Replies

The phase, "the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account" is antecedent to the section you quote.

There are plenty of Protestant equivanents. For example, sola scriptura - which is actualy sort of funny in that this interpretation is nothing more than tradition to which one must adhere lest one be called heritical.

Did you look at the other link?

First, if we want to “hear” God’s Word in Scripture we must listen with “reverence” and a “sincere and humble piety.” Second, God’s Word is always delivered “within the context of the believing community” and cannot be fully understood outside of the “ecclesial context,” the Church. And third, to understand the meaning of our own lives requires that we must first “grasp the plot of God’s story.”

“This means that we can’t approach Scripture as if it were something that needs to be interpreted by us, but rather quite the opposite -- we need to let Scripture interpret us, our lives, and our world,” he explained. “To read the world in light of Scripture, as opposed to Scripture in light of the world, is the hallmark of a Christian reading of the Word of God.”

The phase, "the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account" is antecedent to the section you quote.

Yes. And with the paragraph and conclusion of Vatican I, you are not allowed to reach a conclusion different from the teachings or ex cathedra or extraordinary magisterium findings of the Catholic Church. Correct?

For example, take the Catholic positions on communion and Mary's eternal virginity. The former mandates that there is only a literal interpretation; symbolic is not allowed. The latter demands symbolic/inferred only, literal is not allowed.

The Catholic Church has essentially dictated when a person must interpret Scripture literally and when they cannot. And any interpretation to the contrary - even if there is a reasonable logical support for that contrary conclusion - is heretical and must be avoided.

How is that not the Catholic Church dictating how scripture must be interpreted? We have the Catholic Church explicitly stating that you must follow the teachings and dictates of the Church, and that you cannot reach different conclusions, and that you must interpret literally when told to do so, and symbolically/figuratively when told so.

Seems to me to be pretty cut-and-dried; the Catholic Church is - according to its own dogma - the sole arbiter of how to read and interpret scripture.

Now, about sola scriptura, I would merely point you to 2 Tim 3:14-17. Paul explicitly states that the scriptures written and lessons orally taught at the time Timothy was a child were all that were needed to gain the wisdom to be saved. Nothing more, nothing less.

I also know enough of Catholicism to realize that the Catholic Church does not address this section of scripture, probably for the very claim it makes. You do not need additional teachings or writings to gain salvation. In fact, I would recommend a reading through the entire chapter (2 Tim 3) through eyes not colored of any church or dogma, but as a clearly scriptural warning about how institutions and men are corruptible and corrupted.