Dear Moses,
I do not find anything that says that we do not need the
church to interpret the scriptures in what you sent. Let me explain:
I do find that indeed, the correct interpretation of the
scriptures is truly needed.
So I would like to not only have us both read again what
you sent, but also try and think about what this [interpretation] that is
referred to is:
Namely, the true interpretation of the scriptures can [easily]
be understood concerning certain matters - like the sacraments an the church
and the pope and so on - because for us to know how those scriptures are
rightly to be interpreted, let us see how these same men whom you quoted
interpreted them.
What I read in your email does not lead to to believe that [there] is no need of a true interpretation
of the scriptures. Because we both know that everyone gives his own
meanings to many [scriptures] and also tries to support them with various
verses. In fact, there is not one catholic Doctrine that is not supported
by scripture either directly or implicitly. that
means that your argument is partially correct:
Yes there can be brought from the scriptures so much truth
and light, but how can that be done unless there is an interpretation to go
with it?
And if there needs to be an interpretation, for such things
as baptism for example, then naturally, there must be someone to interpret who
has the authority to speak in God's name.
"Whoever listen's to you,
listen's to me." Lk 10, 16
This was not spoken to you Moses. this
was spoken to the apostles. So then, whomever the apostles later taught
received the true message of Christ.
So then, this lays the foundation for a trust in those whom
the apostles taught, because that later generation truly received the teaching
of Jesus Christ.
So were they catholic or not?
The only way to know with certainty what they [believed]
about the sacraments, the church, the pope and so on is to simply read what
those later generations wrote us about their faith, handed down to them by the
apostles, who spoke the very words of Jesus Christ.
But back to our specific discussion, let me show you that
the few verses you sent me, do not just mention the scriptures but also point
to the need of the ture interpretation of those same
scriptures:
St. Cyril of
"For this salvation which we believe depends not on
ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."
Yes that is certainly true, and so the deeper
question becomes "what do they believe?"
We need their [interpretation] of course to answer that
question.
"But in learning the Faith and in professing it,
acquire and keep that only which is now delivered to thee by the Church,
and
which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures"
So we have tow parts to this statement, the first says that
we must hold only to the interpretaion of the Church
and not to any new interpretations that may come.
So whatever the church teaches about the sacraments must
never be changed.
and
for second part,
Amen. the church has truly been
built up [strongly] by the scriptures. All Catholic teachings has a strong biblical foundation. you
may not [hold] this to be true Moses, but that is not the point really.
The point is, what was and will [always]
be the church's interpretation?
For this we need the Fathers of the church on specific
questions about such things as baptism and so on... Can you fidn out what the church has [always] taught? If so,
then please accept
"that which we have spoken
and maintain from the Scriptures"
St. Athanasius
And if you want to know why the catholic
church [believes] what She [believes], then:
proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side.
a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of
the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know, - still, as we
have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must
communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,-
the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest
any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ
unreasoned.
Well again, doesn't this point to an [interpretation]
that is needed to understand the scriptures? Otherwise you end up with
over 50,000 differing interpretations.
that is why we must read the fathers...
but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the
proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter,
but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly,
cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the
divine Scriptures.
Okay so that is that. Read the fathers.
this website has an index. look up any
question and see what the church taught. Why not start with
baptism? or the eucharist?
or the church?
then Moses , you see why we [believe[ what was always [believed]. And [not]
a man made religion which changed the [interpretation] of the fathers. (this happened at the reformation when they threw out alot.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.titlepage.html
please use the index on the left side.
Thank you Moses, I hope that this is a blessing for
you.
To close, I feel that all that you sent me points to the
need of an interpretation of the said scriptures. Or else you just have a
book with no interpretation.
with love in Christ,
Ben