Private Interpretation of Scripture

[Timonator348]

Praxing I’m surprised you said

Quote: This took place by valid ordination through the laying on of hands Really? Where does it say that?

since your info says you’re Catholic. As Catholics we know there’s two kinds of formal “laying on of hands” Confirmation and Holy Orders. Probably the best Biblical examples are Acts 8:14-17:

“Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”
This is Confirmation.

2 Timothy 1:6:

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands,”

This is a Holy Orders. Paul ordained Timothy through the laying on of his hands.

May God richly bless you!

 

[praxising]

Praxing I’m surprised you said since your info says you’re Catholic.

You are out of context here and I’d like it if quoted directly so I can use that nice feature where you can follow back to the post and keep discussions from getting too messy. I try to do this, but sometimes fail, also. So I get what happened. Now, I’ll go search back and try to put my comment in context so I can answer you.

 

[praxising]

I’m not sure what Bible translation you’re using that says "through many witnesses as most translations of 2 Timothy 2:2 I’ve seen say:

“and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

This took place by valid ordination through the laying on of hands and accounts to much more than “a verbal chain letter”.
praxising;7800727:

Really? Where does it say that?

Okay, now we’re all caught up. So, this was the passage in question that you said This took place by valid ordination through the laying on of hands. What took place? Exactly? My original premise was that people spread the Gospel. They did. You seem to be asserting that all the people who spread the Gospel were priests. It doesn’t say that. Regardless of what previously took place between Paul and Timothy, in some other geographic location when they were among a group of people, what Paul is encouraging Timothy to in the passage we were discussing is spread the Gospel, tell people who can be trusted to deliver the news what he heard from Paul. It says “heard” What you heard from me. Not, what you received from me give to others.

Now let’s go back to the “confirmed.” Do you think they didn’t witness? Even if we accept the premise that Timothy was given special status intentionally by Paul, and others were not by the laying on of hands, do you think only the special status people spread the Gospel?

Are you a priest? Do you spread the gospel here? Are there women here? Do they? Should everyone stop and the forum close because we are not all priests?

Do we not read Scripture unless a priest is standing by ready to interpret for us? I’m not sure just what your point is in terms of the topic of the thread, frankly.

 

[Timonator348]

I’m not sure of the reason for your angry tone here praxing. I’m just pointing out what the Bible says clearly in black and white. As a Catholic I’m assuming you went through confirmation when you came into the Church as a child or as an adult like I did. We of course are all supposed to preach the Gospel to others but it is ensured to be the accurate Gospel through the Church magisterium. If I want to go out and preach the Gospel but I am teaching things that are untrue then what good is it?

 

[praxising]

I’m not sure of the reason for your angry tone here praxing.

I’m not sure why you would imagine some “tone,” angry or otherwise. As I don’t find your post responsive to mine, I don’t have anything to add to my original point, repeated here, and bolded:

… go back to the original statement I questioned:

“… .what I find truly interesting is that the sola Scripturists cannot find their theory in Scriptures and chose to reject Christ’s Word when He states that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Him to Guide and Teach and reveal the fullness of Truth–but this revelation and this Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not to the individuals.”

The poster claims that people are “rejecting Christ’s Word” and clearly says “when He states” - no hermeneutics necessary, Jesus is supposed to have stated something. What? “…this revelation and this Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not to the individuals…”

**
I declare that Jesus never made such a statement. **That’s the issue, not a bunch of strawmen you set up meant to obfuscate the issue…

I wrote the last sentence for someone else, but it applies to you as well. No one is rejecting Christ’s Word in which He states The Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals.

And you have no citation where He says this. If you have a response to the issue and can manage not to make personal comments about others posters, including me, I’ll be happy to read what you have to say.

 

[Timonator348]

I’m not sure why you would imagine some “tone,” angry or otherwise. As I don’t find your post responsive to mine, I don’t have anything to add to my original point, repeated here, and bolded:

I wrote the last sentence for someone else, but it applies to you as well. No one is rejecting Christ’s Word in which He states The Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals.

And you have no citation where He says this. If you have a response to the issue and can manage not to make personal comments abourt others posters, including me, I’ll be happy to read what you have to say.

