THE SCRIPTURES OVER THE HOLY SPIRIT AND REJECTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
THE ROOT OF DIVISIONS AND WRONG DECISIONS ON MATTERS OF FAITH IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT IS WHY THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED IT AS WELL AS THE BIBLICAL WRITERS. SINCE IT IS REJECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT THEN, IT IS ABOMINABLE.
[ It is the attitude of a person that destroys everything.]
ATTITUDE IS HARMLESS UNLESS PUT INTO ACTION. THE ATTITUDE OF SELF-CONCEIT IS MANIFESTED IN OUR CHRISTIAN LIFE IN ADVOCATING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION: ME AND THE BIBLE ALONE. SO EACH PERSON IS CORRECT. ME AND THE BIBLE ALONE, E.
[A person can have a private interpretation that is in accordance with church interpretation. But if the person is stubborn and insist in his wrong interpretation, then don’t blame Private Interpretation, blame his attitude.]
BEING STUBBORN AND INSISTING IN HIS WRONG INTERPRETATION IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. BUT IF THE PERSON PUTS HIS INTERPRETATION IN ACCORD WITH THE CHURCH INTERPRETATION THEN THAT IS NO LONGER PRIVATE... HE IS UPHOLDING THE CHURCH INTERPRETATION... THAT’S AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 26
ReplyDelete***[You might say: BUT OTHERS CAN DENY THAT. THE INC OR ADD CAN QUOTE REFERENCES THAT SPEAKS OTHERWISE... Well, that’s true. Every people can always present an opposite opinion. But it doesn’t deny the fact that TRUTH can be attained by GRACE + CHURCH AUTHORITY + HUMAN REASON. Jesus was debated by Satan, opposed by the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Apostles experienced rejections but TRUTH PREVAILED as ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM. And the truth of faith is not negated by the presence of opposition but rather all the more makes it known. Truth shines in the darkness. And this truth is not attained through application of PRIVATE REVELATION ON SACRED SCRIPTURES.]***
[Like I said, you put another burden in man to look for the infallible church. The truth has always been in the Scriptures.]
THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BIBLE AND IN THE CHURCH. ONE IS THE WORD OF GOD WHILE THE OTHER IS THE BODY OF CHRIST THE LORD. THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH. THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES IS ENTRUSTED TO THE CHURCH.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 10
Now it is time for me to answer your question:
***[On your part, you have failed to answer categorically if Certitude of Knowledge is possible despite those differences and you have not answered my continues query whether Private Interpretation is the solution to that dilemma that you are presenting.
You keep on presenting the differences in opinions among religious groups yet you do not present a solution. If you present a problem then you are necessitated to present your solution. Will your dear Private Interpretation be that solution?
It appears to me that you are advocating Private Interpretation for our search for Truth of Faith and the true Church. And it also appears to me that you want to present as if Private Interpretation should be followed by each person in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. Am I right on these?
On my part, we believe that the application of Private Interpretation on the Sacred Scriptures is one of the main sources of the confusing ideas that you have enumerated above. How can the source of the problems be the solution?]***
[We both agree that the grace of God is a factor. We both agree Scriptures tell the truth, and in the Bible faith comes from hearing the word of God. The Bible tells the church should preach the gospel. But after hearing the gospel, doesn’t a person make a decision whether to believe it or not? How does one make a decision? Would he not require credible data? What will he do with these data if you tell him that private interpretation is a no-no?]
I WILL TELL HIM TO INTERPRET THE DATA USING HIS HUMAN INTERPRETATION BUT AVOID PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS THE SCRIPTURE SAYS. THEN AS HE READS AND ANALYSES AND STUDIES THESE DATA HE SHOULD PRAY FOR THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO LEAD HIM TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH AND TO STUDY THEM IN UNDER THE AUTHORITATIVE GUIDE OF THE CHURCH. THE ONE FOUNDED BY JESUS AND NOT BY PASTOR SO, SO... MANALO, OR SORIANO, OR VILLANUEVEA [PASTOR + POLITICIAN] WHO BY REVELATION OF GOD WAS A SURE WINNER DAW IN THE LAST ELECTION YET CAME OUT KULELET SA KANGKUNGAN, NOW RUNNING AGAIN UNDER PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT GOD WANTS HIM TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 27
ReplyDelete[ “Oh don’t process in your mind what we said, don’t analyze, don’t come up with an understanding, just accept it without asking questions.” Is this what you mean to avoid Private Interpretation?]
NOT ALL PROCESSING IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THAT IS PROVEN. YOU YOURSELVES HAVE DIFFERENTIATED THE VARIOUS INTEPRETATIONS BASED ON YOUR MONOLOGUES. HA, HA, HA... INTERPRETATION IS NOT EQUAL WITH PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
PRIVATE INTERPRETATION WAS REJECTED BUT HUMAN INTERPRETATION IN GENERAL IS NOT. THAT IS THE ONE WHICH IS PART OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION.
[Tell me honestly Fr. Abe, did someone decide for you to join the Church of Rome? Oh, you may have been born a Roman Catholic; so let me ask if someone decided for you to stay in your church? It is your personal decision Fr. Abe to be with your church. And to arrive at that personal decision, you have processed the teachings of your church in your own mind and arrive at the interpretation that your church is the true church. An interpretation not made for you by your church but by yourself. The very same interpretation that you tell other people to avoid. Unless you will tell me that you took Route A, ha ha ha.]
HA, HA, HA... I WILL TELL MY ANSWER ONCE YOU ARE READY TO TELL ME THE NAME OF YOUR CHURCH AND HOW YOU ENTER INTO IT. I’M ALSO EAGER TO SEE ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION IN THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY. HE, HE, HE...
PREVIOUSLY YOU WERE AFRAID TO SHOW US YOUR FACE. NOW YOU HAVE GIVEN US YOUR NAME WITH ADDED BONUS OF YOUR I.D. PICTURE. HA, HA, HA... GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU’VE GOT THE COURAGE TO SHOW UP AGAIN AFTER DISAPPEARING FOR SOME TIME.
