If by “catholic” you mean in communion with the Pope of Rome, I am nothing of the sort. I’m afraid you are the one who doesn’t get it. You can’t pick up an English translation of the Bible and assume reading it at face value as if it were written by and for modern post-”Englightnment” men, and expect to get it right.
There are reasons to attend to what the Fathers of the Church thought the Scriptures meant: first, they, as much as you and I, were Christians to whom Christ’s promise that the Spirit would lead them into all truth applies, part of the Church against whom He promised the gates of hell should not prevail; second, some of them knew personally the Holy Apostles and Evangelists; and third, they lived in the same culture in which the New Testament was written, and (in the case of the Greek Fathers) were native speakers of the language in which it was written. This is not the case for you and me, so a little deference to their views on the meaning of Scripture is warranted.
I’m sorry, but I disagree. God’s Word is clear on this—and the Lord is plenty big enough to see to His Word—that for those of us who are saved through Christ, it is the Holy Spirit abiding in us Who teaches us the meaning of his revelation to man—and “all things”—as noted in 1 John 2:26-27. Further, I hold catholicism in terrible regard as a false gospel, which is no Gospel at all, and thus I have no confidence in the opinions of the so-called “church fathers” (Galatians 1:6-12). This is NOT to start a useless argument with catholics, which is a horrid waste of time. It is simply a statement in response to your comments to me. Thanks!