My point was the Holy Spirit is gifted to everyone but in different ways. This is why I brought up confirmation and holy orders. This is the normative way by which the holy Spirit acts in the world through His Church and through individuals.
1 Corinthians 12:28-30

“And indeed, God has established a certain order in the Church: first Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, next miracle-workers, and then the grace of healing, of helping others, of governing, of different kinds of languages, and of the interpretation of words. Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all Teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have the grace of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”

We all receive the holy Spirit but have different roles to play in concordance with God’s will.

 

[praxising]

My point was the Holy Spirit is gifted to everyone but in different ways. This is why I brought up confirmation and holy orders. This is the normative way by which the holy Spirit acts in the world through His Church and through individuals.
1 Corinthians 12:28-30

“And indeed, God has established a certain order in the Church: first Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, next miracle-workers, and then the grace of healing, of helping others, of governing, of different kinds of languages, and of the interpretation of words. Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all Teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have the grace of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”

We all receive the holy Spirit but have different roles to play in concordance with God’s will.

And how are you relating this to the topic of the thread, since it doesn’t address my post.

 

[Crumpy]

To me it seems obvious to me that we need guidance in correctly interpreting Scripture [BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:30-31[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]but a Protestant friend keeps arguing with me that true Christians that belong to the universal invisible catholic church interpret Scripture correctly individually as the Spirit is working within them. He usually cites 1 Corinthians 2, 2 Corinthians 3 & Psalms 119 in support of this position as well as claiming the Bible is fully self claiming itself as inspired for the 66 books he holds as Scripture. I haven’t had much luck convincing him otherwise with historical facts about ecumenical councils or Scripture citations. Anyone have any suggestions from a similar situation?

See Letter and Spirit Vol 6 Ed. by Scott Hahn, on the subject of inerrancy (in depth discussion) and embedded instructions for interpreting the Bible.

See article 3 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 101 through 141.

 

[JRKH]

To me it seems obvious to me that we need guidance in correctly interpreting Scripture [BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:30-31[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]but a Protestant friend keeps arguing with me that true Christians that belong to the universal invisible catholic church interpret Scripture correctly individually as the Spirit is working within them. He usually cites 1 Corinthians 2, 2 Corinthians 3 & Psalms 119 in support of this position as well as claiming the Bible is fully self claiming itself as inspired for the 66 books he holds as Scripture. I haven’t had much luck convincing him otherwise with historical facts about ecumenical councils or Scripture citations. Anyone have any suggestions from a similar situation?

I am coming late and have not read through all of the responses so forgive me if this has already been discussed…

I don’t discount the idea that the private individual can, by the guidance of the Spirit (or at least A spirit) interpret the bible. They may even interpret it correctly. In fact I think that “Private interpretation” is quite important. HOWEVER, private interpretation should never be elevated to the point where it trumps the instructions of Christ or the authority that he granted to His Church(ekklesia/community). This is the Key…
Inquire of your friend how the SS and PI doctrine resolves the matter of two individuals, or two groups of individuals, who have reached very different and opposing interpretations on the same passage and on a matter touching upon salvation?

Then - meeting him where he is at, Look to Scripture.

In Mt 18:15-18 we see a case presented where one brother sins against another. The exact nature of this sin is not mentioned, but since the teaching of a false doctrine is clearly condemned by Christ, we can conclude that false teching would be included under the general heading of “Sin”.
The bottom line here is that one person wronged another, either intentionally or not…
The instruction given by Christ to resolve such conflict starts out small and personal, but then grows until it is told “to The Church”. We are then told that if the offender refuses to listen “even to The Church”, he is to be expelled (treated as a tax collector).
We can see these instructions carried out in Acts15 where the two groups at Antioch cannot agree on a matter which touches on salvation (the necessity of circumcision and mosaic law).
Note two things here…
One - That the local individuals/groups were unable to reach decision, and even the intervention of St Paul himself was unable to resolve the matter…
Two - That in going to Jerusalem (telling it to the church) the entire community did not go but rather sent represntatives of Antioch to talk with representatives of Jerusalem and indeed the universal church (Apostles and Elders). Likewise the decision reached in council did not apply simply to Antioch, but to all the church locations everywhere.

So - Private interpretation is to give way to the judgement of the Church (ekklesia) or to the Church leadership (elders etc - magisterium) in order to be in line with Scripture.
The Protestant model fails this test. They fail because they reject the ancient, Christ Granted, authority of the Church to bind and loose.
There are multiple factions within protestantism each with their own take on things and each refusing to come together and submit their personal wills to that of the universal church in council. Yet each claiming “Sola Scriptura” and legitimacy through “Spirit Guidance”.