HOPEFULLY, NEXT TIME YOU WILL NOT BE ASHAMED OF YOUR CHURCH AND YOUR PASTOR AND YOUR CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. ONCE WE GOT TO KNOW THEM, THE FULL RESEARCH POWER AND MEANS OF THE CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS WILL BE UTILIZED TO CHECK THE AUTHENTICITY OF YOUR OWN CHURCH. THEN WE CAN LAY OUR CARDS ON THE TABLE: DOCTRINE TO DOCTRINE, CHURCH TO CHURCH... NO HOLDS BARRED. NO MASK, NO FEAR... EYE TO EYE.
[You cannot deny that when God himself spoke to people, the people had to process in their mind what has been said to them. Some decided to accept Him, some decided to reject Him. What’s the common denominator of their personal decision?
REASON! REASON IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR. GOD’S GIFT OF REASON. BUT IT MUST NOT BE REASON ALONE. IT MUST BE REASON AND FAITH. IT MUST BE REASON INFORMED BY FAITH; AND FAITH SEEKING UNDERSTANDING BY REASONING OUT.
THE HOLY SPIRIT GAVE US REASON [INTELLECT, WILL, WISDOM, UNDERSTANDING, KNOWLEDGE] AND FAITH BUT NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURES. THE APOSTLES THEN HANDED ON TO US THE TRUTH OF FAITH FREE FROM THE VENOM OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
[Private Interpretation of what has been said. And we’re not even discussing sola scriptura.]
WRONG. WE ARE ONLY EMPLOYING REASON BUT NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION WHEN HE INSPIRED THE BIBLICAL WRITERS AND THE APOSTOLIC PREACHERS.
YOUR INSISTENCE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS ‘IMPERATIVE’ AND ‘NORMAL’ IS UNTENABLE EVEN IN BASIC DIFFERENTIATION OF VARIOUS KINDS OF INTERPRETATION WHETHER YOU FOLLOW THE DICTIONARY OR A HALLUCINATORY DIALOGUE WHICH IN ACTUALITY IS MONOLOGUE.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 28
ReplyDelete[Even if you say that there are people who consulted the apostles about the Scripture they still have to process in their own mind whatever that consultant advised.]
PROCESSING IN MIND IS REASONING BUT NOT ALL REASONING IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A LIMITED TERM AND IT IS THEREFORE FOOLISH TO CONSIDER ALL ACTS OF REASONING AND ALL ACTS OF HUMAN INTERPRETATION AS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THIS IS PROVEN BY THE BIBLE ITSELF. IT WAS UNFOLDED AND ENSCRIPTURATED IN THE COURSE OF CENTURIES FROM ADAM TO ST. JOHN THE LAST LIVING APOSTLE YET THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF ITS PROCLAMATION AND ENSCRIPTURATION THE HOLY SPIRIT MADE IT SURE THAT NOT A SINGLE OF ITS PROPHECIES IS OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THUS, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION CAN BE REJECTED. IT CAN BE SET ASIDE AND IS NON IMPORTANT FOR THE PROCLAMATION OF THE TRUTH OF FAITH.
ABRAHAM, MOSES, ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH, JOB AND EZEKIEL, PAUL AND PETER, JOHN AND JAMES USED REASON AND FAITH BUT NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
YOU CAN ONLY SUSTAIN YOUR ARGUMENTATION BY USING SOPHISTRY BUT THE BIBLE ITSELF IS THE PROOF THAT WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING IS ERRONEOUS AND BASED ON SELF-ILLUSION.
[The Bereans of Acts 17:11 had to read the Scriptures to verify if Paul is telling the truth.]
I LOVE THE TERM BEREANS. IT REMINDS ME OF SOMEONE WHO IS ONCE AN ACTIVE MEMBER THERE. HE, HE, HE... HE IS GREATLY MISSED BY BRO. EL CID. HA, HA, HA...
CAREFUL READING OF THE TEXT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. LET US SEE:
Act 17:11 The people there were more open-minded than the people in Thessalonica. They listened to the message with great eagerness, and every day they studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was really true.
FIRST, THE REAL BEREANS [NOT THE FORUM OF EVANGELICAL APOLOGISTS WHO THEMSELVES ARE NOT UNITED IN THEIR TEACHINGS] IN ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ‘OPENED THEIR MIND’ TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH. THIS IS WHAT WE MEANT BY COOPERATING WITH THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPRIT - TO BE OPEN TO THE INSPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT. THIS IS IN CONTRAST WITH THE THESSALONIANS OF ACTS 17:1-7 WHO REJECTED PAUL AND HIS PREACHING.
SECOND, THE REAL BEREANS DIDN’T STUDY SCRIPTURES ON THEIR OWN. THEY LISTENED TO PAUL WHO WAS AN OFFICIAL TEACHER OF THE FAITH.
SO IT IS:
OPENNESS + OFFICIAL INTERPRETER + SCRIPTURES
IT IS NOT SCRIPTURES ALONE AND DEFINITELY IT WAS NOT BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THEY RECEIVED AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION FROM A VERY HIGH RANKING OFFICIAL OF THE CHURCH. PAUL WAS ON OFFICIALLY DEPUTED PREACHER AND TEACHER OF THE CHURCH. THE BEREANS ACCEPTED PAUL’S AUTHORITY:
SCRIPTURES + AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION.
THERE IS NO IOTA OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THERE. THE ACT OF VERIFYING IS AN ACT OF REASONING, BUT IT WAS NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 29
ReplyDelete[I may agree with some of the methods or processes that you know to arrive at the truth. But no matter what method or process you give, Fr. Abe, you cannot bypass private interpretation because the individual has to make a personal decision from there.]
