Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul

[surritter]

It means peace. Would you prefer me to wish evil on you? I have never come across anyone who objected to peace before. You are the first.

Pax

I know what pax means.
I meant that signing off with “peace” does not give you a right to be snotty with me.

 

[Malleus_01]

And I will be glad to respond to your snippet from Mr. Sungenis’s treatise, but would you first agree that the Church at least has the power to change the practice, if She so wishes? Or is it a faith/morals doctrine that is set in stone for all time?

Malleus: Perhaps you might want to revist the Title of the Thread. " Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul "

Apparently that title has you perplexed. But fear not - I’ll help you with it.

Regarding “women covering their heads” is the Practise - and “The Exegesis of St Paul” is how the CHURCH has interpreted that passage. This is the debate. Now if you want to debate whether or not the Church may abrogate the practise - I suggest you start a thread with that as the topic to be debated.

Pax

 

[surritter]

Sorry. I thought it was a carryover from the homosexuality thread where I challenged your claim that head coverings are currently required. It appears that you deviated from that when you started this thread.

By the way, is it possible for the Church to legitimately change the requirement?

 

[Malleus_01]

Sorry. I thought it was a carryover from the homosexuality thread where I challenged your claim that head coverings are currently required. It appears that you deviated from that when you started this thread.

By the way, is it possible for the Church to legitimately change the requirement?

Malleus: Well then - Let me refresh your memory :

Surriter makes the claim : "My goodness! You know better how to interpret the words of Scripture than the Church? Interesting. I will indeed take it up with St. Paul, who I’m certain would tell me to listen to the living, breathing authority of the Church, not your interpretation of his words. "

Malleus And that has led us to this point. You made the claim so now is the time for you to back it up. Now of course - if you want to admit you have been all wrong about this from the moment you first attempted to “correct me” or to falsely accuse me of “Self interpretation” - then of course I will accept your apology and retraction. Or - you can persist with facts of your own if that is the route you choose. Apparently you are the one that claims to “know better” what the Church teaches regarding Scriptural Exegesis of 1 Cor, Chapter 11.and I and the rest of the forum anxiously await your commentary.

Pax

 

[Malleus_01]

I know what pax means.
I meant that signing off with “peace” does not give you a right to be snotty with me.

Malleus: Funny - thus far you have accused me of self interpretatiion in error regarding what the Church has taught and now being snottty for offering “Peace” to you?

I offer peace to everyone on every one of my posts.

And in all of the years I have been posting on various forums - you are the very first person who has ever objected to it.

By all means - report me for offering you peace.

I encourage you to do so.

 

[Lormar]

I don’t find Malleus’ posts to be “snotty” at all. As a matter of fact, would that everyone here at CAF conducted themselves with the same politeness and charity, including myself.

 

[surritter]

OK – I’ll take Mal back to the other thread where I first entered the debate:

Originally Posted by Malleus 01:
Women should cover their heads and do at TLM but I digress.

To which I replied:
Mal, our Mother the Church says that women aren’t required to cover their heads.

Mal, that sent you off on a diatribe:
"We as Catholics listen to everything St Paul teaches in Scripture and Holy Mother the Church has Taught for 1900 years prior to the Modernist we all want to be protestanized hoopla. Showm me a Catholic who says women dont have to cover their heads and I will show you someone who recieves “Communion in the Hand” - who holds hands for The Our Father - who offers their neighbor the “Sign of Peace” Who sings amazing grace to a strumming guitar and who dresses down for Mass.

“And by the way - I can show you in Scripture where St Paul teaches this so if you disagree with what I wrote - Take it up with St Paul. I happen to believe him even if you dont.”

From there, I simply pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church does not currently require women to wear head coverings. This whole business about St. Paul certainly should not be totally ignored, but my continual point has been that our Mother the Church has not seen those passages in the exact way that Malleus does. I am not knowledgeable enough to elaborate on the specific reasons; I merely repeat what our Church’s current practice is. I am certain that St. Paul would tell me to listen to the successors to the Apostles, whereas a Sola Scriptura Christian would take an absolutist position on the words as he or she reads them, and ignore what the authorities in Rome actually allow regarding a particular discipline.

So which camp do you fall within, Mal?

 

[Malleus_01]

I don’t find Malleus’ posts to be “snotty” at all. As a matter of fact, would that everyone here at CAF conducted themselves with the same politeness and charity, including myself.

Thank you Lorimar. I do have my faults - But the reason I posted was so that discussion can take place. I didnt expect to be called a self interpreter or snotty and I most certainly would expect that those who level such charges should be required to substantiate them. It would seem that when the time for substantiation came - it grew oftly quiet in this thread.

Pax

 

[Malleus_01]

OK – I’ll take Mal back to the other thread where I first entered the debate:

Originally Posted by Malleus 01:
Women should cover their heads and do at TLM but I digress.

