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.
Nobody goes to hell for climate skepticism, idolatry is another matter.
Is this proclamation supposed to assert that since Protestants interpret every word of the Bible they have the winning hand in what to believe? They are innocent of atrocities as opposed to historically horrible Catholic behaviors? Well, we could cite a few Protestant mess ups in some of the various sects. Cromwell, for one. Salem witch trials another. Henry the VIII wasn’t exactly Biblically inspired when he cut off Rome and did his cruelties.
No, this is all a simplistic pointless presentation...to prove what?
Nothing in Catholic teachings about Mary constitute idolatry. Catholic teaching about Mary is explicit that she is NOT God and is not to be worshipped as God. She is venerated as the greatest saint, not worshipped as God.
To post otherwise is to post a clear falsehood about what Catholics teach and believe.
You did?
Where.
You, yourself, lodge essentially the same objection in regard to, e.g., Joel Osteen!
Why would you think the Vatican should produce a Bible commentary with a single dogmatically-defined interpretation of every verse? It would lock interpreters into a box and end most Biblical scholarship. It's not our teaching model -- which is usually negative, defining orthodoxy's boundaries and allowing freedom within those boundaries -- anyway.
Jesus and Rome or Rome?
“This is a silly thread, admittedly responding to a rather lame argument.”
Well said!
Catholics have the truth. Christ is the way the truth and the life. And the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the apostles.
Catholics all over the world need not worry. It’s through the Holy Spirit that we have the Bible and the interpretations that have developed through the Magisterium.
You are aware that there is more to Catholicism than just the (Roman) Latin Catholic Church, aren’t you?
This thread is not about idolatry — it’s about interpretation of the word of God.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ is our intercessor between us and God, not a priest or a pope. We have 33,000 different denominations, or interpretations of God's Word, time to study and let the Holy Spirit teach you. Put in the time to study and the Book will interpret itself.
What about this scripture, is He the only one in Heaven or not? Everybody knows John 3:16 what about 3 verses earlier?
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Ukrainian (Catholic) Church an example of 'synodality' for Pope
Traditional Rites in Union Now with the Catholic Church
Catholic conservatives: A traditionalist avant-garde
The Rites of the Catholic Church [Catholic Caucus]
One and Many Churches (origins of the Church)
THE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH -- There are many!
(Cardinal) Newman on Rites and Ceremonies
To all the educated Catholics that read the Catechism etc. What about the illiterate peon in some village in Mexico? Do the finer points of latria and hyperdulia translate as well to that guy? Does the sale of patron saint statues and the rest of the saint commerce also translate as easily to the wretched poor around the world, as easily as it does to educated American Catholics?
And, BTW, this is a hilarious oversimplification, especially if "Protestant" means something bigger than latter-day fluffy American evangelicalism. If Protestants look only to Scripture, why did they write Luther's large & small catechisms? Why the Westminster Confession?
If Catholics look only to the church, why does the catechism say the church "forcefully and specifically exhorts" the faithful to "frequent reading of the divine scriptures" (section 133) and calls Scripture (quoting Vatican II) "strength for [the Catholic's] faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life" (section 131)?
Check #3, I didn’t bring it up, counsel your co-religionists. His comparison.
In his resignation letter, which Charisma has in full, Ekman explains more of the reasoning behind his conversion to Catholicism:
Scripture is the sole norm and authority for doctrine. Luther's Catechism is an exposition of that scripture. What is believed and why, none of which contradicts its scriptural foundation. Like any catechism, it is a teaching tool.
Jesus prayed that all his followers would be one. Not merely united in their hatred and mistrust of Rome, and disunited in everything else, but one "event as you, Father, and I are one".
James writes that the fervent prayer of a holy man is effectual.
So we know Jesus' prayer was answered. It just wasn't answered by Protestantism.
And the Roman Catholics try keep it in a tidy little box somewhere in Rome.
And the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the apostles.
Repeat an error enough and people will believe it. For example: if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
Even Hank Hannegraaf appeals to something he calls "the historic Christian faith" to shoot down aberrant interpretations.
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.