Now - If your friend can demonstrate through NT scriptural evidence that Christ intended that his church be invisible, not authoritative, split on doctrinal matters touching salvation becuase the interpretation of the individual somehow trumps the common interpretation of “the Church”, I’d be very interested in this… for I have never had a single S/PI protestant offer such evidence.
Mostly they have simply tried to limit the Mt 18 and Acts 15 passages to strictly loca matters. Such limiting though does not stand up in the face of the many NT references, prayers and exhortations by Christ, St Paul, St Peter etc… That the Church be one in mind, praise with one voice, be at peace and in agreement…

But like I said, if he can present scriptural evidence against a visible, authoritative, universal church, and in favor of an invisible, non-authoritative, private interpretation church…I’d like to hear about it.

Peace
James

 

[Timonator348]

I’m not sure why you would imagine some “tone,” angry or otherwise. As I don’t find your post responsive to mine, I don’t have anything to add to my original point, repeated here, and bolded:

I wrote the last sentence for someone else, but it applies to you as well. No one is rejecting Christ’s Word in which He states The Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals.

And you have no citation where He says this. If you have a response to the issue and can manage not to make personal comments about others posters, including me, I’ll be happy to read what you have to say.

So if I’m understanding correctly you’re looking for a scriptural reference to Jesus actually saying “the gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church and not to individuals”. Is this correct? If so then you are correct. Jesus never said that. My point was simply we all receive the Holy Spirit but in different ways and for different purposes
See: 1 Corinthians 7:7 ~ “For I would prefer it if you were all like myself. But each person has his proper gift from God: one in this way, yet another in that way.”

 

[mackbrislawn]

In regards to use of Scripture, it might help to remember how inspired Scripture was originally delivered to God’s people. Today we all have a complete compact copy under one cover that we can hold in our laps and read all by ourselves.

But that is not the way it was in the beginning. That is not the way it was until very recently. Throughout most of history, people didn’t read Scripture themselves, but had it read to them. Few families had their own copy of Scripture, and few could read it anyway. So what did they do? They belonged to a group that did have a copy, and they met periodically to have it read to them, by a reader.

And they heard Scripture as a group, collectively, not individually. The persons in front, in back, and beside them were receiving the word at the same time, as part of the group, not privately.

Not only that, but the inspired Scriptures were delivered initially in scrolls, in pieces. A scroll is quite different from a codex, or book form with pages. With pages we can flip quickly from one page to another, in a “random access” manner; but that is not possible with a scroll. A scroll is “sequential access,” as you unroll it. To access a verse, you had to read the entire context of it, making it impossible to apply out of context. The only way to compare verses, was to do it in your head. This required an intimate knowledge of all the scrolls. And a knowledge of Scripture acquired in the context of the group. The group would have been the synagogue, and later, the Church.

This is unlike today, when anyone who is ignorant of the Scriptures can pick up a Gideon bible in the loneliness of their hotel room, and start interpreting!

Even though the codex form is very handy, it is after all a man-made tradition for Scripture to be in that form. It is not the God-given format. In the God-given format, Scripture belongs to the people of God collectively, not individually. The very physical form of Scripture caused it to be interpreted collectively as well.

 

[praxising]

So if I’m understanding correctly you’re looking for a scriptural reference to Jesus actually saying “the gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church and not to individuals”. Is this correct? If so then you are correct. Jesus never said that.

That’s all I said. I didn’t think it was a big deal, just a statement of fact. Originally there was an assertion that Protestants ignored Jesus’ words. That’s not correct, usually. They just interpret things differently. Now, occasionally I find their interpretations to be outrageous, or ludicrous or laughable. And sometimes they interpret something Paul said in a rather odd fashion and ignore something Jesus did say that would contradict that. But ITT, I was simply pointing out that the poster was not correct.

My point was simply we all receive the Holy Spirit but in different ways and for different purposes
See: 1 Corinthians 7:7 ~ “For I would prefer it if you were all like myself. But each person has his proper gift from God: one in this way, yet another in that way.”

I agree. I guess I’d rephrase to say while the gifts have different expressions, I believe Paul gives them all one purpose: to benefit all.