HA, HA, HA... THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF BYPASSED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN GIVING US THE TRUTH OF FAITH. THE BIBLICAL WRITERS FROM THE PATRIARCHS, PROPHETS AND PSALMISTS TO THE APOTLES AND E VANGELISTS GAVE US THE TRUTH OF FAITH WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION YET YOU ARE MAKING A SELF-DELUSIONAL APPEAL THAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE BYPASSED. HA, HA, HA... YOUR CLAIM HAS NO FOUNDATION IN REALITY. IT IS BASED ON YOUR DEFECTIVE DEFINITION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT EVEN IN THE BASIC DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY DICTIONARY DOES NOT EXIST.
YOU ARE ADVOCATING PRIVET INTERPRETATION YET YOU ARE IMPOSING WITH AUTHORITATIVE FORCE YOUR TWO ROUTES AND YOUR CONVICTION THAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS INDESPENSABLE WHILE THE SCRIPTURES ATTEST THAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION CAN BE JUNKED. ON MATTERS OF THE TRUTH OF FAITH, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A PIECE OF THRASH.
[Yes, private interpretation can go wrong at times but that depends on the capacity and attitude of the individual.]
PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS ALWAYS WRONG CONCERNING THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES. OF COURSE, WHEN WE SPEAK OF PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES WE SPEAK OF DIVINE REVELATION. SCRIPTURES ARE NOT MADE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND THUS WE CANNOT RELY ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. EVEN THE HIGH CALIBRED THEOLOGIANS ROM BOTH CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT BACKGROUND SUPPORT THAT:
“Private” is explained, 2Pe_1:21, “by the will of man” (namely, the individual writer). In a secondary sense the text teaches also, as the word is the Holy Spirit’s, it CANNOT BE interpreted by its readers (any more than by its writers) by their mere private human powers, but by the teaching of the Holy Ghost (Joh_16:14). “He who is the author of Scripture is its supreme interpreter” [Gerhard]. Alford translates, “springs not out of human interpretation,” that is, is not a prognostication made by a man knowing what he means when he utters it, but,” etc. (Joh_11:49-52). Rightly: except that the verb is rather, doth become, or prove to be. It not being of private interpretation, you must “give heed” to it, looking for the Spirit’s illumination “in your hearts” [Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary for 2 Peter 1:20-21 ]
SO, THESE RENOWN BIBLE SCHOLARS FROM PROTESTANT CHURCHES AGREE TO OUR CATHOLIC POSITION THAT THE TEXT DOES NOT ONLY REFER TO THE ‘ORIGINATION’ OF SCRIPTURES BUT THE REJECTION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO READERS WHO INTERPRETS THE BIBLICAL TEXTS AND THE TRUTH CONTAINED THEREIN.
[But for you to say to avoid private interpretation is to deprive te individual the right to decide.]
DID I REALLY SAY THAT? WHERE? I DO NOT REMEMBER. PLEASE GIVE ME THE CORRECT QUOTATION WHEREIN I STATED THIS: “to avoid private interpretation is to deprive te individual the right to decide”. I have a complete copy of our exchange. And based on my re-reading I didn’t state that. If you can find it for me, fine. IF YOU CANNOT THEN YOU ARE MAKING ANOTHER DECEPTION AGAIN.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 30
ReplyDelete[God can use any means for man to hear the truth.]
YES. BUT THERE ARE MEANS THAT HE USED AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT HE REJECTED. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS REJECTED BY GOD. IT IS NOT EXISTING IN THE TEXTS OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES AND IN THE TRUTH CONTAINED THEREIN.
[But man has to make the decision to accept or reject God.]
CORRECT. THAT IS WHY MAN HAS TO FOLLOW THE WAY OF THE LORD. IF THE WAY OF THE LORD IS ‘NO TO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION’ IT IS FOOLISH TO INSIST ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION:
Proverbs 3:5-6 (New International Version)
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.
OURS IS A STAND TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HOLY SPIRT WHO ASK US TO AVOID PRIVATE REVELATION.
PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS EVIL BECAUSE IT LEANS ONLY ON ONE’S OWN UNDERSTANDING RATHER THAN THAT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND OF THE CHURCH. THAT IS WHY YOUR ONLY TWO ROUTES ARE NOT STRAIGHT. THEY ARE DISTORTED. YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY THEM WITH THE WORD ‘HONEST’ IN ORDER TO SAVE FACE SINCE I HAVE GIVEN CASES THAT CANNOT BE INSERTED TO ANY OF YOUR ROUTES. HA, HA, HA...
IF YOU ACCEPT GOD YOU WILL ACCEPT HIS WAY. IF YOU ACCEPT GOD YOU WILL REJECT WHAT HE REJECTED. A CHRISTIAN MUST FOLLOW THE WAY OF GOD, THE WILL OF GOD AND THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY GOD, NOT THE ONE REJECTED BY GOD:
1 Corinthians 4:16 (New International Version) “I urge you to imitate me.” AND
1 Corinthians 11:1 “Imitate me, then, just as I imitate Christ.”
WE HAVE TO IMITATE ST. PAUL. HE WROTE SEVERAL EPISTLES, NONE OF THEM, OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND WHEN HE PROCLAIMED THOSE TRUTHS NONE OF THEM WERE MADE OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THUS, IT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DECISION TO FOLLOW ST. PAUL IN REJECTING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. BY IMITATING PAUL, WE ARE IMITATING CHRIST WHO REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF HIS WORD BY HIS SPIRIT.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 31
ReplyDelete[How does he arrive at a personal or private decision? Private Interpretation.]
HA, HA, HA... YOUR QUESTION IS ‘FOR HIMSELF’ SO THE ANSWER IS ‘FOR HIMSELF’... THAT QUESTION IS DESIGNED REALLY TO PRODUCE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS THE ANSWER. HA, HA, HA... BUT, IN READING THE SCRIPTURES AND IN TEACHING THEM WE ARE TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH OF FAITH, NOT PERSONAL OR PRIVATE DECISION. OUR GOAL IS THE TRUE FAITH, THE FAITH ENTRUSTED TO THE APOSTLES WHO PREACHED, WROTE AND HANDED ON THE SCRIPTURES.
