Personal interpretation

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer

Well not true. Scripture tells us that Jesus Church would prevail over hell and Jesus would remain with it until the end oif the age. Therefore any church claiming to be that church founded by Jesus has to be present today. But there is no church called “The Way” today.

Why does that matter? You are making the following argument here:

1. Scripture tells us that Jesus Church would prevail over hell and Jesus would remain with it until the end of the age.
2. That church (all the various denominations of it) must have the exact same name that they had during the days of the apostles.
3. You can’t point to a single denomination that exists today that is still known by the same name it had during the time of the apostles.
4. Therefore, your theory that some church besides the RCC existed during the time of the apostles is wrong.

You need to establish that #2 is a valid premise.

Well first of all I stated that the church called “the Way” was the Catholic Church. So your point #2 is moot. As for #3 Yes I can point to a church that has the same name as it did during the Appostolic Age and that Church is the Catholic Church. You see when Ignatius of Antioch used the term Ecclesia kata holis he was not introducing something new. The term had been used before. You will find it in scripture. Specifically you will find it in Acts 9:31 wherein it says:

“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.”

Now if you look up the Greek words for the two words in bold print you will find that the Greek words are Ecclesia kata holis

But there is more. If you deny that the Catholic Church is not the church established by Christ as He said in Mt 16 then you tell me which sola scripturist denomination claims a 2,000 year history all the way back to the Apostles. Now I know and you should also know that no sola scriptura denomonation ever did or ever could make that claim. There is only one church that ever made that claim and that church is the Ecclesia kata holis of Acts 9 and now called [in English] the Catholic Church.

 

[inkaneer]

OK lads, I have read all the posts. Now the test.

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

‘In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ — Commission Report, October 1992.

Now quick, before this thread gets closed down PRmerger. tell Doggg how the Fathers and the Church got this interpretation wrong. And Doggg, watch how Catholics can have their cake and eat it at the same time.

By the way Cassini it did not escape me to note that you offer yourself as a Catholic but the above post of yours indicates otherwise. Are we attempting to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Sure does look like it. Also, to supplement my earlier response on this topic, you no doubt are aware of the criteria that must be met for something to be considered infallible. One of these is, of course, that the pope must be acting in his capacity as universal bishop i.e as pope. The reason for this is pretty obvious. In addition to holding the office of the pope the holder of that office is also the bishop of the archdiocese of Rome, Italy and in that capacity he has no more infallibility as any other bishop has. So let me ask you the question that nbegs to be asked, if a pope ever did act in the capacity as the “Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition.” would he still be infallible in this capacity? I say No, he would not. Because he is not acting as pope but rather as “Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition” and at no time did anyone ever claim that the “Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition” was infallible.

 

[gavanhe]

Having read my way through all the posts, I now feel compelled to ask the question.
If a person poses a reasonable question and receives numerous reasonable responses, but then concedes no answer as reasonable, how long can one sustain the conversation within reasonable limits?
I have had this conversation with several brethren of the other 30k+ Christian beliefs, and apart from the fact that the testament exists there is little in the way of conceding that the CC was responsible for it’s propagation into Christendom nor the method of biblical interpretation followed by Catholics ie. the teaching methods of the magisterium. They feel incapable of understanding that for a Catholic scripture reading is done mainly as a form of prayer and understanding without the constant attempt at inquiring as to what a particular passages’ meaning may be.
Gerry

 

[po18guy]

Having read my way through all the posts, I now feel compelled to ask the question.
If a person poses a reasonable question and receives numerous reasonable responses, but then concedes no answer as reasonable, how long can one sustain the conversation within reasonable limits?
I have had this conversation with several brethren of the other 30k+ Christian beliefs, and apart from the fact that the testament exists there is little in the way of conceding that the CC was responsible for it’s propagation into Christendom nor the method of biblical interpretation followed by Catholics ie. the teaching methods of the magisterium. They feel incapable of understanding that for a Catholic scripture reading is done mainly as a form of prayer and understanding without the constant attempt at inquiring as to what a particular passages’ meaning may be.
Gerry

We are fighting 500 years of bigotry here. Minds have been closed to the truth of the One Church for centuries. Once a soul habitually practices private interpretation, scripture is made subservient to the ego, which is the opposite of what our Lord teaches (Luke 9:23). The opinions of our separated brothers in Christ are deeply set. We must pray daily for Christian unity. May the Holy Spirit, Who always unites, inspire them to seek the truth, wherever it leads them.

As to the thread title, private interpretation of scripture is the sole reason for the many denominations that exist. Once Church authority was rejected, the disintegration of Christian unity progressed exponentially. 500 years back, it took not long at all for the reformers’ communities to begin disintegrating after they bickered amongst themselves.

Christ founded a visible, unified Church. The human ego, which caused the fall at Eden, then set to work causing the disintegration of Christ’s Body on earth. Christ’s visible, unified Church became increasingly invisible. The state of our world bears witness to this invisibility.

Sola scriptura and its fruit, private interpretation, is the source of this disintegration, and the cause of the theological entropy that is so observable within Christianity.

 

[Doggg]

If ten different teachers sit down and process the Truth, you are going to get ten different versions of it. This is not mathematics - this is interpretation.

If I understand you, RC’s never interpret any Scripture or church “tradition” so naturally the RCC cannot have that problem.

Hence, 30K protestant denominations.

And RC’s are all in complete agreement on all doctrinal issues! RC’s don’t do interpretation! They just agree with each other without interpreting any words!

There is only one truth, and, by your own logic, if there is not a teacher who can teach infallibly, then there is no Truth.

How is this by my own logic?

This is why Christ gave us the Catholic Church. It was created by Christ to teach his word. It cannot err. It taught before the bible, and then it wrote the bible. Again, to cite your own logic, when you admit “even though the word is truth” then surely you would agree that since the Catholic Church wrote the bible - “the word” - it then must be infallible?

How did you come to know that the CC wrote the bible?

 

[Doggg]

Doggg, you are not reading the arguments presented here well. **We have never professed #2. ** In fact, what’s been stated here was that the term “catholic”, in reference to the Church established by Jesus, was not used until 100 years after the apostolic age.

However, you cannot claim that your church goes all the way back to the apostolic age. Unless you can demonstrate that the practices that your fallible pastor practices were practiced in the 1st century, the 8th century, the 12th century, etc etc etc.

How did you come to know this: “you cannot claim that your church goes all the way back to the apostolic age. Unless you can demonstrate that the practices that your fallible pastor practices were practiced in the 1st century, the 8th century, the 12th century, etc etc etc.”

Is this just another unsupported opinion, or is it a fact? If it is a fact, I just want to know how you came to know it.

 

[Doggg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer

Well not true. Scripture tells us that Jesus Church would prevail over hell and Jesus would remain with it until the end oif the age. Therefore any church claiming to be that church founded by Jesus has to be present today. But there is no church called “The Way” today.

Well first of all I stated that the church called “the Way” was the Catholic Church. So your point #2 is moot. As for #3 Yes I can point to a church that has the same name as it did during the Appostolic Age and that Church is the Catholic Church. You see when Ignatius of Antioch used the term Ecclesia kata holis he was not introducing something new. The term had been used before. You will find it in scripture. Specifically you will find it in Acts 9:31 wherein it says:

“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.”

Now if you look up the Greek words for the two words in bold print you will find that the Greek words are Ecclesia kata holis

But there is more. If you deny that the Catholic Church is not the church established by Christ as He said in Mt 16 then you tell me which sola scripturist denomination claims a 2,000 year history all the way back to the Apostles. Now I know and you should also know that no sola scriptura denomonation ever did or ever could make that claim. There is only one church that ever made that claim and that church is the Ecclesia kata holis of Acts 9 and now called [in English] the Catholic Church.

You and I differ in the way we use the word “catholic”. When I want to convey the idea of my church as the universal church, I spell it with a small c but you spell it with a big C. Although this may seem inconsequential, it is actually very significant, since we aren’t referring to the same thing at all when we use this word. I’m a small c catholic. By this, I mean that I’m part of the universal church–the church that is founded upon Jesus. Your church, the Catholic Church, says that it was founded on the apostle Peter. Your CC is papel, and has a succession of merely human leaders who are all sinners, while mine is led by none other than Jesus Himself!

Now that this is all cleared up, what is it you were saying about ecclesia kata holis?

 

[inkaneer]

If I understand you, RC’s never interpret any Scripture or church “tradition” so naturally the RCC cannot have that problem.

You keep using the derogatory term RC. There is no such thing. It is the Catholic Church. When you come in here it would be christian of you to leave your prejudice outside. There are derogatory terms anyone of us can you to refer to you and/or your denomination. I have yet to see one being used. So I ask you who is it that shows the christian virtues here? And I have not touched on even larger issues such as your violating God’s commandment about bearing false witness which you do in your false statements about His Church.

Now to answer your question above Catholics interpret scripture in accord with the Tradition passed down from the Apostles. We heed the words of Peter in 2Peter 1:20 wherein he writes:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

The reason for this is as he writes in 2 Peter 3:11-18 because it is easy to twist the scriptures to one’s own destruction. God did not allow private interpretation in the Old Testament church. No one dare counter the prophets with their own versions why should the New Testament Church be any different especially if as every denomination says that the New Testament is prefigured in the Old and the Old Testament is perfected in the New.

And RC’s are all in complete agreement on all doctrinal issues! RC’s don’t do interpretation! They just agree with each other without interpreting any words!

There are people who claim to be Catholic and believe what the Church teaches but but do not practice what the Church teaches. There are also people who claim to be Catholic and do not believe one or more doctrines that the Church teaches. This latter group of people are not Catholic in the sense of being united with the Body of Christ. By their refusal to believe what the Church teaches they have separated themselves from the communion of the Body of Christ. No formal decree of *excommunicato * is required. They will remain as such until they conform their belief to that of the Body of Christ. Then there are those Catholics who believe and accept the doctrines of Christ and are Catholics in communion with the Body of Christ.

How did you come to know that the CC wrote the bible?

Secular history. It really wasn’t hard either. All you need do is open your eyes. No sola scriptura denomination existed before the so called “Reformation” of the 16th century. The only christian church before then was the Catholic Church which secular history just refers to as “the church”. Even secular history teaches the first Bible with our current 73 book canon was compiled in about 400 AD. That is over a millenium, 1,200 years to be more exact, before any sola scriptura denomination existed. So it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. As for writing the bible I think that is equally as easy. If sola scripturists did not appear until 16th century and the Bible was written 1500 years before then those writers certainly could not be sola scripturists now could they? The only other church that makes any claim of being there in the first century is the Catholic Church. Again this is not rocket science.

 

[inkaneer]

You and I differ in the way we use the word “catholic”. When I want to convey the idea of my church as the universal church, I spell it with a small c but you spell it with a big C. Although this may seem inconsequential, it is actually very significant, since we aren’t referring to the same thing at all when we use this word. I’m a small c catholic. By this, I mean that I’m part of the universal church–the church that is founded upon Jesus. Your church, the Catholic Church, says that it was founded on the apostle Peter. Your CC is papel, and has a succession of merely human leaders who are all sinners, while mine is led by none other than Jesus Himself!

Now that this is all cleared up, what is it you were saying about ecclesia kata holis?

There is only one way to use the word catholic. That universal church you refer to is the Catholic Church. That fact was established back around 100 AD with Ignatius. For 1500 years there was absolutely no question that the universal church was the Catholic Church. Since the protestant revolt the term has come into question in some quarters. But the Catholic Church has never lost its universality. Protestantism took nothing away from the Catholic Church. In fact protestant denominations are not rightly churches at all. The classical idea of a church is one of communion with others with unity of belief and practice. This does not describe the chaos present in the sola scriipturist denominations.

Your denomination is a separatist movement in communion with no one. You are led not by Christ but by your pown interpretation of scripture. What happens in your denomination if someone does not agree with the preaching your leader provides? What if he leaves your group and goes to another group whose belief system matches that of his? Is he, according to you, still in the universal church? A Catholic who left the Church would not be in the Catholic Church as there is no communion with the Body of Christ. This is why protestants have adopted the doctrine of “Big Tent Christianity” They had to in order to cover all those splinter groups who believe differently and sometimes contradictorily and have nothing in communion with each other other than perhaps they are anti Catholic.

Now the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the Apostles with Peter as the chief steward. In doing so Jesus who was of the line of David and thus a Davidic king followed the Davidic kings of the past who gathered ministers from the twelve tribes of Israel and from these selected one to be the chief steward and this chhief steward was given the keys to the Kings house and his Kingdom. Isaiah 22:22 tells us of this chief steward that what “he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” IN Mt 16 Peter too is given keys by a Davidic King and told that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The only difference is that the OT chief steward was limited in power to the boundaries of the Davidic kingdom at that time. Whereas Peter is given authority over all the earth as well as heaven too. And yes we have a succession of earthy men who are sinners. But so did the OT church but God still guided the OT as He does the Catholic Church by leading that succession of sinful leaders into all truth. You claim God could inspire sinful men to write scripture then why do say God could not inspire sinful men to teach truth. The Apostles were not shining examples of perfection were they? So why do you place restrictions on an all powerful God? Just who do you think you are to point to otjhers as sinners? Are you not one too? Maybe you can tell me how a sinful man could interpret scripture correctly? Wouldn’t his sin contaminate his interpretation? OH, you say you are guided by the Spirit. Every sola scripturist says the same thing and thus the Holy Spirit is the author of the chaos that exists in the land of sola scriptura. Got good news for you Dogg, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth not chaos. You got some spirit leading you but it’s not the one you think.

 

[PRmerger]

How did you come to know this: “you cannot claim that your church goes all the way back to the apostolic age. Unless you can demonstrate that the practices that your fallible pastor practices were practiced in the 1st century, the 8th century, the 12th century, etc etc etc.”

Is this just another unsupported opinion, or is it a fact? If it is a fact, I just want to know how you came to know it.

Oh, let me count the ways!

• your silence on the question speaks volumes. Volumes! If you could show that your church existed from the time of the apostles, you would have offered proof the first, second, third, etc times you were asked.
• you do not have the Eucharist, which existed from the time of the apostles
• you do not have a valid priesthood, which existed from the time of the apostles (actually, from the times of the OT)
• you do not have bishops a pope and meet in ecumenical councils, which existed from the time of the apostles
• you have a multitude of non-Scriptural man-made traditions such as

outdoor weddings, altar calls, infant dedications, Wed evening bible studies, divorce and re-marriage…

Oh! And I just thought of some more:

• you don’t have prayer to the saints which existed from the time of the apostles
• you don’t venerate Mary, which was done from the time of the apostles
• you don’t believe in the existence of purgatory, which was believed from the time of the apostles (and even in OT times)
• you don’t have the Mass, which was celebrated from the time of the apostles (and even in the OT times)

 

[PRmerger]

If I understand you, RC’s never interpret any Scripture or church “tradition” so naturally the RCC cannot have that problem.

This is a figment of your imagination, Doggg. Catholics interpet Scripture–indeed, all readers of anything interpret it. We simply interpret it through the lens of the faith which provided us these Scriptures–the Catholic faith.

 

[PRmerger]

How did you come to know that the CC wrote the bible?

It seems that you have no idea how the Bible came to existence. You have never pondered this, then?

Clearly, it could not have appeared from the sky, leather-bound, and in King James format.

You must have your own ideas, after being on this thread a while.

[SIGN1]How do you believe the Bible came to be, Doggg? What Church compiled it?[/SIGN1]

 

[cassini]

You seem to be a Johnny-one-note on the CAFs, cassini.

Your fixation on this is puzzling, as it has been answered–ad nauseum–on the forum.

I will refer you, again, to grannymh’s eloquent response, and to thistle’s.
Originally Posted by thistle
A Pope has no authority to infallibly define/declare anything outside faith and morals and, as an example, in your case (geocentrism) they most certainly did not infallibly declare this. Nothing scriptural about this anyway, otherwise you might also argue the earth is flat!!

Go to my profile PR and you will see I have contributed to many subjects other than the Galileo case.

The CAF puts up many threads. Usually the OP disappears. I applaud Doggg who having asked the question continues to debate the subject he put up.

Dogggg’s thread is titled Personal interpretation a subject that is at the heart of the Galileo case. Another thread Inerrancy v. Infallibility is a subject at the heart of the Galileo case. Another thread Galileo is the Galileo case. Another thread Geocentrism: why doesn’t it just die and be done with? is a subject at the heart of the Galileo case. Another thread : Religion and Science is a subject at the heart of the Galileo case. That is why I contribute to these subjects. Having seen the truth rejected, I now try to show the contradictions that are now held by Catholics. Interesting that non-Catholics are more in tune with the truth of these contradictions held by the Copernicans. Inside the Church the blind lead the blind as Christ warned.

