Thank you for your opinions.
"Perhaps you should cite the source of your apparent belief that the Pope is the infallible interpreter of Scripture."
If I make that assertion, I'll back it up.
"If we accept the conditions of your argument, you can't be allowed to cite Scripture as your source because that would mean that we would have to assume that your interpretation is infallible."
If I were to offer any interpretation of Scripture of my own, it would be fallible. At least on this thread, I haven't offered any interpretation of Scripture. And on any thread, you will never find me knowingly offering my own interpretations at all. It would be worse than fallible. It would be worth less than cow chips.
But my interpretation wouldn't be any worse than anyone else's here.
"As you can see, you have argued yourself into a corner. The fact is that no earthly interpreter is infallible, not even the Pope. But Scripture itself, which is God-breathed, is infallible."
Well, the funny thing is, if I'm in a corner, it looks pretty un-corner-like over my shoulder. Of course Scripture is infallible, but you've now argued that no one can really know what it really means for certain, because there is no infallible interpreter. That there are disagreements in this very thread amongst non-Catholic believing professed Christians about the meaning of a single verse demonstrates that the Bible is not self-interpreting. Look over your own shoulder. You may find that it is you with two intersecting walls behind you. ;-)
"The notion that Church authorities or a 'Holy Father' are the only ones able to interpret Scripture is not only flawed on its surface, it's evil at its heart. History is all too clear that the Catholic Church and the Pope are anything but infallible."
So say you. At this point, this is a bald assertion, not even an argument. Get back to me when you have an argument.
Now, back to the question at hand, for those of you offering your own versions of Scripture interpretation, please cite your source of authority.
It's an important question. On this little thread alone, we see a disagreement on a point of Christian doctrine between two devout, sincere, faith-filled Christian gentlemen. At least one of these gentleman has implied that on this point, it is very, very important to be free from error. But at least one of these fine gentlemen is in error. Both quote Scripture, both believe that Scripture is authoritative. But each has his own interpretation. Which one is in error? And more importantly, by what authority do we decide?
Thank you for your assistance.
May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless you,
sitetest
There are some things that we won't really understand until Christ returns. The passage in question centers around 1 Timothy 3:2, which is translated in the Catholic bible thusly:
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.The Greek text literally means that the bishop should be a "one-woman man." One could derive several interpretations from that statement, but we can positively know that a bishop (priest, pastor, whatever) should not be a polygamist and should not hop from one marriage to the next like so many do today.-The New American Bible (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)
With the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture, we can look at Paul's other writings on marriage and the clergy. As I and others have already quoted on this thread, Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 defended the right of apostles to "bring a Christian wife along with us as the other disciples and the Lord's brothers and Peter do." Church history tells us that Peter's wife traveled with him and that he witnessed her martyrdom. Apparently some churches were grumbling against having to support the wives of the apostles and other disciples.
As a sidenote, when Pope Pius XI died in the late 30s and the Vatican was preparing his grave, an inscription was uncovered that apparently says "Peter is here." In the grave were the bones of a man (no skull) with the feet removed (the Romans often hacked people down from crosses instead of removing the nails). The pope even announced in a 1950 Christmas address that the grave of Peter had been found. When the bones were studied more thoroughly, it was found that the bones of a second man were there as well as those of a woman. There were threads of expensive purple and gold fabric mixed in, probably added to the bones several centuries later. The best archeological explanation is that Peter, his wife, and an unknown man are buried there.
Getting back to the topic, in other passages, Paul commended the ability to be celibate and stated that a celibate life had much to offer the church. Paul himself was celibate though it's almost certain, for various reasons, that he was a widower. Thus, Paul clearly accepted celibacy as a valid option for those in the service of the church.
We can take from these passages the principle that (1) clergy have the right to be married if they wish, but (2) should not have celibacy forced upon them.
In another interesting note, church tradition holds that in the first church council formed by 120 early believers, including Mary, eighty canons were assembled to define church hierarchy and discipline. Pope Gelasius and the Council of Rome in 494 rejected 30 of these canons as apocrypha that were added later, but recognized fifty of them as valid apostolic teaching. Portions of these canons were quoted and endorsed by church fathers, ecumenical councils, and popes as far back as Clement in 102.
Canon 17R prohibits polygamists from serving in church office. Canon 21 gives eunuchs the right to serve as clergy unless they castrated themselves. Canon 27D affirms the right for clergy to be married.
It is clear that these early canons, developed in apostolic days and confirmed by Pope Gelasius at the Council of Rome, are in agreement with the principles derived from scripture: clergy are allowed to be married but do not have to be married. The idea of enforced celibacy did not seriously develop until almost a century later, wasn't codified until the Lateran Council in the 12th century, and wasn't uniformly enforced until the Council of Trent. In other words, it's a late development that is at odds with the beliefs of the early church.
If we hold to the authority of the scriptures and the teachings and practices of the early church, then it is clear that enforced celibacy is not a good idea. I have a lot of respect for many aspects of the Roman Catholic Church and will be vigorous to defend it when unfairly attacked; however, I'm not afraid to criticize it when it's wrong. I also have no compunction against criticizing Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopals, or any other church either. No one (most of all including me) is immune from error.