Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Natural Law
The fallacy of self interpretation is self evident.

Oh?

Did not your own RCC scholars 'self' interpret the Scriptures?

You seem to post an AWFUL lot of early church fathers explanations of what the Scriptures REALLY mean.

Where is the check and balance on THEIR work?

392 posted on 06/27/2012 5:24:10 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies ]


To: Elsie
"Did not your own RCC scholars 'self' interpret the Scriptures?"

No. 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, the Magisterium. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. The task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of St. Peter, the first among Apostles and the first Bishop of Rome.

The Magisterium is in no way superior to the Tradition and Scripture that form Word of God, but is its servant and its defender. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit.

"You seem to post an AWFUL lot of early church fathers explanations of what the Scriptures REALLY mean."

It was those same Early Church Fathers, some of whom formed the early Magisterium, faithfully passed along the Word for generations before there was a Bible. Among these were persons who were either direct eye witnesses of Christ's earthly mission or were students of those who were. It was their interpretations and recollections, guided by the Holy Spirit, that produced the Creeds that formed the standard for the writings that would later be affirmed by other Early Church Fathers as being inspired and inerrant, in other words, the Canon of the Bible that you rely on today. While their individual writings may not have been inerrant, but they are inspired and a legitimate perspective for the interpretation of Scripture. I do find it interesting that you deny the ability to faithfully and inerrantly interpret Scripture to these while maintaining that you yourself can do so.

“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” - Luke 10:16

Peace be with you

395 posted on 06/27/2012 5:46:00 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson