Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

[Rightlydivide]

There is plenty of info available if you are interested. The info I’ve included is a good start, but I’m not jumping through hoops for you.

You have the same attitude as pro-choice folks who say we can’t “prove” when life begins.

This is the second time you have thrown in a rather pathetic rejoinder to attempt to distract me. For those that missed, Mark made a dancing comment first. Then I said I have the same attitude as pro-choice people. I can only imagine that the people he normally converses with are easily distracted. Not I Mark.

But to the topic. No one wants you to jump through any hoops. You were confident enough and sure of yourself enough to correct my statement. You started this by doing so. You must have thought that since Mark said it…well that must be good enough. You see the problem is you made a historical statement. You claimed something about the councils. I am very aware of what information exists about the councils but you see you went beyond what is historically available and I suspect about right now you realize you did so.
You could shut this fundamentalist up right in his tracks with egg on his face if you could prove your statements…
But you cannot.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Don’t worry about Mark, some of those type documents are similar to scriptures in that it seems to be subject to interpretations and it seems some seek creative ways for interpretations to fit what they already believe.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Don’t worry about Mark, some of those type documents are similar to scriptures in that it seems to be subject to interpretations and it seems some seek creative ways for interpretations to fit what they already believe.

It is a farily common belief that the earliest councils, local synods actually, Hippo and Carthage discussed specific books that did not make the canon and so forth. That information just does not exist. There are no real minutes of these councils like we would think of minutes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is a farily common belief that the earliest councils, local synods actually, Hippo and Carthage discussed specific books that did not make the canon and so forth. That information just does not exist. There are no real minutes of these councils like we would think of minutes.

Believe me I understand, there’s history that Catholics and some Protestants agree on, as well as the secular world that recorded events, then there’s history according to the little church that follows the Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Believe me I understand, there’s history that Catholics and some Protestants agree on, as well as the secular world that recorded events, then there’s history according to the little church that follows the Bible.

Care to be specific?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Care to be specific?

What’s the use? You have preconceived notions you prefer to believe.

 

[Rightlydivide]

What’s the use? You have preconceived notions you prefer to believe.

So why did you say anything?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So why did you say anything?

That’s your interpretation. I didn’t say anything, I typed it.

I was letting Mark know it’s a waste of time, but he probably already knows that if he’s read through the entire thread. It’s easy to see preconceived notions are infallibly correct over anything a Catholic states.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The reformers took parts of the faith with them, from the Catholic Church. We are all called to live our faiths, how much a part we respond is up to each of us. I

The biggest part of ‘rejection’ I see on these forums, is Protestants rejecting Catholics, some in part and some in whole.

Yes, the initial reformers took parts of the faith [Catholic faith] with them. As time went on, subsequent reformers took less of the faith with them, realizing that those parts rested on Catholic tradition. Until finally, in the present time, the modern liberals reject even the validity of scripture itself, realizing belief in the bible rests upon Catholic tradition.

In brief, the first reformers rejected part of the faith, and now, the final reformers have rejected all of it. A logical consequence of the reformation impulse that has taken generations to come to fruition. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

How can a stop sign at an intersection be of use to you, without an infallible interpreter? Why, not only isn’t there an INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE interpreter of the sign, but the sign itself isn’t INFALLIBLE? So, your alternative to the Rule of Law would be (this I KNOW from my Catholic teachers): The driver appoints himself exclusively as the sole authority, since self declares self to be infallible and incapable of error. The driver is unaccountable for whatever he does and right because he himself so declares that he himself is, thus he himself is. WHATEVER he does at that intersection must just be accepted with docility, if the self same driver so insists for self exclusively. He needs no sign. He needs no arbitration. He is exempt from accountability cuz he insist he can’t be wrong. So he’s right, NO MATTER WHAT happens at that intersection.

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

.

How can a stop sign at an intersection be of use to you, without an infallible interpreter? Why, not only isn’t there an INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE interpreter of the sign, but the sign itself isn’t INFALLIBLE? So, your alternative to the Rule of Law would be (this I KNOW from my Catholic teachers): The driver appoints himself exclusively as the sole authority, since self declares self to be infallible and incapable of error. The driver is unaccountable for whatever he does and right because he himself so declares that he himself is, thus he himself is. WHATEVER he does at that intersection must just be accepted with docility, if the self same driver so insists for self exclusively. He needs no sign. He needs no arbitration. He is exempt from accountability cuz he insist he can’t be wrong. So he’s right, NO MATTER WHAT happens at that intersection.

.

The stop sign is not God inspired, but similar to scriptures it is useful, but not all that is complete. We have full explanations, through laws, expressing the processes of dealing with stop signs. For instance, two cars pull up to a four way stop at the same time, who goes first? It has been explained by the traffic laws. Who has explained the scriptures to each and every individual? Can all different interpretations be accepted? Good thing we don’t allow people to decide for themselves at four way stops…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The stop sign is not God inspired, but similar to scriptures it is useful, but not all that is complete. We have full explanations, through laws, expressing the processes of dealing with stop signs. For instance, two cars pull up to a four way stop at the same time, who goes first? It has been explained by the traffic laws.

Yes. It’s call the Rule of Law. It’s written, knowable to all and it applies to all - for none is exempt or unaccountable.

Now, the point of this thread is that it would be moot since - as you point out - the law her is not infallible and there is no infallible interpreter of it. The Catholic alternative to a rule and to accountability is that it alone declares itself alone to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability - and WHATEVER it does at the intersection is right cuz it’s right so it’s right - just accept it as correct “with docility.”

It’s interesting, because what you are describing is the PROTESTANT concept of Tradition - so rejected by The Catholic Church. That historic, ecumenical, consensus regarding the interpretation of Scriptures - all under Scripture (as ALL interpretation is, it’s ALWAYS under the text being interpreted and subject to it). It’s not some mysterious, phantom “corpus” of “stuff” that supposedly Jesus taught but God kept out of His Scripture to us - but somehow (no one knows how), The Catholic Church exclusively “learn it” and centuries later decided to tell people. Of course, I accept the GREAT importance of Tradition! I just don’t define it as you and don’t regard our words as above God’s words. Again, I think the stop sign (and yes, the laws related to it) are the rule/canon in this situation FOR ALL THE DRIVERS - because I affirm the Rule of Law and the accountability of drivers. THAT’S where we so passionately and fundamentally disagree - as Protestants and Catholics. The Catholic Church rejects accountability and norming by ANY rule/canon - for it rather declares itself exclusively to be the sole authority, incapable of error, and right cuz it’s right so it’s right when it says it’s right; everyone must just accept WHATEVER it does at that intersection “with docility.”

Who has explained the scriptures to each and every individual? Can all different interpretations be accepted? Good thing we don’t allow people to decide for themselves at four way stops…

What an amazingly Protestant thing for you to say!!! You seem to be embracing the authority of the a rule/canon in this situation - while trying to defend your denomination in rejecting any (for itself anyway). Rejecting self appointing self as the correct interpreter while trying to defend The Catholic Church which is the only one that does just that. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87 before you go down this very Protestant line of thinking…

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Read your Catechism # 85 and 87 before you go down this very Protestant line of thinking…
.

Let’s use another secular analogy if you want. Did the founders of this country, the USA, write a constitution and leave it for each and every citizen to interpret for themselves? No, that would have chaos. The founders of this country established a legislative body to interpret the constitution for everyone. Why do you think God would have done any less?

By saying I am saying an ‘amazing Protestant’ thing, you are not being honest in this discussion and I feel it’s only worded as such to inflame, belittle or invalidate what someone says. What I write cannot be misinterpreted, as I can explain what I meant. You use this as an apparent attempt to avoid addressing the problems of multiple interpretations. With multiple interpretations, am I to assume, you feel there is no dangers in having multiple interpretations? Where in scriptures can we take it that those differences are not important? Where in scriptures does it tell us how to know which of the multiple interpretations is correct? A

A correct interpretation is infallible, because it is true.

