Replies

You take Acts 8 as PROOF that the Church must interpret scripture to be understood? It was a story about one guy who witnessed to another guy. It made no sweeping pronouncements

Yeah, and the Gospel is a story about one guy telling "I am" to another guy. By this logic there will be nothing left of the scripture, as most of it is parabolic. Why, do you think did the inspired Evangelist record it?

you don't seem to think that there is a requirement that only God's interpretation (other scripture) of the Bible is valid.

I think that only the Church's interpretation of the scripture is valid, as she is the bride of Christ formed by Him for that express purpose (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44-50; John 20:21, John 21:15-19), and guarded by Him from failure (Matthew 16:18). Got any scripture to the contrary?

FK: "You take Acts 8 as PROOF that the Church must interpret scripture to be understood? It was a story about one guy who witnessed to another guy. It made no sweeping pronouncements."

I didn't know you thought most of the Bible was parabolic. That would make much more expansive interpretations more possible. Is that the view of the Church, or is that something upon which good Catholics may disagree?

I thought this was recorded to show us that we all must teach and share the Gospel with others. Jesus did hundreds of things in the scripture to show us what He wanted us to do as well. But if Phillip was only acting as a Catholic hierarchy, then I suppose the jobs of teaching and sharing are only for them, under your interpretation.

Well, we disagree fundamentally on who God's Church is, so it would be pointless to try. Of course Jesus sent the Apostles, but I disagree that the Apostles were equivalent to today's Roman Catholic Church. I still can't explain why God would inspire His Holy work to be indecipherable to all but a few men who wield all the power. That is an impersonal God.