IF THE QUESTION IS: HOW DOES ONE ARRIVE AT THE TRUE AND CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE?
THE ANSWER IS: NOT BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT BY REASON AND FAITH UNDER GOD’S GRACE AND THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHURCH.
[Unless you’re telling me that everyone should take Route A.]
YOUR ROUTE A and B HAVE NO VALUE AT ALL. IT IS A MERE PRODUCT OF YOUR OWN IMAGINATION. CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE TO SUPPORT THEM IF YOU WANT TO INSIST ON YOUR PRIVATE REVELATION AND YOUR ONLY TWO ROUTES.
IF YOU BANK ON HUMAN REASONING TO PROVE THEM OUT. IT IS ALREADY A FAILURE BECAUSE THERE ARE OTEHR MEANS OF JOINING THE CHURCH OTHER THAN YOUR 'ONLY ONE OF THE TWO' SOLIMANIC FORMULAE.
[You might be saying at this point something like “Oh so you admit that private interpretation can go wrong. That’s why we need an infallible authoritative church.”]
HA, HA, HA... I’M SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE MEANS REJECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR DIVINE REVELATION MUST BE REJECTED TOO. INSTEAD, YOU ARE SWALLOWING IT AND YOU WANT ME TO SWALLOW THAT POISON. NO, NO, NO... YOU CAN LINGER WITH YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IF YOU WANT BUT IT IS NON ACCEPTABLE FOR US CATHOLICS BECAUSE WE RATHER FOLLOW THE HOLY SPIRIT THAN THE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF GERRY SOLIMAN.
RESPONE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 32
ReplyDelete[ As I have been telling, this burdens the person to look for the infallible interpreter before he can get any correct interpretation.]
THE BIBLE WHICH IS FREE FROM THE POISON OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION CATEGORICALLY STATES THAT THERE IS A ‘GROUND AND PILLAR OF TRUTH’ WHICH IT ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE CHURCH. SO, THERE IS AN EXISTING INSTITUTION THAT CAN DETERMINE MATTERS CONCERNING THE TRUTH.
I WILL BELIEVE YOU GERRY IF THE BIBLE STATES: “THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH IS YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.” HA, HA, HA... THE LORD IS ASKING US TO USE REASON BUT NOT TO APPLY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION ON TRUTH OF FAITH.
[How will he manage to do that with certainty?]
DEFINITELY NOT BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION!
YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT TRUTH ARE CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURES. SO, THE TRUTH CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURES ARE NOT GIVEN BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THEN, TRUTH CAN EXIST WITHOUT PRIVATE REVELATION. MORE SO, THE HOLY SPIRIT WILLED THAT TRUTH CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURES ARE FREE FROM PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
IF THE TEACHINGS OF GERRY SOLIMAN IN HIS BLOG ARE WRITTEN OR MADE OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THEN THEY ARE NOT BIBLICAL AND THEY ARE NOT FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Response to #11 and #12
[Now let’s deal with your interpretation of 2nd Peter 1:20-21.
I don’t know what your logic here is. But are you saying the since the prophecy of Scripture is not made of private interpretation we should also not make private interpretations when we read the Bible?]
IT IS YOUR LOGIC THAT IS DANGEROUS AND ANTI-BIBLICAL. THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN CONTENTION DEMONSTRATES REJECTION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, BY THE HOLY SPIRIT NO LESS AND BY THE BIBLICAL WRITERS WHO WERE FAITHFUL TO THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A REJECTED METHOD.
NOW, IN ORDER TO ESCAPE YOUR SHAME YOU SHAMELESSLY ARGUE THAT IT IS NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT CAUSES ERRORS AND MISTAKES BUT ‘ATTITUDE’. UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, THE BIBLICAL TEXT CLEARLY STATES ‘PRIVATE INTERPRETATION’ NOT ‘ATTITUDE’.
THE BIBLICAL TRUTH IS NOT MADE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, THE HOLY SPIRIT DIDN’T INSPIRE THE BIBLICAL WRITER TO EMPLOY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS A METHOD. NOW, YOU ARE UTILIZING THE FULL FORCE OF YOUR INTELLECT TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS A VALID METHOD OR AN INDESPENSIBLE METHOD IN INTERPRETING THE TEXTS OF THE BIBLE. THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS A METHOD IN BIBLICAL INSPIRATION BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSSARY, IT IS NOT INDESPENSABLE.
BESIDES, IF GOD REJECTS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION FOR HIS WORD IT IS SACRILEGIOUS TO APPLY, TO USE AND EVEN IMPOSE IT ON HIS WORD. WHO ARE YOU GERRY TO TELL US THAT WE HAVE TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF GOD AND ACCEPT PRIVATE REVELATION?
[ I’m sorry but that logic is self defeating. Why? Because it is telling me to stop my mind from processing the words I read or hear.]
HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE THE ONE WHO PUT THAT ORDEAL UNTO YOURSELF. THUS, IT IS YOUR OWN INVENTED DEFINITION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT IS SELF-DEFEATING. YOU SHAMELESSLY DEODORIZED PRIVATE REVELATION SO THAT YOU CAN USE IT ON THE WORD OF GOD AND NOW YOU ARE PRETENDING AS IF I AM ASKING YOU TO STOP YOUR MIND FROM PROCESSING.
DON’T MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF GERRY. THE MENTAL PROCESSING OF WORDS ARE NOT BASED ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT FROM HUMAN CAPACITY TO REASON OUT.
HUMAN REASONING CAN EXIST WITHOUT PRIVATE REVELATION. WHEN ST. PAUL WROTE THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS HE WAS INTELLIGENT AND WAS IN FULL POWER OF HIS INTELLECT. THAT IS WHY HIS WRITINGS ARE COHERENT, SYSTEMATIC, INTELLIGIBLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE. HE DID THAT WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. AND SO DID THE EVANGELISTST AND THE APOSTOLIC WRITERS.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 33
ReplyDelete[So how can I even understand it the way you do if my mind will not function to interpret?]
