Replies

Of course you think I don't have an answer.

Your whole spiritual life and method of Biblical "interpretation" is based on the premise that I don't have an answer and that you have all the answers in your Bible - interpreted correctly - by . . . well, by YOU!

The Plain Meaning = Your Meaning.

No thanks!

We have all the answers we need! And have for 2000 years - and will for 2000 years more or till whenever Christ returns in glory.

I was demonstrating the fallacy of "private interpretation" by pointing out to you the symbolic/literal dilemma which, as I imagined you would, you jumped right into and got all tangled up in.

Repeat: I do NOT need to WONDER what in the Scripture is meant literally and what is meant symbolically or how any of it is to be interpreted. In fact, no one needs to so wonder, since Christ left us a Magisterium, precisely so that we would not be at the mercy of the kind of confusion you find yourself in.

You reject all of that 2000 year heritage of Catholic Christianity and you're welcome to do so. It's a free country (so far).

Of course, all of what I said, am saying, could ever say sails right over your head and always will. I've seen you anti-Catholic, Bible-thumping folks come and go throughout a lifetime, interpreting away in your hundred thousand competing little sects, each one of you your own little Pope and Bible interpreter.

Oh, you were almost right about one thing. We're right because we've always had and ever shall have Christ's promise to be with his Church until the end of time and to make sure that we hear his voice in her authoritative teaching. It's right there in the Bible - just not in YOUR PRIVATE (and erroneous) interpretation of it!

Enjoy!

Well you seem to really like to make outlandish claims and then conveniently "forget" to offer any sort of basis for them. Since you argument seems to circle around the Magesterium, in case you missed it my question the first time, I'll ask it again:

"What is the basis for this claim of unerring interpretation?"

You claim to be right "all the time" in your interpretation. What is your basis for this claim?

"Of course, all of what I said, am saying, could ever say sails right over your head and always will."

I get so tired of the "oh, you just don't get it because your a stupid Protestant" line. It's dishonesty and arrogance rolled into a little non-answer.

"Your whole spiritual life and method of Biblical "interpretation" is based on the premise that I don't have an answer"

Actually, that's not true. I respect a great deal of Catholic interpretation. A lot of it is right on the money. But there are certain things where your teaching is either in conflict with the Scriptures or has no Scriptural basis. Honorific titles is one of them.

Of course, all of what I said, am saying, could ever say sails right over your head and always will. I've seen you anti-Catholic, Bible-thumping folks come and go throughout a lifetime, interpreting away in your hundred thousand competing little sects, each one of you your own little Pope and Bible interpreter.

So since Catholics are opposed to "thumping" the Bible, is that why they've bought so completely into nineteenth century German criticism?

I realize what I'm about to say will say right over the heads of everyone on this thread (regardless of which side of the debate he's on), but Protestant rejection of litirugical chr*stianity's authoritative oral tradition is ultimately no different from liturgical chr*stianity's rejection of and attacks on the authentic Mosaic tradition that existed from Mt. Sinai. Catholics and Orthodox became the first "protestants" when they rejected this authoritative tradition and insisted that it was a false and corrupt creation of "priests and rabbis." Protestantism merely maintains a consistent anti-tradition argument, throwing back at the ancient churches their very own words against the Oral Torah and Mosaic Tradition. Yet liturgical chr*stians continue "preaching Protestantism to the Jews and Judaism to the Protestants" and don't even seem capable of noticing their dilemma.

Yes, Protestantism is wrong to reject authoritative oral holy tradition, but at least it isn't hypocritical (unlike some other religions).