What Do Roman Catholics Believe This Passage of Scripture Is Teaching?

[RayneBeau]

"For we have not depended on made-up legends in making known to you the mighty coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. With our own eyes we saw His greatness! We were there when He was given honor and glory by God the Father, when the voice came to Him from the Supreme Glory, saying, "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am well pleased!" We ourselves heard this voice coming from heaven, when we were with Him on the sacred mountain.
So we are even more confident of the message proclaimed by the prophets. You will do well to pay attention to it, for it is like a lamp shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the light of the morning star shines in your hearts. Above all else, however, remember this: no one can explain, by himself, a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God." 2 Peter 1: 16-21

Does the Roman Catholic Church cite this part of Scripture to mean that only the RCC is capable of interpreting the Bible?

 

[balshan]

"For we have not depended on made-up legends in making known to you the mighty coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. With our own eyes we saw His greatness! We were there when He was given honor and glory by God the Father, when the voice came to Him from the Supreme Glory, saying, "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am well pleased!" We ourselves heard this voice coming from heaven, when we were with Him on the sacred mountain.
So we are even more confident of the message proclaimed by the prophets. You will do well to pay attention to it, for it is like a lamp shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the light of the morning star shines in your hearts. Above all else, however, remember this: no one can explain, by himself, a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God." 2 Peter 1: 16-21

Does the Roman Catholic Church cite this part of Scripture to mean that only the RCC is capable of interpreting the Bible?

Well I would say Peter was indicating that natural law is to be blindly followed. I mean we did have one poster said you could the natural law to support praying to those who have died because other cultures have ancestor worship. I mean he clearly says legends are made up and not real.

Of course they would say that means they are right it is the pope and his cronies who are to interpret the bible.

But the message is to be in our hearts.

John 16:13

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

John 14:26

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

All believers have the Helper.

 

[Teresa]

"For we have not depended on made-up legends in making known to you the mighty coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. With our own eyes we saw His greatness! We were there when He was given honor and glory by God the Father, when the voice came to Him from the Supreme Glory, saying, "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am well pleased!" We ourselves heard this voice coming from heaven, when we were with Him on the sacred mountain.
So we are even more confident of the message proclaimed by the prophets. You will do well to pay attention to it, for it is like a lamp shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the light of the morning star shines in your hearts. Above all else, however, remember this: no one can explain, by himself, a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God." 2 Peter 1: 16-21

Does the Roman Catholic Church cite this part of Scripture to mean that only the RCC is capable of interpreting the Bible?

It does indicate the place of an authoritative institution qualified to help people with Scripture. What else is there that fills this role other than the Catholic Church?

 

[1Thess521]

It does indicate the place of an authoritative institution qualified to help people with Scripture. What else is there that fills this role other than the Catholic Church?

from a pro Catholic viewpoint

Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn't Use

8. Do not cite 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He then exhorts his readers to heed the "prophetic word." He continues, "No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
In context, the "interpretation" which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. That is, St. Peter's point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority."

 

[balshan]

It does indicate the place of an authoritative institution qualified to help people with Scripture. What else is there that fills this role other than the Catholic Church?

Not your institution as it shows by its fruit and false doctrines. It is not the NT church. No where does it refer to an institution.

 

[1Thess521]

It does indicate the place of an authoritative institution qualified to help people with Scripture. What else is there that fills this role other than the Catholic Church?

verse 16; Peter tell you what he and others has seen with their own eyes
verses 17 and 18: Peter tells you what he and others have heard with their ears?
in verse 19: What does Peter say is more reliable than his own eyes and ears: and the eyes and ears of John and James?

"And we have a more firm prophetic word"

that's right: Scripture is more reliable than the eyes and ears of Peter and the other apostles!

Verse 19 "And we have a more firm prophetic word, to which we do well giving heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day may dawn, and [the] morning star may arise in your hearts;"

 

[RayneBeau]

from a pro Catholic viewpoint

Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn't Use

8. Do not cite 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He then exhorts his readers to heed the "prophetic word." He continues, "No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
In context, the "interpretation" which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. That is, St. Peter's point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority."

