Replies

Why sidestep the actual point for disputations about the Eucharist? Most Protestants differ from Catholics in how literally we believe the Lord intended his words referencing the bread during the Last Supper to be understood, and that is the issue...What I actually said was that many people do not see it as a literal truth. The other side of literal truth is not necessarily "spiritualizing," whatever that may be. As the spirit and Spirit are literal truths I am a little confused by your strange choice of opposition here.

Then please apply consistently for us these other "literal truths" Jesus spoke of -- and apply them, please, if you would, in the same way you apply "bread of life."

How is Jesus literally the Water of life (John 4:14) -- and how would a "literal" rendering of this from a RC perspective be distinct from a Protestant one?

Likewise, how would a literal "Light of the world" interpretation (John 8:12) be distinct from a less "literal" perspective?

I actually said that what the Holy Father is talking about as quoted in the article is what 99% of people do, meaning reason about whether any particular statement in scripture is meant to be seen as literally true " or not...you entirely ignore the fact that you were entirely, not partially, ignorant regarding how the Church and Catholics view the authority of the pope.

"the Holy Father" -- somebody other than our Father in Heaven? We have...
...each an earthly daddy...
...but only ONE Holy Father: 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have ONE Father, and he is in heaven. (Jesus, Matthew 23:9)

(And I guess your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpreting certain Scripture passings suddenly becomes "less literal" in interpreting passages like Matt. 23:9?)

"entirely...ignorant regarding how the Church and Catholics view the authority of the pope?" We hear...
...many godly voices...
...but only ONE purely DIVINE Source in these latter days: In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son... (Heb. 1:1-2)

And I suppose your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpretation might be a bit "less" literal than the singularity of Hebrews 1?

And the RC expansion goes on: We have...
...many earth-based intercessors prompted by the Holy Spirit...
...but ONLY ONE Heavenly Mediator (vs. the endless number of run-arounds to Christ many entertain): For there is one God and ONE MEDIATOR between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus... (1 Tim. 2:5)

And the "literalness" of RC Biblical interpretation...what happened to that literal "ONE MEDIATOR" understanding of 1 Tim. 2:5?

Beyond that, I confess I misunderstood your earlier statement of: ...most of the people shouting that Catholics deny the Bible in believing that not every sentence of the Bible must be "literally true," would say this single sentence is actually not literally true. What the Holy Father is talking about here is actually what 99% of Christians do every time they read the Bible -- and confess that even after you followed up, I still don't get the point you were trying to make here.

How is Jesus literally the Water of life (John 4:14) -- and how would a "literal" rendering of this from a RC perspective be distinct from a Protestant one?

I never said it was.

And I guess your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpreting certain Scripture passings suddenly becomes "less literal" in interpreting passages like Matt. 23:9?

I have not emphasized literalness by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another. Such a thing has nothing to do with anything. Are you even reading these posts? And, RC is a brand of cola, and so is entirely unrelated to the discussion.

And I suppose your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpretation might be a bit "less" literal than the singularity of Hebrews 1?

See above. I have never argued about Catholic literalness, and Royal Crown Cola is not germane.

and confess that even after you followed up, I still don't get the point you were trying to make here.

Yes, that is abundantly clear. Let me help you out. It is very simple. I have made two points. Only two.

Catholics don't view the pope as "the final arbiter of Biblical truth" as you stated. You say it, but it isn't true.
The pope's comments as quoted in this article are not controversial but merely reflect basic reading techniques. People want to make them controversial because they have an axe to grind against the Holy Father, but all that doesn't make the claims true. The comments about literal truth in individual biblical statements are entirely mundane and reflect reading techniques used by any responsible person, regardless of sectarian affiliation.

You have ignored these issues in order to post false accusations that I have "condemned" others. You have debated things I never said, and focused entirely on your assumptions about Catholics rather than what has been posted. I have never argued that Catholics are more literal, but yet you have decided now that this is what is in play. Its laughable. How can somebody who imagines words like "spiritualize," , "symbolize" and "real" in simple English sentences where they never appear, and then sees condemnation where it isn't even remotely hinted at, claim to have any ability to interpret particular verses of scripture as you are trying to do? You simply lack credibility in this.