Posted on 03/22/2014 5:42:31 AM PDT by Gamecock
One of the statements that Catholic e-pologists like to throw around against Protestantism is the relativism and disunity of private interpretation. While Protestants look to the scriptures for authority on faith-based issues, Catholics look to the authority of their visible church organization.
“"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC 85
Based on these claims by Catholics you would assume that a church-approved commentary of the Bible would exist to lead Catholic laypeople, especially Catholic apologists, to the correct interpretation of each biblical passage. Yet nothing even close to such a thing exists. In fact, very few biblical passages have been officially defined by the RCC.
“The Church has no official commentary on Scripture. The pope could write one if he wanted, but he hasn’t. And with good reason: Scripture study is an ongoing, developing field. To create an official commentary on Scripture would impede the development of this field.” Catholic Answers
I guess 2000 years (if you believe the RCC’s claim to history) is not quite long enough to figure out the truth. While some Protestants have written commentaries on the entire Bible in their own lifetime, the “infallible” RCC has been unable to even attempt the same in 2000 years.
“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent…” Catholic Answers
Off the top of my head, I do not no how many verses there are in the bible, but seven is certainly a very, very small percentage. Catholics keep telling me that the RCC has the “fullness of truth” - I think it would be more honest to say “a very slow development of truth”.
Where does that leave the Catholic apologist (e-pologist)?
“The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” Catholic Answers
Seems to me that much liberty could lead to chaos, and it does. Anyone who has interacted with more than one Catholic e-pologist knows that before long they begin to contradict each other.
But more to the point, how can the interpretation of a biblical passage by any Catholic apologist even be entertained? If their own infallible authority has only been able to define 7 passages of scripture over 2000 years, the apologist/e-pologist cannot have the integrity or the authority to even attempt to interpret scripture on their own. If they do, they fall into their own “private interpretation” trap so carefully, but foolishly, set for the Protestants.
“You claim that the angels cannot hear us,”
No. I claim there is no Biblical evidence to support your prayer to angels.
“that we are not to talk with angels and ask them things,”
No. I’m claiming there is no Biblical evidence to support doing so.
“and finally say you cannot find examples of this in the Holy Bible and that Angels are somehow a pagan corruption.....”
Yes. Given that there is nothing from God to support such a pagan practice and it was not part of the Apostles Tradition, it is false.
“I guess you must not have Luke in your Bible, for in the first Chapter an angel greets Mary.”
This is a fact. It doesn’t however say we should pray to angels or that this was anything but the rarest of occasions where an angel appeared to deliver a message.
“Or you must not have the Book of Revelation in your Bible, for there we have mention of the great warrior angel who drives off the dragon which is about to devour the child born of the Virgin”
This is a fact. It doesn’t however say we should pray to angels or that this was anything but the rarest of occasions where an angel appeared to deliver a message.
“And I know you don’t have the book of Tobit in your Bible where an angel brings healing — guess that’s your loss.”
You are correct about Tobit! It is certainly not a loss. It doesn’t however say we should pray to angels or that this was anything but the rarest of occasions where an angel appeared to deliver a message.
Is that all you could come up with? You took three swings with no hits and three strikes.
“This is what that wretched religion really teaches...Who but Satan would lead people away from praying to God, to pray to and worship a female goddess they call Mary... “
It is all about the glory of the Son and none of it is about the glory of the Church or Mary. Those who have been taught differently are deceived.
And their form of gov't is a presidential republic.
“instructing us to “listen to the church,” and that those who fail to listen to the church should be treated “like a pagan or tax collector.””
Please read the context of this verse. You bandy it around like it is a universal statement. It is simply about church discipline between two believers who have a disagreement.
I’m quoting from the Bible. Why isn’t that enough for you?
Salvation,
Are you serious?
The claim was that we should PRAY to angels. A PRAYER was posted.
Your “quotes” did not support praying to angels.
If you have actual verses that teach prayer, demonstrate prayer or command Christians to PRAY to angels, please do post them dear FRiend.
So far, you have not done so. Perhaps you are busy.
You’re missing the point. Luther’s catechism isn’t held to be equal with Scripture.
In other words, you were still wrong.
Nope, same source as your literacy %. They got it from the Gov't for both classes. But like a typical catholic, rolls for anyone claiming authority, no matter the position. A good drone for the Catholic hive.
I’m seeing a long thread. Where did this FReeper admitted to lying?
If the mods didn’t delete the post, it’s in there.
And you’re still wrong.
Just keep the money coming in.
Look at post 91
sola gracia
I can see what he was doing, but I have seen much bigger misrepresentations made by Papists.
“I can see what he was doing, but I have seen much bigger misrepresentations made by Papists.”
I’ll send you a private reply.
And from this he generalizes that Protestant apologists are liars. It is to be ignored. Such broadbrush defamation is nothing but a sophisticated demonization tactic, very effective in deflecting a conversation away from substantive truth claim analysis, as the thread where the indiscretion occurred demonstrates.
GPH, I am certain you wish the event had not happened, but I can tell you as a member of my law review that sourcing an argument properly does help keep the focus on the substance of the things being argued. Against certain opponents, whose arguments on substance are weak, the temptation to exploit a technical weakness becomes irresistible. You cannot give them that option. It’s more work, but it’s worth it.
Vlad, sourcing integrity is important. We agree on this. But one misstep does not validate a false accusation against everyone else with whom you disagree. It is a false generalization, and using it for it’s falseness is as good as lying, even if only in the sense of a reckless disregard for the truth.
What does the command say? Don’t bear false witness against what? A source document? Or a neighbor? Not to diminish the wrongness of the one, but the other made it into God’s top ten list of bad things to do. There’s a reason for that.
I’ll send you a private reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.