Aye, there's the rub. So, whose interpretation is faulty? Who has the authority in Protestant circles to decide? Without authority, there is no unity.
No ... Authority only forces the appearance of unity ...
It is truth that leads to unity ... not the application of authority.
Let me illustrate ... The Catholic book you consulted for your analysis of the teaching in Psalm 119, tell me about it ... who wrote that? Some representative of the RCC right? Who decided that his analysis was correct? The Church did right?
Are you claiming that the exegesis is correct because it was written by the RCC?
How do Catholics argue amongst themselves over differing Biblical interpretations and how is the true interpretation determined in your camp?
The magisterium orchestrates official Catholic doctrine and the ones who protest such are termed Protestants. That is the origin of the name Protestant. You might well say that there is dissension in Catholicism but the magisterium serves as the Supreme Court, a feature which distinguishes it from the non-Catholic churches. Decisions are made over centuries with laborious discussions over the minutiae. There is no "Fly by Night " decision rendered by some pastor who wants to impress their peers. Such deliberations are recorded and made available to scholars who frequent libraries which contain such reference materials.
Before one can intelligently opine on a Catholic position, one would need to thoroughly examine the different theological arguments rendered to achieve such interpretation on a specific decision/doctrine for each specific point. To question an official pronouncement be prepared to cite the historical debates and argumentation which led to the adoption of that interpretation/ doctrine. Without such inclusion of this variable, one merely exposes their ignorance. The burden of proof is on the one who raises the objection to such position.
This salient feature of historical denouement is guided by the Holy Spirit whom Jesus sent to keep His Bride from doctrinal error (MT 28:20 and Jn 16:13). Just look at the Mormons and how many times they change doctrine or the tens of thousand of fundamentalist/evangelical entities who have varying beliefs only to assuage their psyche not to please God.
Thus, to intelligently question a specific point of Catholic doctrine, one must first have done ones homework and not merely counter with their own self serving testimony.
It would be good to remember that Catholics employ exegesis while most of the non catholic crowd respond with eisegesis.
This is why I post to FreeRepublic... these types of conversations make my day. I'm glad you're enjoying it too. Nothing spoils a nice thread like a bad attitude.
No ... Authority only forces the appearance of unity ...
That's going to have to depend on your definition of authority. There is the type of authority that puts a boot to your throat, surely. There is also the type of authority that comes from wisdom, knowledge and experience. The Church teaches from the latter. The Bride reads the love letter Her Bridegroom left Her in His Scriptures, receives wisdom from the Holy Spirit which Christ promised would always guide His Church, and understands through Her corporate experience of the direct revelation of Christ at Her foundations. Through the centuries, Her understanding has increased through the direct intercession of the Holy Spirit and through the contributions of such men and women as St Irenaeus, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, St Catherine of Siena, Her Popes and Her other faithful.
In a classroom, a student with a question wouldn't appeal his question to a fellow student... unless he knew that student was correct. How would he know the other student is correct? Because that student had been pronounced correct by the teacher. Her teaching authority is based on her learning and her experience and it is imparted to her students by their trust in her. This trust is earned by the constancy of her teaching. If she becomes inconsistent, her students begin to question the validity of her instruction. When she is asked a question, she answers by two primary methods... either she simply knows the answer because she has known it from her years of training and experience or she will research the answer in a textbook. In reading the textbook, she has the benefit of her training and experience to realize the answer she is seeking. Just so, the Church looks to the Scripture as the textbook of knowledge and hearkens back to Her training from Christ for understanding. Just as the students' receptiveness is dependent on their trust, so it is with the Church. Her truths are not received where the receiver does not trust the source. That is why the Church makes great pains in Her continuity to show that what is true today has always been true in the Church. We know of Her constancy by the writings of the Apostles, their students and the generations of theologians who have faithfully passed these teachings through history.
The Protestant congregations lack these things. They are as students in a classroom who read the textbook themselves. Without the benefit of an authority on the subject matter, the interpretation of the knowledge is left to decide among themselves. From time to time, leaders among them demonstrate a strong grasp of the subject and they are elevated to a higher stature and the weaker students rely on their interpretations. There are others in the class who, whether they are smarter or simply more stubborn, decide some instruction in the textbook should be seen in different ways. They stumble upon truths, but they can't possibly have the unity of learning among them that comes from having a qualified teacher with experience of the subject matter. The teacher is the one who assigns the grades because the teacher is the one who knows the material better than the students.
Let me illustrate ... The Catholic book you consulted for your analysis of the teaching in Psalm 119, tell me about it ... who wrote that? Some representative of the RCC right? Who decided that his analysis was correct? The Church did right?
Are you claiming that the exegesis is correct because it was written by the RCC?
Partly, yes. Let me explain. If it were advanced solely by Fr Anybody, I would have reason to question its validity. Priests are men and men make mistakes. From its beginning, though, the Church has had the commission to test all things. Before a writing can be promulgated as truth, it must be reviewed to be in accordance with the doctrines of the Church. For this, you will find that authoritative Catholic sources will have an imprimatur... this is a seal which simply says the document in question does not contain errors in regards to Roman Catholic doctrine and morals. That doesn't mean it's entirely without error, though. For example, consider a document written on an historical or political subject touching on faith and moral issues. The imprimatur would show that the matters of faith and morals are in accordance with Catholic teaching... it does not mean that all of the historical sourcing and political opinions are beyond question. I hope I'm being clear...
How do Catholics argue amongst themselves over differing Biblical interpretations and how is the true interpretation determined in your camp?
Quite simply, we appeal to the Deposit of Faith given by Christ for understanding the Scripture. Just as the Scripture was opened to the disciples on the road to Emmaus through Christ's Teaching, so we appeal to His Teaching when we open Scripture today. These teachings have been passed down through the ages faithfully so that the Church has had continuous belief throughout. That doesn't mean, though, that there is no discussion to be had. Some things are settled matters... Christ died that men may be restored to everlasting life. Most things, though, are open to interpretation and discussion... these discussions are how the Church has been able to recognize the unfolding revelation of God. Nothing can contradict the Bible and the Holy Tradition (capital "T" Tradition is that which Christ gave directly to His Apostles), but much can be learned by listening to the Spirit in others.
I appeal back to my classroom discussion above... in the classroom, there are truths the teacher is endeavoring to impart... but that certainly doesn't dissuade a lively debate... and all benefit from that ongoing discussion.
I pray I was coherent throughout this response and that I haven't made any errors that would cause anyone to stumble... Amen.
Is the conversation over?