To which I replied:
Mal, our Mother the Church says that women aren’t required to cover their heads.

Mal, that sent you off on a diatribe:
"We as Catholics listen to everything St Paul teaches in Scripture and Holy Mother the Church has Taught for 1900 years prior to the Modernist we all want to be protestanized hoopla. Showm me a Catholic who says women dont have to cover their heads and I will show you someone who recieves “Communion in the Hand” - who holds hands for The Our Father - who offers their neighbor the “Sign of Peace” Who sings amazing grace to a strumming guitar and who dresses down for Mass.

“And by the way - I can show you in Scripture where St Paul teaches this so if you disagree with what I wrote - Take it up with St Paul. I happen to believe him even if you dont.”

From there, I simply pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church does not currently require women to wear head coverings. This whole business about St. Paul certainly should not be totally ignored, but my continual point has been that our Mother the Church has not seen those passages in the exact way that Malleus does. I am not knowledgeable enough to elaborate on the specific reasons; I merely repeat what our Church’s current practice is. I am certain that St. Paul would tell me to listen to the successors to the Apostles, whereas a Sola Scriptura Christian would take an absolutist position on the words as he or she reads them, and ignore what the authorities in Rome actually allow regarding a particular discipline.

So which camp do you fall within, Mal?

That of St Paul , Hermas , St Clement of Alexandria - St Jerome St Augustine and Tertullian - CANON LAW of 1917 - 1977 years of Catholic Art and 1977 years of Actual Practise in Tradition which in keeping with this exegesis continues to this day as stated initially. So then you go on to say " I am not knowledgeable enough to elaborate on the specific reasons; I merely repeat what our Church’s current practice is. " Which in laymans terms means - I dont know what the Church teaches - i merely follow like a lemming what everyone else does when I go to the Church. Well my friend - if that be the case - then I think you have no business trying to admonish me or to tell me what the Church teaches regarding 1 Cor Chapter 11. thats why we have debates like this isnt it. I accept your apology. And BTW - I alrteady knew you couldnt debate the issue - because your position is untenable.

So let me offer you a very vociferous and decidedly unsnotty - Pax

 

[Rachel_1]

Hello,
Part of me thinks I should just walk away from this thread. It seems to be nothing more than a negative type thread with an active debate going on.
Part of me wants to add my two cents… which is what I’m doing. Please do not attack me for butting my nose into your debate. If you don’t like what I have to say, please feel free to ignore it and move onto the next post (this is my proactive disclaimer lol)
Ok, first off, I’m a newbie… in RCIA so take what I say with a grain of salt because I could very well be wrong.
First point- Newbie’s coming to this thread because they happen to be curious about head covering get a very bad feeling about Catholicism (at least I did). Not so much Catholicism as a whole, but more like how two Catholics can go at it like this with each other over a teaching and argue back and forth, one of which did seem to have a snotty type attitude (or it appeared that way in the post). Perhaps you two should take your debate private so that you don’t give the wrong impression to newbies?
Second point- Regarding the teaching of head covering. If you are Catholic, you should be subject to the teachings of the Magisterium. For instance, if the current teaching is to cover your head, do so… If the current teaching is that it’s not required but that you can if you wish, do so if you wish, otherwise, don’t judge others if they don’t do so. It seems pretty simple to me, a newbie, why isn’t it to those debating?
Third point- myself, being a newbie, I’m kind of drawn to head covering myself, but don’t do it full time. If someone else doesn’t cover their head, who am I to say they are wrong, right or otherwise? Because I’m drawn to head covering I went hunting for threads on the subject hoping to find some good advice etc, instead I find arguing and debating… kind of puts a damper on the day ya know?
All that being said, why argue, why debate when the current teachings are pretty clear? Everyone give each other a hug and lets be happy.

 

[surritter]

Oh brother. Mal – I’ve tried to pose the question point blank, and you refuse. Allow me one more attempt:

Does the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy currently require women to cover their heads when assisting at Holy Mass? Yes or no?

From there we can discuss whether it’s required from Scripture, but that is not the reason this debate got started.

 

[Malleus_01]

Hello,
Part of me thinks I should just walk away from this thread. It seems to be nothing more than a negative type thread with an active debate going on.
Part of me wants to add my two cents… which is what I’m doing. Please do not attack me for butting my nose into your debate. If you don’t like what I have to say, please feel free to ignore it and move onto the next post (this is my proactive disclaimer lol)
Ok, first off, I’m a newbie… in RCIA so take what I say with a grain of salt because I could very well be wrong.
First point- Newbie’s coming to this thread because they happen to be curious about head covering get a very bad feeling about Catholicism (at least I did). Not so much Catholicism as a whole, but more like how two Catholics can go at it like this with each other over a teaching and argue back and forth, one of which did seem to have a snotty type attitude (or it appeared that way in the post). Perhaps you two should take your debate private so that you don’t give the wrong impression to newbies?
Second point- Regarding the teaching of head covering. If you are Catholic, you should be subject to the teachings of the Magisterium. For instance, if the current teaching is to cover your head, do so… If the current teaching is that it’s not required but that you can if you wish, do so if you wish, otherwise, don’t judge others if they don’t do so. It seems pretty simple to me, a newbie, why isn’t it to those debating?
Third point- myself, being a newbie, I’m kind of drawn to head covering myself, but don’t do it full time. If someone else doesn’t cover their head, who am I to say they are wrong, right or otherwise? Because I’m drawn to head covering I went hunting for threads on the subject hoping to find some good advice etc, instead I find arguing and debating… kind of puts a damper on the day ya know?
All that being said, why argue, why debate when the current teachings are pretty clear? Everyone give each other a hug and lets be happy.

