[Zionist Conspirator]

In the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture -- for that is strictly Protestant. But then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure Protestant attitude.

So not only are the scriptures not to be "privately interpreted" (which means what, that one is to read the words without thinking at all?), but the documents of the Church, which are supposed to tell the Catholic how to interpret the scriptures, is also not to be "privately interpreted," or else one is still a Protestant!

What kind of religion is this? Nothing means what it says, nothing can be interpreted without appeal to an authority which likewise cannot be privately interpreted . . . this is a mess! No wonder Catholics say with a straight face that their doctrines have never changed . . . no doctrine means what it says!

At least I know now why you've never condemned evolution, Francis.

[redgolum]

And that is part of the issue ZC. There is no infallible list of infallible lists.

[stfassisi]

Nothing means what it says, nothing can be interpreted without appeal to an authority which likewise cannot be privately interpreted . . . this is a mess!

It's not a mess ,the core teachings never change,they only become more defined if necessary due to growing heresies

[dartuser]

What kind of religion is this?

ooh ... ooh ... can I have a guess?

I guess ... man-made.

[mas cerveza por favor]

What kind of religion is this? Nothing means what it says, nothing can be interpreted without appeal to an authority which likewise cannot be privately interpreted . . . this is a mess!

Of course words mean what they say. Here is an example:

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

The straightforward reading of this passage would be that "this rock" refers to Peter. That is the Catholic interpretation. It would be a Protestant attitude to consider oneself as having authority to teach that "this rock" refers to something else.

I would agree that the thread article is a mess, but that is because the author is asserting his own opinion even as he accuses Fr. Feeney of doing the same thing. Certainly internal Catholic debates can be confusing, but the same is true for internal debates about any extensive body of knowledge.