This type of exegetical "find what one needs" within Roman Catholic interpretation is actually allowed within their system. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "all persons, events, or objects of the Old Testament are sometimes considered as types, provided they resemble persons, events, or objects in the New Testament, whether the Holy Ghost has intended such a relationship or not." That is, make the connection that is needed. Whether or not the author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, actually intended it is not a factor. This is exactly what happens with Mary typology. Catholics go through the Old Testament finding people, places, and things that are "types' to grant Biblical status to their extra-Biblical Marian beliefs. (Mary Typology )If you examine Scofield’s Notes and the theology derived from them, one discovers this same underlying principle. E.g., From Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition):
The entire chapter (Genesis 24) is highly typical:(1) Abraham, type of a certain king who would make a marriage for his son Matthew 22:2 ; John 6:44 .
(2) the unnamed servant, type of the Holy Spirit, who does not "speak of himself," but takes of the things of the Bridegroom with which to win the bride John 16:13 John 16:14 .
(3) the servant, type of the Spirit as enriching the bride with the Bridegroom's gifts Galatians 5:22 ; 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 .
(4) the servant, type of the Spirit as bringing the bride to the meeting with the Bridegroom Acts 13:4 ; Acts 16:6 Acts 16:7 ; Romans 8:11 ; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16 .
(5) Rebekah, type of the Church, the ecclesia, the "called out" virgin bride of Christ Genesis 24:16 ; 2 Corinthians 11:2 ; Ephesians 5:25-32 .
(6) Isaac, type of the Bridegroom, "whom not having seen," the bride loves through the testimony of the unnamed Servant 1 Peter 1:8 .
(7) Isaac, type of the Bridegroom who goes out to meet and receive His bride Genesis 24:63 ; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16 .
I was struck by the similarity of the Roman Catholic approach to typology with that of dispensationalism.
Compare and contrast Geerhardus Vos (your classic amillenial theologian) on the proper use of typology:
"...Thus what is symbolical with regard to the already existing edition of the fact or truth becomes typical, prophetic of the later, final edition of the same fact or truth. From this it will be percieved that a type can never be a type independently of its being first a symbol. The gateway to the house of typology is at the farther end of he house of symbolism."This is the fundamental rule to be observed in ascertaining what elements in the Old Testament are typical, and wherein the things corresponding to them as antitypes consist. Only after having discovered what a thing symbolizes, can we legitmately proceed to put the question what it symbolizes, for the latter can never be aught else than the former lifted to a higher plane. ...When this is ignored, and in the place of this bond are put accidental resemblences, void of inherent spiritual signification, all sorts of absurdities will result, such as must bring the whole subject of typology into disrepute. Examples of this are: the scarlet cord of Rahab prefigures the blood of Christ; the four lepers of Samaria, the four Evangelists." --Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p145-6, as part of a longer section on typology.
I can almost hear the screeching now. "Scripture twisters!"