 

[Timonator348]

Going back to the purpose of this thread, I find it hard to discuss this issue with many non-Catholics as the reformation so injured the acknowledgment of any validity in the Catholic Church or her councils. A very large hurdle is definitely the deuterocanon. If someone has it absolutely entrained in their mind that these books are not inspired and almost any “Bible” they have access to aside from going to a Catholic bookstore or ordering online only contains 66 books how do you convince them otherwise?

 

[JRKH]

Going back to the purpose of this thread, I find it hard to discuss this issue with many non-Catholics as the reformation so injured the acknowledgment of any validity in the Catholic Church or her councils. A very large hurdle is definitely the deuterocanon. If someone has it absolutely entrained in their mind that these books are not inspired and almost any “Bible” they have access to aside from going to a Catholic bookstore or ordering online only contains 66 books how do you convince them otherwise?

How do you convince them? You don’t.
About the best we can do is to maybe get them thinking just a bit. But mostly it’s just planting a seed that might sprout later as the Holy Spirit inspires.

All one can really do is to present the Truths of the matter. Do so in a charitable manner and then leave the “convincing” up to the HS.

As to the 66 book canon, I simply challenge them to find a pre-reformation, complete bible in either the RC or the EO, with only 66 books.
Or to present any councilior decision between 350 AD (around the time that Christianity was “legalized” under Constantine) and 1500 AD approving a 66 book canon.

A charge often made by Protestants is that Catholics “added” books at Trent. In response to that I offer this webpage…Gutenberg Bible Text…Ask them to count the books, or just look for the deutero’s.
The Gutenberg Bible was printed around 1450. One hundred years BEFORE the council of Trent. The Gutenberg bible was a printed copy of an earlier “hand copied” Latin Vulgate Bible - the official Catholic Church bible.
So here is definitive proof that Trent did not ADD books. It was the protestant “reformers” who removed the books.

This historical fact, and the question that naturally follows from it, is why I could never put any faith in the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura. That follow-up question stems from these facts, claimed by certain SS Christian Reformers.

1. The Bible is the complete, innerant, authoritative Word of God.
2. The Bible may not be changed. Nothing added and nothing taken away.
3. The Bible, complete and intact, contains all that is needed for salvation.
   Based on these facts, How can I place any credence in those who declare the Bible as “all that is needed” and at the same time, change the very volume they declare must never be changed?

Now - having offered all of that, please remember that this is only planting seeds. Do not expect a “eureka” moment from the other person. It will require the action of the Holy Spirit, and their own desire for Truth, for these seeds to grow.

Peace
James

 

[Timonator348]

Very good response, thank you! I have made that point very clear that I would never be ok using a Bible as authoritative knowing 7 whole books had need removed and someone like Martin Luther had added words that change the meaning of certain passages. I think the well known Protestant scholar RC Sproul has said something to the effect of "the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. It seems to me this makes the sola scriptura argument unravel rather quickly since, regardless of what criteria I’ve seen used to determine their canon, will always be subject to some extra Biblical authority. The unfortunate fact is the reformers seemed more desperate to be anti Catholic, even accepting an Old Testament settled by Jews who rejected Christ, as opposed to the traditional Christian Canon of Scripture. It makes me very sad when I think about it…

 

[elvisman]

Okay, now we’re all caught up. So, this was the passage in question that you said This took place by valid ordination through the laying on of hands. What took place? Exactly? My original premise was that people spread the Gospel. They did. You seem to be asserting that all the people who spread the Gospel were priests. It doesn’t say that. Regardless of what previously took place between Paul and Timothy, in some other geographic location when they were among a group of people, what Paul is encouraging Timothy to in the passage we were discussing is spread the Gospel, tell people who can be trusted to deliver the news what he heard from Paul. It says “heard” What you heard from me. Not, what you received from me give to others.

Now let’s go back to the “confirmed.” Do you think they didn’t witness? Even if we accept the premise that Timothy was given special status intentionally by Paul, and others were not by the laying on of hands, do you think only the special status people spread the Gospel?

Are you a priest? Do you spread the gospel here? Are there women here? Do they? Should everyone stop and the forum close because we are not all priests?

Do we not read Scripture unless a priest is standing by ready to interpret for us? I’m not sure just what your point is in terms of the topic of the thread, frankly.