Mysterious corpus stuff? Let’s leave the secular analogies behind for a second and take a look at what Christ said, as recorded in scriptures. The two verses below, was ONLY spoken to the Apostles Christ appointed/ordained. Catholics view this as truth from God, as promised by Christ, to the men of the Church. Was this meant only for men, or for the Church through the offices they had been ordained too? They were mortal men who would eventually die and not be here at the consummation of the world. Christ was speaking to His Church. That’s how the Church is infallible, through the promises of Christ that the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth will teach/guide them in all things. It’s not that hard to understand, in my opinion.

**Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.**

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Misinterpret a stop sign, and you may have a second chance to correct the interpretation. Misinterpreting scriptures may not offer a second chance.

Now, it seems you might have a misconception of the Catholic view of interpreting scriptures. The Church does not offer an interpretation on every single verse written. In fact, it maybe safe to say it does not offer an interpretation on half the scriptures written. When a Catholic interprets scriptures, it should be done within the parameters of the Traditions of the Church.

**III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.**

 

[tweetymom]

Let’s use another secular analogy if you want. Did the founders of this country, the USA, write a constitution and leave it for each and every citizen to interpret for themselves? No, that would have chaos. The founders of this country established a legislative body to interpret the constitution for everyone. Why do you think God would have done any less?

By saying I am saying an ‘amazing Protestant’ thing, you are not being honest in this discussion and I feel it’s only worded as such to inflame, belittle or invalidate what someone says. What I write cannot be misinterpreted, as I can explain what I meant. You use this as an apparent attempt to avoid addressing the problems of multiple interpretations. With multiple interpretations, am I to assume, you feel there is no dangers in having multiple interpretations? Where in scriptures can we take it that those differences are not important? Where in scriptures does it tell us how to know which of the multiple interpretations is correct? A

A correct interpretation is infallible, because it is true.

Mysterious corpus stuff? Let’s leave the secular analogies behind for a second and take a look at what Christ said, as recorded in scriptures. The two verses below, was ONLY spoken to the Apostles Christ appointed/ordained. Catholics view this as truth from God, as promised by Christ, to the men of the Church. Was this meant only for men, or for the Church through the offices they had been ordained too? They were mortal men who would eventually die and not be here at the consummation of the world. Christ was speaking to His Church. That’s how the Church is infallible, through the promises of Christ that the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth will teach/guide them in all things. It’s not that hard to understand, in my opinion.

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Misinterpret a stop sign, and you may have a second chance to correct the interpretation. Misinterpreting scriptures may not offer a second chance.

Now, it seems you might have a misconception of the Catholic view of interpreting scriptures. The Church does not offer an interpretation on every single verse written. In fact, it maybe safe to say it does not offer an interpretation on half the scriptures written. When a Catholic interprets scriptures, it should be done within the parameters of the Traditions of the Church.

**III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.**

The 2 sgriptures you quoted are meant for all believers just as the entire Bible is for all not a select few. I respect that you believe this. But there are many me included that do not.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The 2 sgriptures you quoted are meant for all believers just as the entire Bible is for all not a select few. I respect that you believe this. But there are many me included that do not.

There are a lot of Protestants that believe that, of course one has to remove the context of who it was spoken too, to do that.

You continue disputing teachings of the Church, and scriptures themselves, so that you may assume an authority for yourself. But, you will not explain the problem of different interpretations, leading the body of Christ in every direction except together.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Yes. It’s call the Rule of Law. It’s written, knowable to all and it applies to all - for none is exempt or unaccountable.

Now, the point of this thread is that it would be moot since - as you point out - the law her is not infallible and there is no infallible interpreter of it. The Catholic alternative to a rule and to accountability is that it alone declares itself alone to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability - and WHATEVER it does at the intersection is right cuz it’s right so it’s right - just accept it as correct “with docility.”