Many years ago I saw that the Galileo affair has all but dictated the Catholic Church’s relationship in these and other areas crucial to the very credibility of the Catholic faith. I also saw that there is so much contradiction in these areas because of the victory of Galileo over the Church that I as a Catholic had to search for the truth of it all. I could not understand the contradiction between the Church teaching that a pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals, while at the same time they were denying this infallibility to Pope Paul V when he defined a contrary interpretation of the Scriptures to that of the Fathers was formal heresy, a matter that was itself very much of faith. The same apologists also take it upon themselves to reject Pope Urban VIII’s official confirmation of the immutability of Pope Paul V’s decree of heresy.

So here we have the position of the Church as laid down by Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII and later Alexander VII being denied by people with no authority to speak for the Church. Not once could any back up their opinions with official Church directions on the matter, only opinions of this guy or that guy. They would openly ignore the records and assert the opposite. This is the rhetoric I alluded to in Granny’s posts, personal opinions repeated by other poster after poster. I get angry seeing the Church’s official position of Cardinal Bellarmine, the Holy Office and Popes Paul V, Urban VII and Alexander VII being denied by personal opinions. When I express this anger, I get into trouble on CAF.

But how do you get through to those Catholics who using personal opinions think they speak for the Church, telling the Church how to interpret the Scriptures by asserting their own personal interpretations? Telling them they are wrong, victims of false propaganda made up throughout the centuries by Catholics who lost faith in the very infallibility they think they are defending, has proven a waste of time. Tell them the truth is staring them in the face, that is, if the Church is true, and its teaching is true, and if a pope defining on a matter of faith and morals is true and infallible, then if the Church is true then nobody will ever prove Pope Paul V or Pope Urban VIII to have taught in error. But science wins every time, science, not faith in a pope defining formal heresy, is the new infallibility of the Copernicans.

History has PREVENTED THE TRUTH BEING ACCEPT WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. You see since 1741, - on a personal level of interpreting the Scriptures and events - popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians, philosophers, hidstorians and the ever faithful and obedient flock have DENIED that **INFALLIBILITY **of Pope Paul V and Urban VIII. They have all embraced the HERESY defined by their predecessors. So you see THERE IS NO GOING BACK TO THE INFALLIBILITY THAT RIGHTLY BELONGS TO POPE PAUL V AND URBAN VIII without EXPOSING THE ERROR OF THOSE IN THE POST 1741-1835 COPERNICAN ERA.

And that is why, when Albert Einstein, in 1905, reiterated and re-established the fact of relativity known to Copernicus, nobody in the Catholic Church said ‘BUT DOESN’T THAT MEAN THE DECREE OF POPE PAUL V WAS NEVER PROVEN TO BE IN ERROR?’ Now something never proven false of the subject matter of the 1616 decree, never falsified the literal interpretation of 1616, and its infallibility can still be held without fear, thus restoring the Church’s reputation of being protected from all error in matters of Faith and morals by the Holy Ghost…

But no one did, why not? Because by then all Catholics were Copernican, their exegesis and hermeneutics were Copernican, and the last thing they wanted to bring to anyone’s attention was the adoption of a heresy as orthodox into the Catholic Church.

And that is why Vatican II ridiculed the popes, St Robert Bellarmine and all the theologians of the Holy Office in 1616 and 1633, and why unauthorised and unsubstiantiated opinions can tell us these same popes and theologians did not know the difference between faith and science, and that a pope ruled on a matter of science and all that kind of insulting rhetoric. And that is why I must be portrayed as a Jonnie-one-note so that I too am not to be taken seriously.

 

[cassini]

I shall respond to this.

From 1602 until 1968, the Pope himself held the title of prefect but never exercised this office.

So there is the fly in your ointment. In the 366 years from 1602 to 1968 the pope never exercised this office. So any claim against papal infallibility fails. .

First we will deal with the idea that no pope ever ‘exercised this office, a fly in my ointment.’ In other words, no decree of the Holy Office was papal, that is sanctioned by a pope as pope. Now if no pope ever exercised this office then Cardinal Bellarmine must have had an illusion:

Galileo remained in Rome for a time after the judgement. One can only imagine the dilemma he now found himself in. Soon after he was recalled to Florence, but before he went he asked Cardinal Bellarmine for an affidavit confirming that he had not been put on trial in Rome, nor had he been made abjure any guilt, a disgrace he could not have lived down at the time. Cardinal Bellarmine of course obliged, giving Galileo the following letter on May 26, 1616:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus -that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.
In witness whereof we have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this 26th day of May 1616.
Il medesimo di sopra,
ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO.’