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MIND IS NOT DEPENDENT ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE MIND CAN FUNCTIONS EVEN WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. IT IS INTERESTING THAT TO KNOW THAT THE MIND OF GERRY SOLIMAN IS NOT FUNCTIONING WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND THERE IS NO MENTAL PROCESS THEREIN WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. HA, HA, HA... WHAT A MIND. HA, HA , HA...
[ How can the communication process be completed?]
ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT HOW DID THE BIBLE WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. ALL WE KNOW IS THAT BIBLICAL WRITERS WROTE AND FINISHED THEM WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
THE SOLUTION IS THAT YOU STOP MAKING A DELUSIONAL STAND THAT WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS CANNOT BE COMPLETED.
[ How do you expect me to understand it the way you do if I just read it and do not process it in my mind for interpretation?]
PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MENTAL PROCESS. MENTAL PROCESS CAN EXIST WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE HOLY SPIRIT DID THAT AND THE SACRED SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES ARE PROOF OF THAT FACT. HUMAN PERSONS ACCOMPLISHED A LOT OF WRITINGS AND PREACHINGS WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
YOU ARE IN A DELEMMA BECAUSE YOU MADE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION.
[Many times Christ asked “Did you not read?”, “How do you read it?” The pronouns used here is “you”, the individuals themselves whom Christ is talking to.]
HA, HA, HA... THE LORD USED THE PRONOUN ‘YOU’ BUT HE WAS NOT TELLING THEM TO FOLLOW PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. ON THE CONTRARY HE WAS REPRIMANDING THEM BECAUSE THEIR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS WRONG. DESPITE THE LORD’S CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE EXPLANATIONS THEY FAILED TO GRASP THE TRUE MEANING OF THE LORD’S TEACHING. SO JESUS PROMISED TO GIVE THEM THE HOLY SPIRIT TO CORRECT THEIR MISTAKES AND WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME THEY WERE GUIDED TO THE FULL TRUTH:
John 16:13 When, however, the Spirit comes, who reveals the truth about God, he will lead you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own authority, but he will speak of what he hears and will tell you of things to come.
THE HOLY SPIRIT GUIDED THEM TO ‘ALL’ TRUTH. YET THE HOLY SPIRIT DIDN’T USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. EVEN THE HOLY SPIRIT DARED NOT USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BY HIMSELF: “He will not speak of His OWN authority”. Instead, “He will speak of what he hears”. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS SERIOUSLY AVOIDING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
HOW CAN WE BY CONSCIENCE ACCEPT PRIVATE REVELATION? THAT IS SATANIC. TO ACCEPT WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED IS SATANIC.
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 34
ReplyDelete[He makes people process the words they read.]
MENTAL PROCESSES OF THE WORDS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON PRIVATE REVELATION. OTHERWISE THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURES WERE ENSCRIPTURATED WITHOUT MENTAL PROCESS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MADE OUT OF PRIVATE REVELATION.
[ Christ did not ask, “What’s the interpretation of the people who sat in Moses’ seat?” In fact he never asked it.]
HE TOLD HIS DISCIPLES TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY SAY. IT MEANS THE LORD JESUS WAS NOT REJECTING THEIR AUTHORITY THAT HIS OWN FATHER HAD GIVEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
WHAT JESUS DID IS THAT HE GAVE AUTHORITY TO HIS OWN APOSTLES TO LEAD THE CHURCH TO THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH BY GIVING THEM THE HOLY SPIRIT [JOHN 16:13] AND HE BREATHED THE HOLY SPIRIT ON HIS APOSTLES TO EMPOWER THEM TO BE GENUINE TEACHERS OF THE FAITH UNDER THE GUIDE OF THE SAME SPIRIT:
Joh 20:21-22 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so I send you." Then HE BREATHED on them and said, "RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.
THE HOLY SPIRIT LED THEM TO ALL THE TRUTH AND PRESERVED THEM IN THE TRUTH OF FAITH, WITHOUT PRIVATE REVELATION. THEY WERE THE ONE WHO PREACHED THE PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURES, THEY WERE THE ONES WHO WROTE THE SCRIPTURES YET THEY DIDN’T USE PRIVATE REVELATION.
[This means he makes people think of the words in the Scripture.]
NOT ALL THINKING IS PRIVATE REVELATION. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE TEACHER OF THE TRUTH AND HE CAN EVEN SEARCH THE DEPTHS OF GOD YET HE REJECTED PRIVATE REVELATION. IT IS EVIL IN GOD’S SIGHT.
ST. PAUL IS THE GREATEST PREACHER IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY YET HE DIDN’T USE PRIVATE REVELATION IN ALL HIS LETTERS. NONE OF THEM WERE MADE OF PRIVATE REVELATION.
ST. JOHN IS THE GREATEST OF THE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS YET HE DIDN’T USE PRIVATE REVELATION IN ALL HIS LETTERS. NONE OF THEM WERE MADE OF PRIVATE REVELATION.
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE BEST PROOFS THAT YOUR LOGIC IS ERRONEOUS AND DEFECTIVE.
IF PRIVATE REVELATION IS HUMAN COMMUNICATION ITSELF, THEN THE BIBLICAL WRITERS ARE NOT HUMANS BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT, THEY PREACHED AND THEY WROTE WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
WHAT GOD REJECTED, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REJECTED AS WELL.
GLORY TO THE FATHER AND TO THE SON AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT!
VIVA LA SANTA IGLESIA CATOLICA!
Dear Fr. Abe,
ReplyDeleteThis will be my last post here for this topic. In my judgment, the way you use capital letters in most of your sentences imply more that just emphasis, it is aggression. Plus there are personal attacks and childish accusations you made which are really unfit for a priest to do.
As to your issue of adding words to your statement, you are free to think whatever you want. But really, I was acting in good faith. It's a lapse in judgment on my part to have added those two words thinking it was still favorable to your position. But you are making me admit that I was untrustworthy in doing so. Well, the burden of proof belongs to you since now you are the one accusing me.