AMEN 1Thess! The apostle Peter informs us in his second letter, that the Bible is more reliable than that which he had seen with his own two eyes and heard with his own two ears, because it was written by men impelled by the Holy Spirit. So, you'd think that it would seem obvious to Roman Catholics that if the Bible is more reliable than what Peter himself (whom RC's believe was their first pope), had seen and heard, it is also certainly more reliable than any "tradition" or 'church' which contradicts it.

 

[RayneBeau]

It does indicate the place of an authoritative institution qualified to help people with Scripture. What else is there that fills this role other than the Catholic Church?

No, it does not 'indicate a place of authoritative institution qualified to help people with Scripture' - that's why Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit . Actually the passages in 2 Peter 1: 16-21 that were quoted in this thread, speaks of God's guidance of those who wrote the Bible, and does not say that only certain ones can interpret it. The apostle Paul praised the believers of Berea for examining the Scriptures for themselves to see if what he was teaching them was really Scriptural: It's members were better disposed than those in Thessalonica, and welcomed the message with great enthusiasm. Each day they studied the Scriptures to see whether these things were so. If they did well to test the teachings of the apostle Paul by comparing them with the Scripture shat they already had, how much more should we apply the same test to the traditions of the church today?

 

[Teresa]

verse 16; Peter tell you what he and others has seen with their own eyes
verses 17 and 18: Peter tells you what he and others have heard with their ears?
in verse 19: What does Peter say is more reliable than his own eyes and ears: and the eyes and ears of John and James?

"And we have a more firm prophetic word"

that's right: Scripture is more reliable than the eyes and ears of Peter and the other apostles!

Verse 19 "And we have a more firm prophetic word, to which we do well giving heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day may dawn, and [the] morning star may arise in your hearts;"

You'll have to clear some things up for me. When Peter spoke these words it was in relation to the prophecies of the the Torah about the Messiah. The New Testament Scriptures were yet to be even written. Peter was saying that we saw and heard God tell us that Jesus was His Son.

That manifestation of Christ to man will come again in the end times, but until then the prophecies of the New Testament just like those of the OT can't be just a matter 'of one's own interpretation'.

Or do you say they can?

 

[RayneBeau]

It does indicate the place of an authoritative institution qualified to help people with Scripture. What else is there that fills this role other than the Catholic Church?

The Roman Catholic Church has built itself around it's own "traditions" which is just another reason why the Roman Catholic Church is not an authoritative institution 'qualified' to help people with Scripture at all. The New Testament speaks a lot about "tradition" and condemns it when it is contrary to the word of God. Jesus said: "You disregard God's commandments and cling to what is human tradition.." That is the way God's word is nullified in favor of the 'traditions' the Roman Catholic Church has handed on.

 

[1Thess521]

You'll have to clear some things up for me. When Peter spoke these words it was in relation to the prophecies of the the Torah about the Messiah. The New Testament Scriptures were yet to be even written. Peter was saying that we saw and heard God tell us that Jesus was His Son.

That manifestation of Christ to man will come again in the end times, but until then the prophecies of the New Testament just like those of the OT can't be just a matter 'of one's own interpretation'.

Or do you say they can?

your own private interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20 is in error

it is about the writers: not the readers

as explained here
www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?7488-2-Peter-1-20-Question-debatable-conten
stating that verse 21 sets the context:
"The problem with using 2 Pet. 1:20 as 'proof' is that the phrase "one's own interpretation" (or "private interpretation") can be read to refer either to 1) the prophetic writers or 2) the person reading what those persons wrote. The Catholic Answers summary adopts the latter view, while the footnote to the NAB seems to focus on the former.

Taking the entire sentence:

[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

the former seems the better view, since the second clause speaks of how those writers wrote not from their own (private) impulse, but from the inspiration of God."

and explained here
//freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2243954/posts
In context, the "interpretation" which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. That is, St. Peter's point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority."

 

[Teresa]

At the end of the day, some human authority has to approve or denounce who is a prophet uttering legitimate prophecies. Otherwise David Koresh etc.

