You responded: AAaaaarghhhhh! But this is what you do! :) You openly default to whatever the Church says as your "official" position, but in your heart you have honest disagreements on the truth of some scripture.
AAaaaaarghhhh! No we don't! WE default to the Church's dogmatic teachings - but it doesn't follow that the Church is monolithic and narrow on all of its teachings. ALL of the Church's teachings are not dogmatice, FK!
In our discussion on grace and free will, I (Joe) told you that the Church ALLOWS several stances regarding predestination of the elect and so forth (Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, and so forth). I (Joe), as a Catholic, can decide for myself ANY of these stances. The Church is broad in its view on this question! We have discussed this and other things over and over again. I have ALSO told you that the Church does not define the entire meaning of the Scriptures. There are only a dozen or so verses that the Church says "this is what it means, and nothing else". The Church allows SOME freedom, as long as our view does not interfere with the body of teachings given to us as a whole.
Kosta wrote: Also, think about it: if the Bible has more than one interpretation then it has more than one truth. And that is a slippery slope.
FK replied: I don't look at it that way. The reason for more than one interpretation is that no one is right about everything, EVEN GIVEN that all believers are individually led by the Spirit. God's timetable is God's timetable, and we will know what He wants us to know, when He wants us to know it. Otherwise, sanctification would not be a lifelong process, and I think we all agree that it is.
I will agree with FK on this one, Kosta. I don't think you meant to write that, because you are certainly well-versed on the Church Fathers and that they had various interpretations (spiritual) regarding the Scriptures. Catholics have been taught that we can derive several meanings from a verse - not that they contradict - but at different levels. You certainly are familiar with the Alexandrian vs. the Antioch schools of Scriptural interpretation back in the day. Neither was wrong, just a different view of God's Word.
Regards
Joe: "AAaaaaarghhhh! No we don't! WE default to the Church's dogmatic teachings - but it doesn't follow that the Church is monolithic and narrow on all of its teachings. ALL of the Church's teachings are not dogmatice, FK! In our discussion on grace and free will, I (Joe) told you that the Church ALLOWS several stances regarding predestination of the elect and so forth (Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, and so forth). I (Joe), as a Catholic, can decide for myself ANY of these stances. The Church is broad in its view on this question! We have discussed this and other things over and over again."
First, in this case, when I said "you" I was actually taking a good natured jab at Kosta only, and not Apostolics in general. :) So, on all those things we have discussed, I do remember and was not painting with a broad brush. While I haven't studied it yet, I have scanned Kosta's response and he appears to say that there are only three points of dogma in all of Orthodoxy. I know for a fact that there are plenty more than that in Catholicism. This is "new" to me, (although it shouldn't be because I knew there have been further councils after the last one that Orthodoxers recognize. I just never put it together before in this way).
Anyway, among the three that Kosta listed was NOT that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. Assuming what Kosta said is true (and I do), then -- at the Dogma level -- he is totally off the hook concerning his opinions/beliefs concerning Paul and the Bible in general. I don't know, but I would assume that somewhere along the line a dogmatic belief on the Bible was pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Is that right?
Now, we move down to the doctrine level. My impression is that Kosta is saying that while he is bound to dogma, he is not to doctrine. While he may "defer" to the Church on doctrine "officially", he is still free to hold contrary opinions. This is the heart of the matter I've been trying to get to in this discussion. Here's why I'm interested:
Somewhere recently I read that the Pope (or a very high Church official) made a public statement warning that pro-abortion politicians potentially face excommunication. I didn't think it likely that opposition to abortion was dogmatic, so I figured it must be doctrine. If that's right, then you can understand my confusion on the grounds for excommunication. I know that Kosta would never put himself in any jeopardy on this subject because his faith is strong enough that he just wouldn't "go there". So, are the "practical" grounds for excommunication significantly different between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?