Here from CATHOLIC DICTIONARY 1954;

That this 1616 decree was sanctioned and confirmed by the Pope is impossible to doubt.
The view that the decree was never confirmed by the Pope is untenable in view of the fact that in any decree of one of the Sacred Congregations, confirmed and ordered to be published by the Pope, it is the Pope himself who speaks.
And finally, one more rarely addressed papal declaration of the Copernican heresy that Providence provided:

BULLARIUM ROMANUM 1664.
CDLXV.
Super observatione Indicis librorum prohibitorum noviter impressi1.
Alexander Papa VII, ad perpetuam rei memoriam.
‘Towards the end of his Pontificate, it occurred to Alexander VII that it was his duty, as guardian of the household of Israel, to compose and place before the faithful a new Index of prohibited books that should be complete up to his time, and be more conveniently arranged than former indices. Whereupon he set to work with a specially chosen number of Cardinals and in the March of 1664 there issued from the Vatican press a book entitled Index Librorum prohibitorum Alexandri VII. Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. It was prefaced by a Bull wherein the Pope describes this composition of his Index and gives reasons for putting it forth… “For this purpose,” pursues the Pontiff, “we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted…. we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience.” Turning to this Index, we find among the decrees the Pope caused to be added thereto, the following: the “Quia ad notitiam” of 1616; the “monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and catholic interpretation;” the edict signed by Bellarmine prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s *Epitome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ *the edict of August 10th, 1634, prohibiting and condemning the Dialogo di Galileo Galilei; and under the head “Libri,” we find: “Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem terræ, et immobilitatem solis, in decree 5 Martii, 1616.” These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his Bull. It is clear, there¬fore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but publicly in the face of the whole Church, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all the faithful. Nay, more - and I call particular attention to this point - the Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus;” and therefore it, and all it contained, came to the Church directly from the Pope himself, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of truth.” ‘

 

[grannymh]

In defense of the Catholic Deposit of Faith, I will begin by asking – Can any Pope personally interpret Holy Scripture? This can be seen as a trick question. On the other hand, the
answer(s) do come under the OP

It has been explained on this forum that it is wrong to interpret the bible on our own. Why is that wrong? What is the correct way to interpret the bible?

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[inkaneer]

First we will deal with the idea that no pope ever ‘exercised this office, a fly in my ointment.’ In other words, no decree of the Holy Office was papal, that is sanctioned by a pope as pope. Now if no pope ever exercised this office then Cardinal Bellarmine must have had an illusion:

Galileo remained in Rome for a time after the judgement. One can only imagine the dilemma he now found himself in. Soon after he was recalled to Florence, but before he went he asked Cardinal Bellarmine for an affidavit confirming that he had not been put on trial in Rome, nor had he been made abjure any guilt, a disgrace he could not have lived down at the time. Cardinal Bellarmine of course obliged, giving Galileo the following letter on May 26, 1616:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus -that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.
In witness whereof we have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this 26th day of May 1616.
Il medesimo di sopra,
ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO.’

Here from CATHOLIC DICTIONARY 1954;

That this 1616 decree was sanctioned and confirmed by the Pope is impossible to doubt.
The view that the decree was never confirmed by the Pope is untenable in view of the fact that in any decree of one of the Sacred Congregations, confirmed and ordered to be published by the Pope, it is the Pope himself who speaks.
And finally, one more rarely addressed papal declaration of the Copernican heresy that Providence provided:…

Okay we ask the question. Is the pope acting in his capacity of Pope or as Prefect for the Congregation of the Index. The pope, as you should know wears many hats and does not always act as Chief Shepherd so Cardinal Bellarmine’s remark means nothing. Also we ask the question Is the Pope acting as Pope to teach the entire Church or is the Pope acting as a judge in a matter involving one individual? Does it meet the criteria of an infallible statement? NO!

One more thing you are very selective of that which you quote. I googled your source, *CATHOLIC DICTIONARY1954 * and Lo and behold I found this tidbit under the Galileo affair:

"No question of papal infallibility was involved. In Galileo’s case the Church defined nothing and uttered no doctrine. It made a disciplinary prohibition to protect the faithful from the disturbing effect of a then unproved hypothesis. St. Robert Bellarmine, who was involved in the Galileo affair, wrote that if a real proof were found that the sun was fixed and did not revolve around the earth, “it would be necessary to acknowledge that the passages in Scripture which appear to contradict this fact have been misunderstood.”

