Replies

“...and...”

This is a key point. In defending the the Catholic Churchs correct interpretations of the bible vs. the protestant erroneous interpretations of sacred scripture, again and again it becomes apparent that protestants pick and isolate a verse and then never mention the verses that “appear” to say the opposite. Of course the bible never contradicts itself, so both/and interpretations of the Scriptures are always correct, not whatever (doctrine under discussion) alone and by itself. This is the Catholic Church’s approach.

The Catholic Church’s position ALWAYS incorporates all the scriptures using the both/and applications.

We are entirely scriptural - we just use all scripture, not taking a verse, saying it is scripture alone, interpreting the isolated verse on our own opinion, then conveniently ignoring any verse that appears to say the opposite. This effectively leaves out the scriptures supporting the correct, literal and Catholic meaning of the bible, and then feeling smug, superior and saved regarding the false opinion arrived at!

There is a book out there that addresses the issue; 95 verses that protestants ignore.

At any rate, just posting to let you know that you are on to the root problem here; not just the surface endless posting of scripture.

As you point out, there is always an implied “and”.

In defending the the Catholic Churchs correct interpretations of the bible vs. the protestant erroneous interpretations of sacred scripture, again and again it becomes apparent that protestants pick and isolate a verse and then never mention the verses that “appear” to say the opposite. Of course the bible never contradicts itself, so both/and interpretations of the Scriptures are always correct, not whatever (doctrine under discussion) alone and by itself. This is the Catholic Church’s approach.

More accurately, this is your understanding of the Catholic church's approach.

The RCC approach is all over the board (confused and confusing) and is frequently in blatant opposition to the totality of the Holy Bible, the written Word of God.

Just because a FReeper's belief does not correspond to RCC doctrine/teachings, does not necessarily mean he is "feeling smug, superior and saved regarding the false opinion arrived at." Neither does it mean his opinion is false.

The Catholic Church’s position ALWAYS incorporates all the scriptures using the both/and applications.

We are entirely scriptural - we just use all scripture, not taking a verse, saying it is scripture alone, interpreting the isolated verse on our own opinion, then conveniently ignoring any verse that appears to say the opposite. This effectively leaves out the scriptures supporting the correct, literal and Catholic meaning of the bible,

This reads like a 'Dumb and Dumber' movie script...

So when the weight of Scripture shows that the eating of blood is forbidden, then Catholics don’t take one verse out of context to support their eucharist?

And when the weight of Scripture says salvation is by faith, they don’t take one verse out of context to claim that works have to be added?