***I didn't say that commentating on an obvious passage of Scripture is an exercise in poor judgment***
"Obvious passage" you say? ... Are you the Magisterium? It is not your place, as a loyal Catholic, to interpret Scripture or to conclude that a passage is obvious is it?...
UNLESS you are modifying the Catholic axiom that the Church interprets Scripture to the position that the Church interprets difficult passages of Scripture and it is OK for a non-ordained catholic to judge a passage to be obvious.
My interpretation is not the issue here. Hey, I'm a Protestant. We believe that a believer priest has the authority and responsibility to interpret Scripture.
I am flabbergasted that a loyal Roman Catholic would dare say what a passage of Scripture means unless he/she is verbatim quoting the Magisterium. Even paraphrasing their interpretation is dangerous.
When RCs challenge Proddys with the acronym "YOPIOS" (Your Own Pious Interpretation of Scripture) and then tell us what a passage means in their own words... the saying about Rubber and Glue comes to mind.
You seem to be mistaken about the Catholic position on interpreting the Bible.
A Catholic is free to interpret scripture so long as his interpretation does not contradict Church teaching. There is a simple reason for that: If an interpretation of scripture does contradict Church teaching, it is a misinterpretation. The Bible is a Catholic book, written by Catholics under divine inspiration, and being codified by the Catholic Church it draws its mark of authenticity only because of that divinely instituted Catholic Church. As such, nothing in the Bible is at odds with the Catholic Faith. Those passages which seem to be, are being misinterpreted.
I know as a protestant you do not accept this, but don't accuse a Catholic of joining in your revolution against God's Church (i.e. being a protestant) when he presents a reference from the Bible with an authentic interpretation.
My, my - I'd forgotten how pleasant your argumentative theatrics are. We can both agree that Psalm 99 refers to a God who "forgives" and yet "punishes," which I use as evidence to bolster the notion of temporal punishment remaining after sin is forgiven. The same concept can be seen with King David, as God forgives him for his sin but yet punishes him with the death of his first child.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Catholic Church actually has a history prior to the 16th-century revolt spearheaded by the novelty of "Sola Scriptura" and that I am free to interpret Scripture as long as I don't trespass the sense always held by the Church or deny any doctrines. I don't rationalize my way through difficult passages with the "inspiration of the Holy Ghost" and claim infallibility. I hold obedience to the Church, as she claims to be the true interpreter of Scripture.