Here is the link

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33691

In addition I found this tidbit:

“…In answer to those who claim that the condemnation of Galileo by the Inquisition shows that the Church was opposed to the progress of science, it must be understood that neither Paul III nor Urban VIII condemned his teachings ex cathedra, and that the Inquisition is powerless to make a dogmatic decree. The trial of 1615 condemned the spread of Copernican propaganda as anti-scriptural, while the trial of 1633 was concerned with Galileo’s breach of contract in refusing to abide by his promise made during the first trial.”

Here is the link:

saints.sqpn.com/ncd01130.htm

Galileo was an impetuous man in addition to being bull headed and antagonistic. He angered the academic intelligentia of his day. The difference between Galileo and Copernicus was that Cepernicus knew he could not prove his theory and only offered it as a theory. Galileo went further and even though he, like Copernicus, did not have the scientific proof he needed , Galileo did not let that stop him from claiming it was fact. As a result a debate was arranged for him with academics. Galileo was doing well until hit with the scripture from Job about the sun standing still. Galileo response was tragic. He declared that the scriptures must be wrong. Of course we know today that the sun only appearred to stop; it was the earth that stood still. Apparently Galileo had not thought of that and his impetuousness resulted in his tragic response.

ANyway any claim of infallibility in the whole matter is ludicrous.

 

[Doggg]

There are people who claim to be Catholic and believe what the Church teaches but but do not practice what the Church teaches. There are also people who claim to be Catholic and do not believe one or more doctrines that the Church teaches.

Is it possible that the reason for this is because not all people who consider themselves Catholics understand (correctly interpret) certain RCC teachings? It is my observation that the RCC has placed a very heavy burden on its followers. They MUST **correctly interpret **both Scripture and all of the numerous RCC traditions.

 

[fhansen]

Is it possible that the reason for this is because not all people who consider themselves Catholics understand (correctly interpret) certain RCC teachings? It is my observation that the RCC has placed a very heavy burden on its followers. They MUST **correctly interpret **both Scripture and all of the numerous RCC traditions.

Church teachings aren’t hard to find-they’re in the Catechism, of course. We either agree with them or we don’t.

The same can be said for someone reading scripture. They either agree or they don’t. And even then they are agreeing or disagreeing with someones’ interpretation-their own mixed, generally speaking, with some sort of tradition-that of their denomination or pastor, etc. And a whole host of historical (name removed by moderator)uts into what might be meant by “classical Christianity” play their part as well, from the decisions of councils through the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, C.S.Lewis, etc.

 

[cassini]

In defense of the Catholic Deposit of Faith, I will begin by asking – Can any Pope personally interpret Holy Scripture? This can be seen as a trick question. On the other hand, the
answer(s) do come under the OP

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

Now granny, that is a good question, worthy of a reply it is so good. It is my opinion that one can separate an act of a pope in a personal capacity and when he is acting as the Church. The first is not binding on the faithful, and one that could be wrong. The second interpretation, if done in his capacity as Pope teaching the truth, is binding and infallible under the ordinary magisterium.

But how do we know which way the Pope is reading the Scriptures? Well any Pope teaching does so, either by his extraordinary magisterium, or ordinary magisterium, and both mustr be defined and declared as binding on the faithful. A personal imterpretation of a Pope can be seen as that, one published in a book, at a lecture, or before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for example.

Having read the passages on the infallibility of a pope at Vatican I (1969-70) about 50 times, these are the conclusions I have come to.

 

[grannymh]

Is it possible that the reason for this is because not all people who consider themselves Catholics understand (correctly interpret) certain RCC teachings? It is my observation that the RCC has placed a very heavy burden on its followers. They MUST **correctly interpret **both Scripture and all of the numerous RCC traditions.

Pardon me. How did you observe that the Catholic Church requires that its members "MUST **correctly interpret **both Scripture and all of the numerous RCC traditions.’

Good grief.
Even the Pope in his ordinary daily living “does not have to [MUST] **correctly interpret **both Scripture and all of the numerous RCC traditions.” Popes often approach Scripture in humility.

My suggestion is to participate at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with open, attentive ears and eyes. Read the “Nicene Creed” and the “Our Father” in the missal if one is in the pew. The “Our Father” interprets Scripture for you. The “Nicene Creed” presents some of the basic Catholic teachings so you don’t have to figure these out on your own. And the structure of the Mass itself consolidates many of the Catholic traditions regarding the form of worship.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth