I Have Other Flocks

[Nihil Obstat]

That not what i was lead to believe nihil. The magesterium says there is a particular way to read scripture, not a particular way to interpret it. The truth is a double edged sword, holy scripture can be interpreted to have different meanings, there are more than one meaning to most scriptures although there are a few verses that are literal and mean nothing else, one of those is that jesus is present both real and perpetualy in the bread and wine/ holy eucharist. That's my understanding anyway.

There can be various meanings to a single passage or text - that is practically self-evident - but there are interpretations which are clearly wrong. A valid interpretation of Scripture is one which, above all, is in conformity with what the Church has always taught. An interpretation is more and more suspect the more original it is, in other words the less we can see that such interpretations were held and taught by the Fathers. Unfortunately your interpretations, like your theology, tend to be radically original. It is a feature of modernism to insist on personal interpretation of religious texts, so you must be quite careful.
 

For the Modernist .Believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the divine reality does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the Believer rests, they answer: In the experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the opinion of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. This is their manner of putting the question: In the religious sentiment one must recognise a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the very reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as to excel greatly any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the rationalists, it arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state which is necessary to produce it. It is this experience which, when a person acquires it, makes him properly and truly a believer.
How far off we are here from Catholic teaching we have already seen in the decree of the Vatican Council. We shall see later how, with such theories, added to the other errors already mentioned, the way is opened wide for atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true.
 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I never insisted my interpretation was correct, but thanks for the warning. And i'm not a free mason so back off, nore am i a modernist. I believe in a personal and communal relationship with GOD. Sacred tradition and divine revelation whether for the person or the community of few or many.

 

St paul " How i wish you all to be prophets."

Edited October 9, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I also don't rationalise that i have any prophetic revelation over the interpretation of holy scripture, i'm just revealing my ideas whether wrong or right, which again is not for you to judge whether it is or isn't though you can not believe my idea, and yes even if you don't believe my idea we can discuss it anyway, i respect your opinion and the magesterium of priests, bishops, deacons and pope, which as far as i'm aware your not under holy orders. Also Jesus says the truth will set you free, i am not a robot pawn on a game of Chess for the magesterium to move at will, though of course i do believe in the teaching authority of the priests bishops and pope and take into serious consideration all that it has to say. I'm not under holy orders bruz.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Radical perhaps i am, heretical moderernist i am not. Lets go into this deeper in private message if you like bro and expand to me the why you think i lean towards modernist and the whats as to what is a modernist because i don't really know, though i think i may have a fair idea and that it is centred around ego and a personal relationship with jesus over the communal. And we all can continue to discuss the topic at hand in this thread nihl, in this thread.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

Radical perhaps i am, heretical moderernist i am not. Lets go into this deeper in private message if you like bro and expand to me the why you think i lean towards modernist and the whats as to what is a modernist because i don't really know, though i think i may have a fair idea and that it is centred around ego and a personal relationship with jesus over the communal. And we all can continue to discuss the topic at hand in this thread nihl, in this thread.

Whether or not you are a modernist is not at all within my purview. Nor am I particularly interested in exploring that any further. If you are interested yourself I would recommend reading Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

[Winchester]

[ardillacid]

this is a thread

[John Ryan]

When I hear that passage, I always think of the apologies of St. Justin Martyr in which he says that Christ as the Divine Reason lives in all those who live justly.

[Ice_nine]

I have this one frock I really like but I also have other frocks

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

is your frock made of wool?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Just to share with you all something father cappie posted in catholic question answer when i asked about the magesterium. Not that the chummy commoners are above the priests bishops and pope but pay particular attention to what i have highlighted, perhaps i am reading it wrongly and have taken fr cappie out of context, and sorry ahead of time if i have.

 

Fr cappie posted this...

 

b) Ordinary Magisterium: this second form of Church teaching is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.

 

The Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible. But then neither is the Ordinary Magisterium fallible to such an extent that any number of teachings might be in error, to any extent. 

 

Read the whole question and answer if you would like in the Q and A forum, it is titled magesterium

Edited October 15, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Benedictus]

God made promises to the Jewish people. He also made promises to the decendents of Ishmael. The spirit of God flows where it wishes. If God has a relationship with people under a means known to him then so be it. It's not for me to make a claim. It is Gods job to figure this out and not me, thankfully. I think our job is to be the best followers of Jesus we can be and to talk to others about the great impact God has on our lives.