Oh yeah, you said something when I asked if it changed your position:
[YES, IT DID CHANGE. YOU MADE IF APPEAR AS IF IM STATING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT GIFTED TO GIVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF TRADITION AND HISTORY.]
Actually Fr. Abe, and in case you don't know, I will refer you to your CCC #85:
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church ALONE (capitalization mine). Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
I'm sorry I didn't know you were going against your CCC.
Well now, I guess you'll be making an article about our discussion.
Shaking the dust off my feet.
Gerry
RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN 35
ReplyDelete[Dear Fr. Abe,]
Dear Bro. Gerry,
[This will be my last post here for this topic.]
O really? Very well then, this will be my last post on this exchange as well.
[ In my judgment, the way you use capital letters in most of your sentences imply more that just emphasis, it is aggression.]
In my private interpretation and judgment on the text of our exchange the use of capital letters gives emphasis to my point. In person, my voice is booming and in raised pitch when I am exchanging or debating a matter of faith to those who oppose our Catholic Faith. It is but proper for me to express my points with emphasis and on some matters to truly manifest my own manner of expressing things that is to express the words in much louder manner. The lawyers are doing that as well as Apologists in discourses and even in their lectures, how much more in an exchange.
If ever you find it aggressive, then let it be so. It is but proper because you have violated my position because of your ADDITION and INSERTION. Whether in Election Results or in Statement of Accounts submitted to an Accountant or in Debates, INSERTION and ADDITION is unacceptable. In Philippine election there is the Hello Garci incident and in our exchange that is your Hello Gerry.
Your act of ADDING and INSERTING on my statement plus the refusal to be responsible for it and instead pointing fingers at me are what I consider ACTS OF AGRESSION.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 36
ReplyDelete[Plus there are personal attacks and childish accusations you made which are really unfit for a priest to do.]
I read and re-read the exchanges and none of them are really unfit for a priest to do:
1. I told you that insisting Private Interpretation on the Prophecy of Scriptures is SATANIC because Private Interpretation was REJECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. This is not childish but a strong conviction rooted in Scripture.
2. I told you that your insistence that Private Interpretation is Essential for human interpretation and mental process doesn’t hold water because God used so many human persons to proclaim and record His Word yet none of them were allowed to make use of Private Interpretation.
3. Your formula ONLY ONE OF TWO ROUTES is full of loopholes yet you cling to them as if they are objective truths with full force of authority. You are arguing for Private Interpretation yet when your ‘ONLY ONE OF TWO ROUTES’ were refuted you treat them as AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION. It is easier for you to defend your TWO ROUTES rather than the decision of the Holy Spirit to reject Private Interpretation.
4. You have fallen into contradictions and illogical positions because your definition of Private Interpretation is too private that even the Dictionary doesn’t provide. Your view of what Private Interpretation is obviously contrary to the way chosen by the Holy Spirit and the way the word private is understood by the civilization of the world. In fact, when you were asked to differentiate the various kinds of interpretation you answered in your so-called DIALOGUES but when examined they are NOT Dialogues at all but MONOLOGUES. It seems to me that you are refusing to answer categorically my invitation to differentiate the terms, but in order to save face you decided to answer in form of Dialogues... Socratic style. Unfortunately for you, Socratic argumentation can only be effective if the terms are properly defined. Definition of terms is one of the major strengths of Socratic argumentation since you are refusing to do instead resorted to self-style dialogues which are in actuality monologues you have betrayed the weakness of your reasoning.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 37
ReplyDelete[As to your issue of adding words to your statement, you are free to think whatever you want.]
Of course I interpreted it as offensive, improper and unjust. Do you expect me to praise you for that? It never entered my mind to say: THANK YOU for inserting and adding to my statement. On the contrary, I felt abused.
[But really, I was acting in good faith.]
Really? How nice of you. Do I have to congratulate you for that?
I wanted to believe that you acted in good faith, Gerry. That is why I was expecting you to take responsibility for that: “Pasencia na Fr. Abe, I was suppose to put it in my statement but I typed wrongly so it appeared in your statement instead” or “Sorry father, it was simply a mistake”, etc. Accepting your mistake and be responsible for it could have ended it right there and then.
Instead, you pointed your finger at me and expressing words as if it was my fault because I used Sola Scriptura in earlier argument. Then when you were pressed you insisted on the honesty of your intentions. To tell you frankly, Intentions are good but we look at ACTIONS because intentions are invisible. FAITH IS PROVEN GOOD WHEN IT IS PUT TO ACTION BECAUSE FAITH WITHOUT ACTION IS USELESS. Thus, by committing the uncalled for INSERTION and ADDITION you have given me enough reasons to question the integrity of your intention. Besides, you are a veteran apologist whose task is truly to refute the Catholic Church. Thus, I have reasons and many reasons for that, to be weary of your untoward actions.
APOLOGETICS IS SWORDFIGHTING IN VERBAL FORM. It is a fight, it is a war. However, we agreed that what we shall do is an honourable duel. By committing foul actions you made the other side extra careful and be prepared for a new kind of confrontation. It changed the colour and atmosphere of the exchange.
[It's a lapse in judgment on my part to have added those two words thinking it was still favorable to your position.]
FAVORABLE OR NOT THEY ARE NOT TO BE DONE. We are not in Bereans Forum we are in a more formal setting. Each of our statement is being scrutinized to the core. There is no way to escape here. In Bereans, one can hide and use a guerrilla warfare but we are in man to man combat Gerry. That is why I expected you to be gentlemanly in your actions.
[But you are making me admit that I was untrustworthy in doing so.]
HA, HA, HA... OF COURSE, FOUL ACTIONS MAKE YOU UNTRUSTWORTHY. You mean to say, those acts are NORMAL for you. You are revealing too much of yourself if you will insist on that. Stop acting as if you are the offended party here. It doesn’t suit you.
[ Well, the burden of proof belongs to you since now you are the one accusing me.]
