I am very sorry to hear that. I'm in the same boat so I suppose when I said I was "well" it was a relative term. :) I'll be praying for you. Economically, I sure have hope for a change in two and a half weeks and in two years. Just got my newly-turned-18 y.o. daughter registered. We'll show 'em how to rock the vote. :)
FK: But the vast majority of the rest of the NT (if not all of it), especially Paul's epistles serve as clarification and explanation of the Gospel books. I don't see how one can read the more specific THROUGH the (in many cases) less specific.
Christianity began, not with the Latin Church's interpretation of anything, rather, the Jerusalem Church's interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus and the creation of a variety of documents with which they continued the teachings. Initially there was little documentation - most Christians were illiterate, with the exception of the educated Jews and the occasional individual such as Luke - and such as it was would have been overshadowed by the Jewish oral tradition, which was among the best and most complete in the world.
I would see the oral transmission of the literal life and teachings of Christ AS the Gospel books. Eyewitnesses, or those close, spoke of and then wrote down what they saw, etc. The Gospel books read very often as a matter-of-fact narrative. However, of course interpretation is also frequently needed, such as with parables, etc. So, for example, I don't see how one can read a commentary explaining a parable THROUGH the parable itself. When Jesus explained the parable of the seeds (Mark 4:13-20), it doesn't occur to me to nuance Jesus' explanation through His original words. It's just the opposite. The original words stand, unchanged. They are understood through clarification, context, reference, or explanation, etc. But when I see "read through the Gospels" I get the impression that it is the human explanation that is unchanging and that the original words are nuanced to match it.
There is God's word and then there is the Word of God.
Yes, I always use "word of God" (God's word) to mean scripture and "Word of God" to mean Christ.
The writings of Paul are largely instructions to his flock, but they only have reflected light shining from the Gospels - they mean nothing on their own. Without the Gospels, of what use is Paul? Or Peter? Or James?
I fully agree. They would have no authority without the information in the Gospel books. But this would seem to support my position that the natural flow would be to start with the firm foundation of the Gospels, and then come to greater understanding THROUGH clarification, context, reference, or explanation, etc. Since Paul is also Biblical authority, it wouldn't seem correct to me to "change" his explanation based on the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Gospels that I follow. I would think that Paul's interpretation of the Gospels would trump several Christians' writings about it many many years after the Apostolic age.
FK: I don't understand why the CCC would need to be read through anything at all. With the scriptures we take them as we get them.
The point is how do you get them? The Lutherans get them one way; the various Reformed get them in various Reformed ways; the Methodists get them in another way; and each non denominational pastor or Baptist minister has his own interpretation as well.
I just meant that we all get them from God, as the CCC says. We all get interpretations from various sources, however .............
The Church, as outlined very greatly in Scripture, is a teaching authority, among other responsibilities. The Church is not charged with throwing snippets of Scripture into the air and having people pick up whatever they find in whatever order they find.
Scripture is very clear that THE ultimate teaching authority is Holy Spirit:
I suppose it boils down again to whom is meant by "The Church" and whether it makes sense that God would only send information and reminding to a select few for further re-interpretation, or does God actually want a personal relationship with each of His children via personal spiritual communication.
The Faith was formulated by attention to and focusing on the Gospels; the 'Magisterium', or teaching authority, was formed in order to keept the human explanation first orthodox (remember that there were as many heresies in those days as there are today), and second consistent (there was to be one Faith, not myriad ones).
Since Paul is also Biblical authority, it wouldn't seem correct to me to "change" his explanation based on the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Gospels that I follow. I would think that Paul's interpretation of the Gospels would trump several Christians' writings about it many many years after the Apostolic age.
The faith was largely formed in the first 100 years, with the exception of the big ticket items the formula of the Trinity, and the canon of Scripture. Certainly St. Paul make up a great deal of the Faith; yet I do not accept that when I present "Jesus said this" and am countered with "Paul said that", that is an effective counterargument. I consider it invalid simply because of the relative positions of Jesus and Paul. There was a Reformed claim yesterday that the Gospel could be summed up in five verses of Paul (listed). If that is to be accepted, then we run the risk of stepping right into full Paulianity and away from Christianity.
I suppose it boils down again to whom is meant by "The Church" and whether it makes sense that God would only send information and reminding to a select few for further re-interpretation, or does God actually want a personal relationship with each of His children via personal spiritual communication.
If it were truly the Holy Spirit that men were listening to, there would be one Faith and no need for anybody having to teach it. However, the empirical proof is that without that Church that Jesus so painstakingly created and nurtured during His ministry, Luther's any milkmaid reigns supreme and not the Holy Spirit.