“After all, if Scripture is read with YOPIOS...”
Sorry, but everyone will be responsible for the interpretation they choose to follow. If you don’t mind standing before God and saying, “I believed XYZ because the Catholic Church told me it is true”...you can.
I find the glaring contrast between what is taught in scripture & Catholic doctrine about Purgatory, Indulgences, Priests, the Eucharist, Mary, Penance, and the development of doctrine too much to stomach - so I will plead MOPIOS (My Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture, for those who don’t read these sorts of threads often).
But it is still an individual choice to accept the Catholic Catechism over Scripture, Sola Ecclesia over Sola Scriptura.
Given that the Catholic Church openly teaches that its doctrines are, in many cases, not explicitly taught in scripture, but needed centuries for the Magisterium to unfold the meaning, I don’t know why Catholics bother with pretending to draw doctrine or justify it by scripture. What is the point? Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest to simply say, “XYZ is not explicitly taught in scripture, nor do we believe it needed to be”?
It doesn’t bother me when someone says, “We believe X because it is taught via sacred tradition.” Even the footnotes to the NAB, for example, say that 1 Cor 3 was not an attempt by Paul to describe or define Purgatory. While I wouldn’t convert in response, I can respectfully disagree with someone who openly says it comes from sacred tradition, and they choose to believe sacred tradition is as certain as scripture.
Oh well. The last week has been a long one for me, so perhaps I’m missing something as I stare bleary-eyed at the computer.
It would be interesting some time to work on a thread that tries to figure out what we have in common, versus what we have that divides.
The NAB also officially relegates Gn. 2, and Balaam and the donkey, Jonah and the fish, etc., to being fables (and Joshua’s conquests to be folk tales), although the N.T. treats them as historical fact, and relegating such to be simply allegorical is a slippery slope.
In addition, the very use of 2 Pet. 1:20 by Rome to censure knowing truth by private interpretation itself shows they are not worthy of the supreme office which they assume, as it is not speaking about understanding Scripture, but how it was written, while Acts 17:11 commends those laymen who sought to discern truth from error by searching the Scriptures. Those who do so do not claim infallibility for themselves, but for Scripture, which authority is the only written class of revelation which is affirmed to be all inspired.
As appealing as it is to give implicit faith to a man, that is not supported by Scripture, and which it warns about, and as problematic as it can be, the apostles assumed that appealing to the hearts of men by the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2; 2Cor. 4:2) and thru miracles, versus requiring an apriori assent to their infallibility, as Rome effectively does, would enable lovers of truth to believe, even if such allowed heretic to misconstrue it.
Exactly...I've hit them with the same question...
But instead of facing it head on, they will misquote verses, leave half of the verse out, take it completly out of context and any number of tactics to make scripture fit their theology...
I guess it's fine for those new converts that don't know scripture and for Catholics who don't read it anyway, but to those of us that do study the scriptures, it sure makes them look foolish...