It’s interesting, because what you are describing is the PROTESTANT concept of Tradition - so rejected by The Catholic Church. That historic, ecumenical, consensus regarding the interpretation of Scriptures - all under Scripture (as ALL interpretation is, it’s ALWAYS under the text being interpreted and subject to it). It’s not some mysterious, phantom “corpus” of “stuff” that supposedly Jesus taught but God kept out of His Scripture to us - but somehow (no one knows how), The Catholic Church exclusively “learn it” and centuries later decided to tell people. Of course, I accept the GREAT importance of Tradition! I just don’t define it as you and don’t regard our words as above God’s words. Again, I think the stop sign (and yes, the laws related to it) are the rule/canon in this situation FOR ALL THE DRIVERS - because I affirm the Rule of Law and the accountability of drivers. THAT’S where we so passionately and fundamentally disagree - as Protestants and Catholics. The Catholic Church rejects accountability and norming by ANY rule/canon - for it rather declares itself exclusively to be the sole authority, incapable of error, and right cuz it’s right so it’s right when it says it’s right; everyone must just accept WHATEVER it does at that intersection “with docility.”

What an amazingly Protestant thing for you to say!!! You seem to be embracing the authority of the a rule/canon in this situation - while trying to defend your denomination in rejecting any (for itself anyway). Rejecting self appointing self as the correct interpreter while trying to defend The Catholic Church which is the only one that does just that. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87 before you go down this very Protestant line of thinking…

American… The bible which the catholic church wrote by the way is the only church that has authority to interpret scripture period. The same church that christ gave authority too. It’s no wonder there are tens of thousands of different protestant denominations in the world today. The bible warns against self interpretation in 2Peter 1:20-21. Take a good long look at it! Protestants will always have a problem accepting the truth because of authority!
You can argue all want till your blue in the face. The fact of the matter is there is only one true holy catholic and apostolic church.

Matt

.

 

[tweetymom]

There are a lot of Protestants that believe that, of course one has to remove the context of who it was spoken too, to do that.

You continue disputing teachings of the Church, and scriptures themselves, so that you may assume an authority for yourself. But, you will not explain the problem of different interpretations, leading the body of Christ in every direction except together.

I do not dispute the Scriptures, just the meaning of those you copy and paste. I am not assuming anything except that all Scripture is for all believers. The context of who it was written for is all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not dispute the Scriptures, just the meaning of those you copy and paste. I am not assuming anything except that all Scripture is for all believers. The context of who it was written for is all.

Yet, again, you avoid helping me in my journey. How am I to know which interpretations are correct and which are incorrect? Please provide me with those scriptures.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Yes. It’s call the Rule of Law. It’s written, knowable to all and it applies to all - for none is exempt or unaccountable.

Now, the point of this thread is that it would be moot since - as you point out - the law her is not infallible and there is no infallible interpreter of it. The Catholic alternative to a rule and to accountability is that it alone declares itself alone to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability - and WHATEVER it does at the intersection is right cuz it’s right so it’s right - just accept it as correct “with docility.”

It’s interesting, because what you are describing is the PROTESTANT concept of Tradition - so rejected by The Catholic Church. That historic, ecumenical, consensus regarding the interpretation of Scriptures - all under Scripture (as ALL interpretation is, it’s ALWAYS under the text being interpreted and subject to it). It’s not some mysterious, phantom “corpus” of “stuff” that supposedly Jesus taught but God kept out of His Scripture to us - but somehow (no one knows how), The Catholic Church exclusively “learn it” and centuries later decided to tell people. Of course, I accept the GREAT importance of Tradition! I just don’t define it as you and don’t regard our words as above God’s words. Again, I think the stop sign (and yes, the laws related to it) are the rule/canon in this situation FOR ALL THE DRIVERS - because I affirm the Rule of Law and the accountability of drivers. THAT’S where we so passionately and fundamentally disagree - as Protestants and Catholics. The Catholic Church rejects accountability and norming by ANY rule/canon - for it rather declares itself exclusively to be the sole authority, incapable of error, and right cuz it’s right so it’s right when it says it’s right; everyone must just accept WHATEVER it does at that intersection “with docility.”

What an amazingly Protestant thing for you to say!!! You seem to be embracing the authority of the a rule/canon in this situation - while trying to defend your denomination in rejecting any (for itself anyway). Rejecting self appointing self as the correct interpreter while trying to defend The Catholic Church which is the only one that does just that. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87 before you go down this very Protestant line of thinking…

.

The bible which the catholic church wrote by the way is the only church that has authority to interpret scripture period. The same church that christ gave authority too. It’s no wonder there are tens of thousands of different protestant denominations in the world today. The bible warns against self interpretation in 2Peter 1:20-21. Take a good long look at it! Protestants will always have a problem accepting the truth because of authority!
You can argue all want till your blue in the face. The fact of the matter is there is only one true holy catholic and apostolic church

Thank you for so very well substantiating my point. Read what I posted that you quoted from me!

You - being a good Catholic - are just circumventing the whole issue here, and simply replacing the issue of correctness with a power-play, and with the insistence of The Catholic Church that it is incapble of error (in these matters), unaccountable for what it teaches, exempt from norming - and rather it alone subsituting that in the singular, exclusive, sole case of itself alone, whatever it says is just correct cuz it is so it is - just accept it with docility as God speaking.

Friend, if you have a “problem” with self appointing self as the exclusive and unaccountable interpreter, then take it to the only one that does: The Catholic Church. Read # 85 in your Catechism. Note that NO OTHER CATECHISM OF ANY OTHER says that, and bingo: you’ve found the one guilty of what you are decrying (I agree with you, btw). And you might want to get out your Bible and just look up all the verses that so much as even MENTION The Catholic Church. Maybe do a word search if you have a Bible program on your computer. Once you have the corpus of Scriptures where the words “The Catholic Church” appear, note if Jesus is saying it. And note if what follows are the words, “exclusively, particularly and perpetually is the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, and is infallible, incapable of error in doctrine and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming for whatever it alone teaches, and all rather must just accept with docility whatever The Catholic Church specifically and exclusively says.” When you find that, be sure to let me know. Meanwhile, something might begin to become very clear to you: Jesus and the Apostles never promised or authorized The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything, in any regard, at any time. It’s just the reality, as all who can read undeniably know. He nor any Apostle so much as even MENTIONED it (or infallible or unaccountable either).

Now, I invite you to read what I posted and you quoted, if you desire to discuss it.

Blessings to you.

• Josiah

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

.Friend, if you have a “problem” with self appointing self as the exclusive and unaccountable interpreter, then take it to the only one that does: The Catholic Church. Read # 85 in your Catechism. Note that NO OTHER CATECHISM OF ANY OTHER says that, and bingo: you’ve found the one guilty of what you are decrying (I agree with you, btw). And you might want to get out your Bible and just look up all the verses that so much as even MENTION The Catholic Church. Maybe do a word search if you have a Bible program on your computer. Once you have the corpus of Scriptures where the words “The Catholic Church” appear, note if Jesus is saying it. And note if what follows are the words, “exclusively, particularly and perpetually is the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, and is infallible, incapable of error in doctrine and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming for whatever it alone teaches, and all rather must just accept with docility whatever The Catholic Church specifically and exclusively says.” When you find that, be sure to let me know. Meanwhile, something might begin to become very clear to you: Jesus and the Apostles never promised or authorized The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything, in any regard, at any time. It’s just the reality, as all who can read undeniably know. He nor any Apostle so much as even MENTIONED it (or infallible or unaccountable either).

Now, I invite you to read what I posted and you quoted, if you desire to discuss it.

Blessings to you.

• Josiah

.

Still not addressing the problems of multiple interpretations and how one is to discern correct from incorrect.

I provided the scriptures to show that Christ taught us how to have confidence in His Church to know all truths. Christ’s promise is ‘infallible’ is it not? Christ’s promises are Biblical and His believers do not doubt His truth.

You continue a cat and mouse game, without scriptures, because there are no scriptures to support multiple interpretations.

Would you care to give an example of an ‘incorrect’ interpretation from the Church? Of course to say the Church is wrong, because you have the correct interpretation is assuming an ‘infalliblity’, and again the problem comes up. Show us the scriptures that grant you the authority to determine correct and incorrect.

All the other ‘blah, blah. blah’ is no more than a smoke screen for not having scriptures to endorse the man made tradtion of it’s acceptable for every individual to interpret scriptures for themselves, even if there are thousands of interpretations.

It’s really that simple, show us that anyone can depend on their own interpretation of scriptures, from the scriptures.