I ACCUSED YOU OF ADDING AND INSERTING ON MY STATEMENT. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN WITH PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. YOU HAVE ADMITTED YOUR ADDITION. SO, MY ACCUSATION IS PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.
I consider you untrustworthy or rather DISHONEST, which i based in your word ‘HONEST’, you are excusing yourself from responsibility on your own undeniable actions. It reminds me of Adam. When asked if he sinned pointed to Eve and Eve pointed to the Serpent. Alibis do not help, they are merely sinking the doer into the mud of their own actions covered with lies.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 38
ReplyDelete[Oh yeah, you said something when I asked if it changed your position:
***[YES, IT DID CHANGE. YOU MADE IF APPEAR AS IF IM STATING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT GIFTED TO GIVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF TRADITION AND HISTORY.]***
Actually Fr. Abe, and in case you don't know, I will refer you to your CCC #85:
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church ALONE (capitalization mine). Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. ]
HA, HA, HA... YOU SEE I AM RIGHT NOT TO TRUST YOU AND MY FEAR IS CONFIRMED. INDEED, YOU HAVE HIDDEN INTENTIONS IN INSERTING THOSE WORDS. YOU WANT TO PIN ME ON THE WALL WITH THOSE WORDS. NOT SO GERRY, NOT SO! HE, HE, HE...
Let me check the concerned provisions of the CCC:
1. That CCC#85 that you have quoted is PRECEDED by CCC#84 which states the following:
84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the WHOLE of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the ENTIRE holy PEOPLE, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46
Footnote 45: 45 DV 10 § 1; cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14 (Vulg.).
1 Tim 6:20 [English Standard Version] "O Timothy, guard THE DEPOSIT entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge,"
2 Tim 1:12-14 which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard THE GOOD DEPOSIT entrusted to you.
Footnote no. 46: 46 DV 10 § 1; cf. Acts 2:42 (Greek); Pius XII, apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November 1950:AAS 42 (1950), 756, taken along with the words of St. Cyprian, Epist. 66, 8:CSEL 3/2,733: "The Church is the people united to its Priests, the flock adhering to its Shepherd."
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
SEE, THE FAITH HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO ALL THE FAITHFUL. BUT THE FAITHFUL IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN ORTHODOXY OF DOCTRINE MUST BE UNITED TO THE SHEPHERDS OF THE CHURCH [BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS] AS THE EARLY BELIEVERS WERE UNITED TO THE APOSTLES.
THE INDIVIDUAL FAITHFUL IS INCAPABLE OF TEACHING THE FAITH CORRECTLY IF HE IS RELYING ON HIS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION ALONE WITHOUT THE AID OF THE CHURCH.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 39
ReplyDelete2. Let us check CCC#85 if it is incompatible with our stand:
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
This doctrine of the Catholic Church is founded on Sacred Scriptures. St. Paul confirms that even though the Church members are One Body in Christ the gifts given to each varies. NOT ALL ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THE DUTY TO TEACH AND TO GOVERN:
1 Corinthians 12:28-29 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
TO CLAIM THAT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EQUAL IN MATTERS OF DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND MINISTERIAL TASK IS DELUSIONAL AND NO FOUNDATION IN THE SCRIPTURES.
[I'm sorry I didn't know you were going against your CCC.]
Ha, ha, ha... Don’t be delusional Gerry. Here is your INSERTION AND ADDITION:
[...how does an individual conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed God's church if he is not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible and other appropriate sources such as history and tradition?...]
1. Your insertion makes it appear as if the individual Catholic CANNOT GIVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION not only of the Bible but of the History and Tradition as well. THIS IS CONTRARY TO CCC#84 WHICH SAYS THAT THE DEPOSIT OF THE FAITH IS ENTRUSTED TO ALL THE FAITHFUL. Thus, they are capable to interpret correctly the faith based on the Bible, Tradition and History PROVIDED they are UNITED with the CHURCH AUTHORITY.
2. CCC#85 is actually supporting my claim that the Authority on Faith is the Church. Thus, there is no Contradiction at all. The Church Authority are the one given the grace to officially teach the faithful and the faithful receives the faith from the Church thus they are capable of receiving the true faith free from error but ALWAYS IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 40
ReplyDelete[Well now, I guess you'll be making an article about our discussion.]
Of course, I will be making an article about this. Actually, I will post the exchange as they are. If there is any changes it will be a better editing of some words or sentences because they were done rather in haste. I was not able to put the Biblical passages to further support my major assertions.
Is there any problem with that? You also made an article about Bro. Isahel and Bro. Cenon. How come you can do that to us and we cannot do it to you? Our comments in this site will remain as they are including our misspelling or broken sentences, etc. I’m eager to post them separately on my wallpaper. This exchange is important so that people can see for themselves who among us are faithful to the divine method of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures.
[Shaking the dust off my feet.]
Fine with me Gerry. C’mmon, shake the dust of your feet and pretend as if you are an apostle of the Lord.
On my part, there is no need to do such a thing. Even if I am convinced of the Truth of our Faith still I will not shake off the dust off my feet since it is not my intention to seek your destruction. What will I gain if you go to the fire of Gehenna by shaking the dust off my feet? Will I be happier in heaven for your demise?
I WILL LEAVE THAT MATTER TO THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO MADE THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES FREE FROM THE VENOM OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION SHALL BE MY SHIELD AND MY SALVATION. GRACE COMES THROUGH HIM. WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING COMES FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO REJECTED PRIVATE REVELATION. May this same Holy Spirit have mercy on your soul who chose to uphold the method of interpretation that the He Himself condemned to oblivion for the content of Scriptures.
I PITY YOU GERRY BECAUSE INSTEAD OF BEING FAITHFUL TO THE WAY OF THE SPIRIT YOU CHOSE TO UPHOLD YOUR OWN PRIVATE METHOD ON THE PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURES. Thus, it reminds me of what St. Paul said:
1 Corinthians 2:11 You are the only one who knows what is in your own mind, and God's Spirit is the only one who knows what is in God's mind.