**We’re ALL called to spread the Gospel - but we’re NOT all called to interpret it. This is precisely why Paul was such a stickler for the people to do exactly what they (the leaders) taught and practiced (****2 Thess 2:15, **2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2).

**This is precisely why the Apostles were so adamant that Christians should only listen to those who were sent out by THEM - and not renegades acting on their own authority (Acts 15:24). Private interpretation of Scripture has lead to tens of thousands of different sects of Christianity - ALL claiming to have the “truth”.

Finally - Pauls speaks to the different functions we all have as Christians - and NOT all are called to interpret Scripture:

"Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

---

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds?

---

**Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? **
Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way."

 

[praxising]

Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

Well, you are interpreting here, and not correctly, IMO. If you go back and read the whole passage, Paul refers to those who speak in tongues and those who interpret what those speakers say. He is not in any way that can be justified speaking of interpreting Scripture.

You know, I wonder what it is you think I said? I said that the Holy Spirit can speak to us individually through Scripture. Or through songs or Hallmark cards, or any other way the Spirit can find to get a message across. I didn’t ever say that was supposed to be some sort of message for humanity at large.

As far as the Church, well, it’s one thing to retain the teachings of Jesus Christ through the ages, so that no one pervert His Gospel. It’s quite another thing to claim sole power of perfect interpretation for yourself by the fact that you interpret something as saying that.

The dialogue is:

Church: Our interpretation is infallible and only we can interpret!

Objector: How do you know?
**
Church:** It says so right there!

Objector: I don’t think it says that.

Church: Yes, it does and we’re the only ones who can decide what it says!

Objector: Why are you the only ones?

Church: Because it says so right there!

Objector: No, I don’t think it does.

Kinda circular, isn’t it? Now whether you or I agree with the Popes and Magesteriums and Pastors about this, doesn’t alter the fact that the church is claiming authority in a non-objective way that cannot be shown to be correct. Because others can come along and interpret differently, and just as logically or compellingly, and say that this authority is just a myth. And we can’t prove them wrong.

 

[JRKH]

Well, you are interpreting here, and not correctly, IMO. If you go back and read the whole passage, Paul refers to those who speak in tongues and those who interpret what those speakers say. He is not in any way that can be justified speaking of interpreting Scripture.

You know, I wonder what it is you think I said? I said that the Holy Spirit can speak to us individually through Scripture. Or through songs or Hallmark cards, or any other way the Spirit can find to get a message across. I didn’t ever say that was supposed to be some sort of message for humanity at large.

As far as the Church, well, it’s one thing to retain the teachings of Jesus Christ through the ages, so that no one pervert His Gospel. It’s quite another thing to claim sole power of perfect interpretation for yourself by the fact that you interpret something as saying that.

The dialogue is:

Church: Our interpretation is infallible and only we can interpret!

Objector: How do you know?
**
Church:** It says so right there!

Objector: I don’t think it says that.

Church: Yes, it does and we’re the only ones who can decide what it says!

Objector: Why are you the only ones?

Church: Because it says so right there!

Objector: No, I don’t think it does.

Kinda circular, isn’t it? Now whether you or I agree with the Popes and Magesteriums and Pastors about this, doesn’t alter the fact that the church is claiming authority in a non-objective way that cannot be shown to be correct. Because others can come along and interpret differently, and just as logically or compellingly, and say that this authority is just a myth. And we can’t prove them wrong.

Interesting conversation…
How about when we combine the authority of “Bind and Loose…Whatever” with “Listen to The Church”, which is the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”, as support for the Church’s infallible interpretation?

Now you claim that others can come along and, “interpret differently, and just as logically or compellingly…”, but frankly I have yet to see any other interpretation that is “as logical or compelling”…

Peace
James

 

[elvisman]

Well, you are interpreting here, and not correctly, IMO. If you go back and read the whole passage, Paul refers to those who speak in tongues and those who interpret what those speakers say. He is not in any way that can be justified speaking of interpreting Scripture.

You know, I wonder what it is you think I said? I said that the Holy Spirit can speak to us individually through Scripture. Or through songs or Hallmark cards, or any other way the Spirit can find to get a message across. I didn’t ever say that was supposed to be some sort of message for humanity at large.

