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 hasn’t. 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 RCC’s 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 interpreter’s 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.
Many Americans were raised in one faith or the other, or in families containing powerful members of both faiths. These matters remain conflicted emotionally until the individual has enough time and experience to sort them out.
Also, with the manifest corruption in certain quarters of both traditions, many people feel the need at least to consider whether the grass would be greener in the other one. This article is an important piece of information to consider.
Link not working.
I guess you must not have Luke in your Bible, for in the first Chapter an angel greets Mary.
Or you must not have the Book of Revelation in your Bible, for there we have mention of the great warrior angel who drives off the dragon which is about to devour the child born of the Virgin
And I know you don’t have the book of Tobit in your Bible where an angel brings healing — guess that’s your loss.
That is a valid position politically; however, religion concerns itself with the actual properties of nature, such as whether gravity exists or not, and whether you will be safe walking on a floor and not crash through the ceiling or fall through to the basement because of the properties of gravity and physics.
These and other more spiritual and subtle considerations are among the basics of the Truth claims of religion -- which concerns what and what cannot legitimately be considered Absolute, so that you can at least orient yourself to your human existence in relation to nature, or God, or however you conceive your Higher Power. Even if you believe you have no Higher Power, at least concede that you have gravity, and that it is a force largely beyond your control.
That "sins of the fathers" stuff is a tribalist relic with no more utility than mindless bias towards Jews or accusations that Jewish cabals control all the world's finance and media. What matters is what is the tenor of the institution today, what it is doing to remain self-corrective (and lately it has had a lot of correcting to do and has made some promising steps) and whether people are working constructively to correct it.
There is no way for any human social institution (Catholic Christianity being one of the largest, oldest and most influential global social institutions) to remain stable if people want to continue to throw its past against it at a time when it has already taken steps to amend that past. It's like the current reverse racism going on 60 years after the end of Jim Crow and 150 years after the Civil War -- when will people say, "OK, the problem has been addressed, and we must all move forward to reconciliation" rather than "Because of the past, I'm a permanent victim entitled to special treatment."
Critics often overlook the vast amounts of good that the "offending" institution has done, such as in the above example, America's heroic stand for freedom and innovation in the world, balanced against its human rights issues that are under constant review and updating. Likewise, the RCC, with all its human flaws, has played many major positive roles in the development of Western civilization. I close with this quote from Einstein:
"Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials...had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth... the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
In case you're wondering, I'm not Catholic.
Meant to ping you to post 65.
LOL. And I once thought I should take you seriously. Paper it over however you like. Double down if it makes you feel better. But attribution of motive is wrong. I’ve never been interested in anything but the truth. You have others who you say admitted lying? Fine, that’s between you and them and God. You made a bogus generalization, and I’m calling you on it. Process that however you like.
Go to my profile page. Follow the link. You’ll see what’s left of one thread where an anti-Catholic admitted he lied.
Have you repented?
Familiar enough. What does that have to do with my post? I could spend a lifetime evaluating the bogus teachings of thousands of different religions. Some people do that professionally. Not me. Familiarizing myself with all that claptrap won’t change what Jesus did for me. I have lived the words of Amazing Grace. You can’t imagine, I promise you, a more unworthy soul to be touched by God’s grace. Yet here I stand. Jesus is the love of my life. Argument over ritual is for children. Sorry, I don’t mean to offend. But that’s how I really see it.
Peace,
SR
“To all the educated Catholics that read the Catechism etc. What about the illiterate peon in some village in Mexico?”
Stereotype much?
“Do the finer points of latria and hyperdulia translate as well to that guy?”
Fine point? God is God. Mary is not. That’s not a fine point. That’s a huge gulf.
“Does the sale of patron saint statues and the rest of the saint commerce also translate as easily to the wretched poor around the world, as easily as it does to educated American Catholics?”
Yes, in fact, in some ways, more so.
That's just plain nasty; and I'm not even Catholic.
Yikes is right. An implied accusation of being a Pharisee (that IS who Jesus was talking to in that passage, right?). Now Jesus of course, being God, could see right into their heart motives. Um, that’s above your pay-grade and mine. If I were a moderator here (and you can all be glad I am not) I would track these motive-bashing posts like a hawk and remove all of them. They contribute NOTHING to the understanding of the Gospel of Jesus or the redemptive plan of God, nor even one tiny iota to the evaluation of the premise of the OP’s article. Where is the substance? Where is the beef?
Please pray with me that the Father bless and correct us.
**You can’t imagine, I promise you, a more unworthy soul to be touched by God’s grace. Yet here I stand.**
Oh, really?
Read my homepage for starters, and then read about saints who died from tuberculosis or who were grilled alive over a fire, or shot full of arrows, or had their heads chopped off.
Geez. My four year old granddaughter understands a false generalization. And you a conservator of the history of the “true” Church? I know I’m wasting perfectly good pixels here, but here’s a few thoughts for you:
1) You don’t know me from Adam. That means you have no reason to believe OR DISBELIEVE anything I say. What I say should be judged on it’s own merit, and that is why the religious debate policy here at FR frowns on assignment of motive. It doesn’t contribute even a speck to evaluation of truth claims.
2) You have a problem reading things into my posts. I never asked how you knew. I assumed, frankly, you probably misinterpreted them like you’re doing me. So I SPECIFICALLY AVOIDED asking that question. A lot of good it did me.
3) You are using an experience you claim you had (of which I have NO evidence other than your claims) to assign motives to others whom you do not know from Adam. I do no know why you are doing this, but it is crystal clear you are generalizing without logical warrant. You can do that if you like. But if you want to actually persuade honest seekers, I don’t see what this gets you.
Peace,
SR
Good thing we have another Freeper Catholics V Protestant thread. It’s been 5 minutes since the last one. Why can’t you guys give it a rest.
Once again, your response seems to go somewhere other than what I was talking about. The emphasis was on my unworthiness. Sorry you missed that. Check the lyrics of Amazing Grace. That’s what I am talking about. I have great respect for those who have died for their faith in Christ. I have no doubt they were all better and more worthy than me. If you only knew. Sigh.
If those words are sincerely meant, you may rest assured I sincerely concur with them.
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.