Such a compelling topic, man, and delt with really well, I think. The paradox of fear and love in respect to the Lord is something that has gripped me for years. Trying to reconcile that proverb about fear with the notion of a being of unbounded love, grace and healing is a tricky, but probably necessary, process. Great reflection, and God bless!
I think that the fear of the Lord is a healthy recognition that God both rewards and punishes; and that we need to be on the right side of this. It is not the constant fear of the unknown. “There is no fear of God before their eyes” because they have not known the way of peace (cf. Romans 3:17-18).
The promises that 2Corinthians 7:1 refers to are the rewards for those who keep themselves separate from the idols of the world. We have perfect contrition when we go to God for His peace and strength by unconditionally trusting in Him. This is how we can keep from lusting after the things of the world. Why postpone this with acts of penance? I prefer the direct approach.
Acts of penance are done after contrite repentance, to remit the temporal punishment for sins and corret disordered attachments; they don't postpone repentance.
My disordered attachments were dealt with by the peace and strength from the Holy Spirit when I unconditionally trusted in God. It did not happen during confession or doing acts of penance. Unfortunately, this type of repentance was not taught to me in my early Catholic upbringing; but, it’s the only thing that ever worked for me. Later on, I learned of it directly from Scripture when I was curious about whether I could get inner peace from God. The Catholic teaching was there all along unbeknownst to me.
As we talked about before, Christianity is not individualistic. Jesus wrote nothing and the apostles didn't give out Bibles for people to interpret individually. The NT was not even decided for three hundred years by the Church. Christianity is individual and ecclesial, interior and sacramental, not one or the other. Repentance requires faith, contrition, the sacrament of confession and acts of penance, as the Church has taught from Scripture till today. We have to obey what God has taught through His Church, even if we are taught incorrectly in catechesis; otherwise Christianity is subjective, relativistic and hollow.
The earliest Jewish Christians used the Old Testament before the books of the New Testament were written. Back then, Scripture was handwritten; therefore, it was usually heard at the temple or in a synagogue. There was Scripture available; but not individually as there is today. Things changed after the invention of the printing press.
Paul commends Timothy for having a knowledge of Scripture from his childhood; and the Bereans searched the Scriptures to verify Paul’s teaching.
There are no restrictions on us about interpreting what we read. I know of no instruction in Scripture that limits its use even though there are always those who will misuse it. This is not something new (cf. 2Peter 3:16). 2Peter 1:20-21 speaks of private interpretation, but it is translated in different ways among Bibles: including Catholic ones. Compare the translations of that passage between the Jerusalem Bible and the Douay. The Douay speaks of prophecy not being made by the private interpretation of the holy men of God, because they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with those who read it.
We should obey what God has taught us through His church; and Scripture is what is supposed to regulate all Catholic teaching. There is nothing wrong with reading it for ourselves and receiving personal instruction from it that is not generally taught or emphasized at a particular period in the Church.
The printing press did not determine the canon of Scripture. The Jews had no definitive canon of their own; different sects used different canons. Christ gave the Church the authority over the doctrine and discipline of the Church, both to interpret Scripture and pass on the Tradition He taught them, as well as to administer the Sacraments. Without the Church's authority, we would have no canon of Scripture. We can read and interpret Scripture on our own so long as we do so in obedience to the Church. To say that "there are no restrictions on us about interpreting what we read" and "there are always those who will misuse it" is a contradiction. If we can read and interpret Scripture however we like, there are no restrictions; all forms of heresies become simply different ways of interpreting Scripture. As you said, we should obey the Church, and the Church is the official interpreter of Scripture. We can interpret it on our own so long as we do so in obedience to the Church. Denying the sacraments, including confession, is disobedience to the Church resulting from private interpretation of Scripture. Interpreting a single passage like 2 Pt 1:20-21 to support a position is a false way of reading Scripture; that passage can be interpreted alternately, as you also noted, but the truth that we must obey the Church in interpreting Scripture is in keeping with the whole of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. The thousands of Protestant denominations and other heresies throughout history result from this disobedience and private interpretation.
When I said that there are no restrictions on us about interpreting what we read, I meant that we are not prohibited from reading and interpreting Scripture even though there are those who will misuse it. Just because there are many people who misuse food and drink doesn’t mean that the rest of us should stop eating and drinking. There is no contradiction.
Of course the printing press did not determine the canon of Scripture. It enabled us to have it and to read and interpret it for ourselves. True spiritual discernment from the Spirit of Truth in understanding what is in Scripture is available to all of us and not just the hierarchy. This is what makes us part of the Church that officially interprets Scripture. It is done individually and corporately. There will always be divisions and heresies; but it doesn’t mean that we should stop seeking the truth for ourselves.
Why is interpreting a single passage like 2 Pt 1:20-21 to support a position a false way of reading Scripture. How else can we convey it to others for examination and for understanding what it is saying? Scripture is often quoted by Catholics to support an idea. I provide a reference so that the readers can examine it for themselves to see if I am presenting it properly. Quoting Scripture is not forbidden.
