They mean exactly what you say they mean. Forgive the Church for the impertinence of the last 2,000 years, your holiness Pope aMorePerfectUnion.
Can you not see the arrogance in your own argument? You make yourself the authority you believe no one else can claim. If Scripture is so self-interpreting, please explain the fractalization of the Protestant world who, generally, rely on Sola Scriptura...
Acts 8:30-31 & 2 Peter 1:20
Christ desired that we be one in Faith. There is no unity among those who claim personal authority over Scripture understanding. Why don't you read some of the Doctors of the Church and discover some humility.
Which one?
The "Doctors of the Church" are often contradictory in their positions on the issues near and dear to Roman Catholicism.
Vatican I or Vatican II?
The Roman Catholic Church has not produced an exegetical rendering of every verse in the NT...and as some claim they've been around 2000 years. That's a long time not to produce a verse by verse exegetical rendering of the NT.
“You make yourself the authority you believe no one else can claim.”
False two times in one sentence.
God’s Word is the authority, or it wouldn’t matter if Arch-Pope tried to find a Biblical basis for the mass. Second, according to the scriptures, God gave teachers to the church to teach a His Word.
“If Scripture is so self-interpreting, please explain the fractalization of the Protestant world who, generally, rely on Sola Scriptura.”
Your question falsely conflates Sola Scriptura (the belief that Scripture contains everything needed for salvation and Christian maturity) with agreement over everything contained in Scripture by all people in all times.
I point out two things to you...
First, Roman Catholicism has never produced an official commentary that explains the meaning of every verse in Scripture. In 2,000 years!
Second, believing Christians who worship with non-Roman assemblies agree on the core doctrines with uniformity, while acting with charity on non-essential areas.
And again I never claimed Scripture is self-interpreting, nor does God. He gave teachers to His church to teach the Scriptures. Peter himself said some of the Apostle Paul’s writings were hard to understand, as are the other scriptures.
What someone needs to understand to gain eternal life can be easily understood by a child who can read.
Then were or where have you been on countless threads by traditional RCs (who seem to be the vocal majority on FR ) dismissing some many modern teachings and even popes, all based upon their understanding of what valid church teaching is and says.
As one poster wryly stated,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
And it is actually me who shows them, as just a few hours ago on FR , such teachings as that,
..the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Either RCs are to ascertain the validity of church teaching by examination of the evidential warrant for it being so, or they are not to, and since even determining what magisterial level each teaching falls under to subject to interpretation, then they are to "give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That's what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that's what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility."
Which was in response to a bewildered member on the different magisterial levels and assent, saying "Boy. No disrespect intended...and I mean that honestly...but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto." - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1565864#post1565864
But the position of "just obey Catholic doctrine" itself sees debate, while Rome manifestly treats impenitent proabortion, prosodomite pols as a members in life and in death, thus showing her interpretation of what believes, at least for now.
Meanwhile it is actually those who hold most strongly to the authoiruity of Scripture who testify to the strongest unity in basic beliefs, versus Caths, with some unity in basic beliefs being they profess themselves.
And in Scripture it is what one does and effects that constitutes the evidence of what they really believe. (Mt. 7:20; 1Co. 4:19,20; Ja. 2:18)
Thus while the likes of you may present a unified Rome, on closer examination the reality is that she is an implicitly sanctioned amalgamation of quite varied beliefs, from cultic traditionalists to Ted Kennedy RCs, all counted as members by mother Rome. And yet they want us conservative evangelicals to leave our worship, teaching and fellowships and become members with them. Absurd.
That is simply not true. I have never met ampu or most of the other non-Catholic FReepers here.
I don't know what church they go to, or even IF they go.
And yet, I am in agreement with their interpretation of Scripture to a much higher degree than Catholics agree with each other here on FR.
I have not seen AMPU post ANYTHING here with which I disagree with him.