 

[jonathan_hili]

"For we have not depended on made-up legends in making known to you the mighty coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. With our own eyes we saw His greatness! We were there when He was given honor and glory by God the Father, when the voice came to Him from the Supreme Glory, saying, "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am well pleased!" We ourselves heard this voice coming from heaven, when we were with Him on the sacred mountain.
So we are even more confident of the message proclaimed by the prophets. You will do well to pay attention to it, for it is like a lamp shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the light of the morning star shines in your hearts. Above all else, however, remember this: no one can explain, by himself, a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God." 2 Peter 1: 16-21

Does the Roman Catholic Church cite this part of Scripture to mean that only the RCC is capable of interpreting the Bible?

I don't think so because the text is a bit more specific. The author is talking about a "prophecy" in scripture, not just understanding any particular part of scripture. The principle articulated here is that in interpreting prophecies from scripture, one can't just say it means whatever one thinks it does (because of the problems that could arise - as he goes on to talk about following these verses).

 

[mica]

I don't think so because the text is a bit more specific. The author is talking about a "prophecy" in scripture, not just understanding any particular part of scripture. The principle articulated here is that in interpreting prophecies from scripture, one can't just say it means whatever one thinks it does (because of the problems that could arise - as he goes on to talk about following these verses).

Peter is speaking to believers knowing that his end on earth is coming soon.
what sure prophecy might he be referring to?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Peter is speaking to believers knowing that his end on earth is coming soon.
what sure prophecy might he be referring to?

I think he's talking about his own apostolic witness through the Holy Spirit.

 

[mica]

mica said:
Peter is speaking to believers knowing that his end on earth is coming soon.
what sure prophecy might he be referring to?

I think he's talking about his own apostolic witness through the Holy Spirit.

what was the prophecy of his apostolic witness thru the Holy Spirit?
he does speak of a prophecy.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

"For we have not depended on made-up legends in making known to you the mighty coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. With our own eyes we saw His greatness! We were there when He was given honor and glory by God the Father, when the voice came to Him from the Supreme Glory, saying, "This is my own dear Son, with whom I am well pleased!" We ourselves heard this voice coming from heaven, when we were with Him on the sacred mountain.
So we are even more confident of the message proclaimed by the prophets. You will do well to pay attention to it, for it is like a lamp shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the light of the morning star shines in your hearts. Above all else, however, remember this: no one can explain, by himself, a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God." 2 Peter 1: 16-21

Does the Roman Catholic Church cite this part of Scripture to mean that only the RCC is capable of interpreting the Bible?

The Roman Catholic Church cites Scripture? How can that be? I thought we didn't read, understand or care about Scripture.

Why would the Roman Catholic Church cite Scripture when, according to the Protestants on this site, we hate Scripture?

Your statement is nothing but a caricature of the Catholic critique of "Private Judgement" and Sola Scriptura.

 

[jonathan_hili]

what was the prophecy of his apostolic witness thru the Holy Spirit?
he does speak of a prophecy.

Even though the word "prophecy" is used multiple times, I think it's meant in different senses.

[16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
[18] we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
[19] And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

I think in the first instance: "prophetic word", Peter is speaking about his witness (or that of the apostles) because it is associated with the Transfiguration revelation and what followed from that. Vv. 20-21 seem to be a more general point about prophecy.

 

[mica]

Even though the word "prophecy" is used multiple times, I think it's meant in different senses.

[16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
[18] we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
[19] And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

I think in the first instance: "prophetic word", Peter is speaking about his witness (or that of the apostles) because it is associated with the Transfiguration revelation and what followed from that. Vv. 20-21 seem to be a more general point about prophecy.

so you're missing the prophecy he speaks of... you can't seem to pinpoint it. so much is lost in the ramblings of catholicism.

 

[jonathan_hili]

so you're missing the prophecy he speaks of... you can't seem to pinpoint it. so much is lost in the ramblings of catholicism.

Ramblings of Catholicism? What???

I'm just trying to explain how I see the author's use of the word here (since he uses it three times and, I think, in slightly different ways). Can you tell me what you think he means? What prophecy he speaks of?