Such a compelling topic, man, and delt with really well, I think. The paradox of fear and love in respect to the Lord is something that has gripped me for years. Trying to reconcile that proverb about fear with the notion of a being of unbounded love, grace and healing is a tricky, but probably necessary, process. Great reflection, and God bless!
I think that the fear of the Lord is a healthy recognition that God both rewards and punishes; and that we need to be on the right side of this. It is not the constant fear of the unknown. “There is no fear of God before their eyes” because they have not known the way of peace (cf. Romans 3:17-18).
The promises that 2Corinthians 7:1 refers to are the rewards for those who keep themselves separate from the idols of the world. We have perfect contrition when we go to God for His peace and strength by unconditionally trusting in Him. This is how we can keep from lusting after the things of the world. Why postpone this with acts of penance? I prefer the direct approach.
Acts of penance are done after contrite repentance, to remit the temporal punishment for sins and corret disordered attachments; they don't postpone repentance.
My disordered attachments were dealt with by the peace and strength from the Holy Spirit when I unconditionally trusted in God. It did not happen during confession or doing acts of penance. Unfortunately, this type of repentance was not taught to me in my early Catholic upbringing; but, it’s the only thing that ever worked for me. Later on, I learned of it directly from Scripture when I was curious about whether I could get inner peace from God. The Catholic teaching was there all along unbeknownst to me.
As we talked about before, Christianity is not individualistic. Jesus wrote nothing and the apostles didn't give out Bibles for people to interpret individually. The NT was not even decided for three hundred years by the Church. Christianity is individual and ecclesial, interior and sacramental, not one or the other. Repentance requires faith, contrition, the sacrament of confession and acts of penance, as the Church has taught from Scripture till today. We have to obey what God has taught through His Church, even if we are taught incorrectly in catechesis; otherwise Christianity is subjective, relativistic and hollow.
The earliest Jewish Christians used the Old Testament before the books of the New Testament were written. Back then, Scripture was handwritten; therefore, it was usually heard at the temple or in a synagogue. There was Scripture available; but not individually as there is today. Things changed after the invention of the printing press.
Paul commends Timothy for having a knowledge of Scripture from his childhood; and the Bereans searched the Scriptures to verify Paul’s teaching.
There are no restrictions on us about interpreting what we read. I know of no instruction in Scripture that limits its use even though there are always those who will misuse it. This is not something new (cf. 2Peter 3:16). 2Peter 1:20-21 speaks of private interpretation, but it is translated in different ways among Bibles: including Catholic ones. Compare the translations of that passage between the Jerusalem Bible and the Douay. The Douay speaks of prophecy not being made by the private interpretation of the holy men of God, because they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with those who read it.
We should obey what God has taught us through His church; and Scripture is what is supposed to regulate all Catholic teaching. There is nothing wrong with reading it for ourselves and receiving personal instruction from it that is not generally taught or emphasized at a particular period in the Church.
The printing press did not determine the canon of Scripture. The Jews had no definitive canon of their own; different sects used different canons. Christ gave the Church the authority over the doctrine and discipline of the Church, both to interpret Scripture and pass on the Tradition He taught them, as well as to administer the Sacraments. Without the Church's authority, we would have no canon of Scripture. We can read and interpret Scripture on our own so long as we do so in obedience to the Church. To say that "there are no restrictions on us about interpreting what we read" and "there are always those who will misuse it" is a contradiction. If we can read and interpret Scripture however we like, there are no restrictions; all forms of heresies become simply different ways of interpreting Scripture. As you said, we should obey the Church, and the Church is the official interpreter of Scripture. We can interpret it on our own so long as we do so in obedience to the Church. Denying the sacraments, including confession, is disobedience to the Church resulting from private interpretation of Scripture. Interpreting a single passage like 2 Pt 1:20-21 to support a position is a false way of reading Scripture; that passage can be interpreted alternately, as you also noted, but the truth that we must obey the Church in interpreting Scripture is in keeping with the whole of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. The thousands of Protestant denominations and other heresies throughout history result from this disobedience and private interpretation.
When I said that there are no restrictions on us about interpreting what we read, I meant that we are not prohibited from reading and interpreting Scripture even though there are those who will misuse it. Just because there are many people who misuse food and drink doesn’t mean that the rest of us should stop eating and drinking. There is no contradiction.
Of course the printing press did not determine the canon of Scripture. It enabled us to have it and to read and interpret it for ourselves. True spiritual discernment from the Spirit of Truth in understanding what is in Scripture is available to all of us and not just the hierarchy. This is what makes us part of the Church that officially interprets Scripture. It is done individually and corporately. There will always be divisions and heresies; but it doesn’t mean that we should stop seeking the truth for ourselves.
Why is interpreting a single passage like 2 Pt 1:20-21 to support a position a false way of reading Scripture. How else can we convey it to others for examination and for understanding what it is saying? Scripture is often quoted by Catholics to support an idea. I provide a reference so that the readers can examine it for themselves to see if I am presenting it properly. Quoting Scripture is not forbidden.
good points