Posted on 03/22/2014 5:42:31 AM PDT by Gamecock
One of the statements that Catholic e-pologists like to throw around against Protestantism is the relativism and disunity of private interpretation. While Protestants look to the scriptures for authority on faith-based issues, Catholics look to the authority of their visible church organization.
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. CCC 85
Based on these claims by Catholics you would assume that a church-approved commentary of the Bible would exist to lead Catholic laypeople, especially Catholic apologists, to the correct interpretation of each biblical passage. Yet nothing even close to such a thing exists. In fact, very few biblical passages have been officially defined by the RCC.
The Church has no official commentary on Scripture. The pope could write one if he wanted, but he hasnt. And with good reason: Scripture study is an ongoing, developing field. To create an official commentary on Scripture would impede the development of this field. Catholic Answers
I guess 2000 years (if you believe the RCCs claim to history) is not quite long enough to figure out the truth. While some Protestants have written commentaries on the entire Bible in their own lifetime, the infallible RCC has been unable to even attempt the same in 2000 years.
As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent Catholic Answers
Off the top of my head, I do not no how many verses there are in the bible, but seven is certainly a very, very small percentage. Catholics keep telling me that the RCC has the fullness of truth - I think it would be more honest to say a very slow development of truth.
Where does that leave the Catholic apologist (e-pologist)?
The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreters liberty Catholic Answers
Seems to me that much liberty could lead to chaos, and it does. Anyone who has interacted with more than one Catholic e-pologist knows that before long they begin to contradict each other.
But more to the point, how can the interpretation of a biblical passage by any Catholic apologist even be entertained? If their own infallible authority has only been able to define 7 passages of scripture over 2000 years, the apologist/e-pologist cannot have the integrity or the authority to even attempt to interpret scripture on their own. If they do, they fall into their own private interpretation trap so carefully, but foolishly, set for the Protestants.
**And the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the apostles.**
Are you saying that you don’t believe Christ’s words — that he ordained the apostles by breathing the Holy Spirit on them and giving them the power to hold or forgive sins? BTW — it’s in the Bible. I thought you guys believed the Bible, don’t you?
Amazing to me~
Yikes, that's a dangerous thing to say in the context of your posts. Whatever you think you are doing, you might do better for yourself to reconsider your heart and motive.
"If you were blind, you wouldn't be guilty," Jesus replied. "But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.
John 9:41
An irrelevant and meaningless distinction. What do you think dogma is, if not a "guideline"? I repeat, don't tell me you look only to scripture, and I look only to the church. It an easily disproven falsehood.
It is drawn from scripture, its foundation is scripture, that is what Sola scriptura means, that scripture is the sole authoritative basis for doctrine. We reach doctrine, all that is taught is founded and referenced to the scripture.
And, this message will likely make your head spin around.
Before you react, remember that we should take care with our judgments lest our mouths condemn us.
Actually, once the premise of the article was very solidly smacked down (if I do say so myself) this thread became about anything and everything that might keep readers here from noticing that the had to have been written by either an intellectually lazy but extremely pretentious jerk, or someone deliberately telling a lie but hoping readers are ignorant enough to believe the falsehood it spreads.
Vilating your dogma will get folks burned at the stake. Well, it used to anyway.
What amuses me is the idea that Catholics are not responsible for their interpretation of scripture. They point to the church - but did they forget that they chose membership in the church themselves? LOL! God is not mocked, and there is no avoiding answering for your own decisions, no matter how many layers of indemnification you THINK you have.
Are you sure your ego and rationality can recognize what is false?
You might be interested in one of these, I have a bunch of them and buy a couple more now and then. The history of those guys coming up with that as their first shirt might still be on the site somewhere.
Praying to angels??? Why not pray directly to Him Who is above all, instead of a created being that you do not know even hears what you pray??
It’s interesting that the Catholic Church teaches that anyone baptized is given the Holy Spirit, yet only those in their “apostolic line” can interpret Scripture. Jesus Himself said man was not to live on bread alone, but every word of God. If you are going to use Scripture in your actual life, you have to judge what it means and how it applies. Peter, I believe, said to be saved, we need to turn to God in repentance and believe in Jesus. A heart that has been changed to love God and submit to Him hears God’s voice and understands Scripture. Christians have disagreed over some of the lesser points, but on the most important there’s agreement. The unity among us might be better seen sometimes by unbelievers who oppose Christ and despise Christians and what they stand for.
You would have me seperated from the Angelic hosts of heaven who battle against Satan ?
Choose your sides carefully my friend......
No, not at all. Except that you are separated, don't know if they can hear you.
Can you point to any prayers to angels by Christians in the Scriptures? No.
Can you show any Apostles in the Scriptures praying to angels? No.
Can you show any command in the Scriptures to pray to angels? No.
Can you show any examples of Christians praying to angels in the Scriptures? No.
Can you show any art from the first 100 years of the Church that portrays Christians praying to angels? No.
Can you show any other extra-Biblical sources from the first 100 years of the Church that demonstrates Christians prayed to angels? No.
It is simply a pagan practice, later added. It remains a pagan practice today.
In the end, you are substituting a pagan practice and giving up direct access to God. He commands us to BOLDLY approach His throne with CONFIDENCE.
**Vilating **
Hmm. Never heard of that word before.
You claim that the angels cannot hear us, that we are not to talk with angels and ask them things, and finally say you cannot find examples of this in the Holy Bible and that Angels are somehow a pagan corruption.....
Friend. The Lord Be With You, may he guide you into all truth and grant you peace.
That there is so little RC magisterial interpretation, if true, is a highly relevant piece of information to those of us weighing the pros and cons of Catholicism v. Protestantism (or Evangelicalism) in these days of the One Church Emergent of Holy Marxism (the religious corollary to one-party U.S. government, an administrative department of OneWorldSystem, Inc.).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.