As far as the Church, well, it’s one thing to retain the teachings of Jesus Christ through the ages, so that no one pervert His Gospel. It’s quite another thing to claim sole power of perfect interpretation for yourself by the fact that you interpret something as saying that.

The dialogue is:

Church: Our interpretation is infallible and only we can interpret!

Objector: How do you know?

Church: It says so right there!

Objector: I don’t think it says that.

Church: Yes, it does and we’re the only ones who can decide what it says!

Objector: Why are you the only ones?

Church: Because it says so right there!

Objector: No, I don’t think it does.

Kinda circular, isn’t it? Now whether you or I agree with the Popes and Magesteriums and Pastors about this, doesn’t alter the fact that the church is claiming authority in a non-objective way that cannot be shown to be correct. Because others can come along and interpret differently, and just as logically or compellingly, and say that this authority is just a myth. And we can’t prove them wrong.

He was speaking about the different functions of the members of the Body of Christ. Since you choose to rationalize what Paul said in about these different functions – I’ll give you a much more direct passage – and maybe you will see the light.

**Peter himself warned against private interpretation **2 Peter 1:20-21, where he emphatically states:
***“***Know this well: no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation, since no prophecy comes from human decision, for it was men of God, moved by the Holy Spirit, who spoke.”

**The Scriptures are a matter of ****PUBLIC ****revelation – not private. They are ammeter of edifying the BODY of CHRIST and there is no “Lone Ranger” approach that is supported by the Scriptures themselves. The ****CHURCH **is the guardian of the Holy Deposit of Faith (1 Tim. 3:15, 6:20).

The Church doesn’t claim any Authiority that wasn’t given by Christ Himself (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23).

Tell me something - why do you remain Catholic if you reject so much of what the Magesterium teaches? If EVERYBODY has been given the authority to interpret the Scriptures – why are there tens of thousands of different sects who ALL claim to have the “truth”?
**When you can answer that – then we’ll have a real discussion . . .

 

[Timonator348]

Well, you are interpreting here, and not correctly, IMO. If you go back and read the whole passage, Paul refers to those who speak in tongues and those who interpret what those speakers say. He is not in any way that can be justified speaking of interpreting Scripture.

You know, I wonder what it is you think I said? I said that the Holy Spirit can speak to us individually through Scripture. Or through songs or Hallmark cards, or any other way the Spirit can find to get a message across. I didn’t ever say that was supposed to be some sort of message for humanity at large.

As far as the Church, well, it’s one thing to retain the teachings of Jesus Christ through the ages, so that no one pervert His Gospel. It’s quite another thing to claim sole power of perfect interpretation for yourself by the fact that you interpret something as saying that.

The dialogue is:

Church: Our interpretation is infallible and only we can interpret!

Objector: How do you know?
**
Church:** It says so right there!

Objector: I don’t think it says that.

Church: Yes, it does and we’re the only ones who can decide what it says!

Objector: Why are you the only ones?

Church: Because it says so right there!

Objector: No, I don’t think it does.

Kinda circular, isn’t it? Now whether you or I agree with the Popes and Magesteriums and Pastors about this, doesn’t alter the fact that the church is claiming authority in a non-objective way that cannot be shown to be correct. Because others can come along and interpret differently, and just as logically or compellingly, and say that this authority is just a myth. And we can’t prove them wrong.

I’ve found anyone who has thinks of this as a circular argument thinks the Church claims the authority it has for itself. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Catholic teaching. This isn’t even a matter of Biblical interpretation as this authority the Church has was granted by Christ and was practiced for hundreds of years before the New Testament was complied and the Bible came into existence. The Biblical examples merely support the authority already given her by Christ when he actually lived on earth. One must prove that Christ did not found the Church and that somehow a merely human institution was strong and unified enough to grow and expand even during violent persecutions for 300 years without the divine protection of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ while simultaneously leading hundreds of thousands of people away from the “true faith”. NOT LIKELY!!! Actually many non-Catholics who have actually gone to the effort to really understand the Church teaching and Church history have found the evidence of early Christianity to be overwhelmingly Catholic. The Catholic Church is the only Church that actually goes by the whole Bible and yet is in the unique position to not have to point to the Bible for her authority. The Church’s authority comes from Jesus, not a book, and she certainly does not claim this authority for herself. As I recall it was Jesus himself who said: “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” ~ Luke 10:16