ONLY THE SPIRIT OF GOD COMPREHENDS THE MIND OF GOD. THUS, WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION FOR THE WORD OF GOD THAT IS THE WILL OF GOD. THIS IS WHAT WE WILL FOLLOW AS CHRISTIANS... THE WILL OF GOD... DEFINITELY NOT THE WILL OF GERRY SOLIMAN WHO UPHELD PRIVATE INTERPRETATION USING HIS OWN ROUTES AND HIS OWN INTERPRETATION BASED ON HIS SELF-STYLED DIALOGUES.
1 Cor 2:12 We have not received this world's spirit; instead, we have received the Spirit sent by God, so that we may know all that God has given us.
GOD HAS GIVEN US THE SCRIPTURES... NOT MADE OF PRIVATE REVELATION. GOD HAS GIVEN US THE CHURCH WHICH REJECTS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. GOD HAS GIVEN US DIVINE REVELATION NOT OUT OF PRIVATE REVELATION.
NO TO PRIVATE REVELATION!!!
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 41
ReplyDelete1 Cor 2:13 So then, we do not speak in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, as we explain spiritual truths to those who have the Spirit.
THE APOSTLES REFUSED TO IMPLEMENT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BECAUSE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS DEVOID OF THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. IT IS PURELY HUMAN WISDOM.
1 Cor 2:14 Whoever does not have the Spirit cannot receive the gifts that come from God's Spirit. Such a person really does not understand them, and they seem to be nonsense, because their value can be judged only on a spiritual basis.
INDEED, THOSE ADVOCATING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS NON-SENSE. IMAGINE, CONSIDERING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS ESSENTIAL TO MENTAL PROCESS. THAT IS NONSENSE. THE HOLY SPIRIT GAVE WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING TO HUMAN PERSONS BUT WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF THE ORACLE OF GOD.
1 Cor 2:15 Whoever has the Spirit, however, is able to judge the value of everything, but no one is able to judge him.
OF COURSE, BECAUSE THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH GRACE TO TEACH THE TRUTH OF FAITH CORRECTLY HAVE BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY BY THE LORD HIMSELF TO FUNCTION ACCORDING TO HIS DIVINE PLAN. THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WHO REFUSES TO LISTEN OR OBEY CAN COMPLAIN BUT THEY DON’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY OVER THE AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED BY THE LORD.
1 Cor 2:16 As the scripture says, "Who knows the mind of the Lord? Who is able to give him advice?" We, however, have the mind of Christ.
THE MIND OF CHRIST IS ROOTED IN HIS OWN SPIRIT. AND THE MIND OF THE SPIRIT IS ROOTED IN THE MIND OF GOD. THE SPIRIT REJECTS PRIVATE REVELATION AND SO DO CHRIST AND GOD THE FATHER.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UPHOLDS THE MIND OF CHRIST, AND OF THE SPIRIT, AND OF THE FATHER. By grace and by choice we refuse “to grieve the Spirit”:
Ephesians 4:30 “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.”
SUBJECTING THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES TO PRIVATE REVELATION WILL SURELY SADDEN THE SPIRIT OF GOD WHO MADE IT SURE THAT IT IS FREE FROM SUCH EVIL.
SUBJECTING THE DIVINE REVELATION TO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS SACRILEGIOUS AND AN ACT OF REBELLION AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD.
For that it is you who should be afraid of your salvation. Because other sins can be forgiven but not the SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT, as the Prophet Isaiah and the Lord Jesus attest:
Isaiah 63:10 but they rebelled against him and made his holy spirit sad. So the LORD became their enemy and fought against them.
Matthew 12:31 For this reason I tell you: people can be forgiven any sin and any evil thing they say; but whoever says evil things against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Matthew 12:32 Anyone who says something against the Son of Man can be forgiven; but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven---now or ever.
Mark 3:29 But whoever says evil things against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, because he has committed an eternal sin."
Luke 12:10 "Whoever says a word against the Son of Man can be forgiven; but whoever says evil things against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
IF WE WILL FOLLOW THE STAND OF GERRY SOLIMAN WE WILL BE OPPOSING THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO MADE THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES FREE FROM PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THAT IS A SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT... THAT IS DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT.
REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN 42
ReplyDelete[Gerry
I know that you have your own teaching on what the Scriptures are and how it came to be. For me, the authority of the Scriptures wasn’t given by the church and neither the church declared its inspiration.]
THIS IS UNBIBLICAL. THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES CAME FROM GOD BUT HANDED ON TO THE CHURCH. IT WAS THE CHURCH LEADERS WHO WROTE THEM, PREACHED THEM, TAUGHT THEM CORRECTLY AND HANDED THEM FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER.
THE CHURCH IS PRIOR TO THE BIBLE. THE LORD ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH FIRST BEFORETHE BIBLE. ONE CANNOT TAKE THE BIBLE AND REJECT THE CHURCH. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD WHILE THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. In the Holy Scriptures the Church is repeatedly called the Body of Christ:
Eph 1:22-23 And he hath subjected all things under his feet and hath made him head over all the church, Which is his body and the fulness of him who is filled all in all.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy:
"Who (Paul) now rejoice in my sufferings for you, ... for His Body's sake, which is the Church (Col. 1:24).
Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, says he, are given by Christ ". . .for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ" (Eph. 4:11-12).
I DON’T KNOW WHAT KIND OF DIALOGUES YOU HAVE FORMULATED IN YOUR MIND THAT HAVE LED YOU TO THE DOWNRIGHT REJECTION OF THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO SACRED SCRIPTURES.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UPHOLDS BOTH: THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. NO MORE, NO LESS. TO TAKE ONE AND REMOVE THE OTHER IS A HERESY. SOLA SCRIPTURA IS HERETICAL BECAUSE IT REJECTS THE CHURCH – THE BODY OF CHRIST.
Fr. Abe, CRS