Malleus: Once again - all opinions are welcome. Now , to the issue - the Debate is the Proper Exegesis of 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 , Not what is allowed in the Modern Church and not in the Traditional Church. So if you want to enter the fray and give us why the modernist Church is interpreting differently from the Early Church Fathers who have interpreted what St Paul was saying in Scripture regarding Women covereing their heads - then by all means bring your apologetic argument forward. But if the extent of your argument is simply ( We do it because everyone else does) Then you have missed the point entirely. This is meant to be a theological debate from the outset.Not a Modernist Church bash session. Hense the reason the question was framed in the manner it was framed. Note the title : "Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul "

Surriter made the claim that I self interpreted the passage. I expected an apologetic rebutttle. But all I am getting is - “We do it because everyone else says to”

Apologetics please , not opinion.

Pax

 

[Malleus_01]

Oh brother. Mal – I’ve tried to pose the question point blank, and you refuse. Allow me one more attempt:

Does the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy currently require women to cover their heads when assisting at Holy Mass? Yes or no?

From there we can discuss whether it’s required from Scripture, but that is not the reason this debate got started.

Malleus: And once again - you have attempted to offer a Strawman Argument in place of the Topic being debated.

“Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul”

You are claiming that the Modernist Church allows Women to no longer cover their head - and despite what Dr Sungenis said regarding the fact that the Church has NOT Abrogated the Practise - you have gone on to claim that the Church has abrogated the Practise and that St Paul and the Early Fathers are incorrect. So once again - Prove your argument. I have submitted my Proofs - where are yours? Women dont cover their heads in your Church - they do in mine. I have submitted why they do in mine. But all you have submitted is the fact that they DO NOT in yours but you have not said WHY it is that they do not. On that point - we wait. Still. Patiently.

Pax ( as in an unsnotty a fashion as can be offered)

 

[Malleus_01]

Hello,
Part of me thinks I should just walk away from this thread. It seems to be nothing more than a negative type thread with an active debate going on.
Part of me wants to add my two cents… which is what I’m doing. Please do not attack me for butting my nose into your debate. If you don’t like what I have to say, please feel free to ignore it and move onto the next post (this is my proactive disclaimer lol)
Ok, first off, I’m a newbie… in RCIA so take what I say with a grain of salt because I could very well be wrong.
First point- Newbie’s coming to this thread because they happen to be curious about head covering get a very bad feeling about Catholicism (at least I did). Not so much Catholicism as a whole, but more like how two Catholics can go at it like this with each other over a teaching and argue back and forth, one of which did seem to have a snotty type attitude (or it appeared that way in the post). Perhaps you two should take your debate private so that you don’t give the wrong impression to newbies?
Second point- Regarding the teaching of head covering. If you are Catholic, you should be subject to the teachings of the Magisterium. For instance, if the current teaching is to cover your head, do so… If the current teaching is that it’s not required but that you can if you wish, do so if you wish, otherwise, don’t judge others if they don’t do so. It seems pretty simple to me, a newbie, why isn’t it to those debating?
Third point- myself, being a newbie, I’m kind of drawn to head covering myself, but don’t do it full time. If someone else doesn’t cover their head, who am I to say they are wrong, right or otherwise? Because I’m drawn to head covering I went hunting for threads on the subject hoping to find some good advice etc, instead I find arguing and debating… kind of puts a damper on the day ya know?
All that being said, why argue, why debate when the current teachings are pretty clear? Everyone give each other a hug and lets be happy.

Malleus: I’ll add one more comment. You do realize you are posting on the Traditional thread? This Practise is the “norm” in Tradition - not the exception. I could understand your sentiment If I sought you out on one of the Modernist Church threads , But my posts are confined to here. So essentially , you have come here to tell us how to worship , not the reverse. Being a newbie , perhaps you were unaware.

But dont worry , we are Catholic and we dont hold it against you.



Pax

 

[surritter]

Malleus: And once again - you have attempted to offer a Strawman Argument in place of the Topic being debated.

“Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul”

You are claiming that the Modernist Church allows Women to no longer cover their head - and despite what Dr Sungenis said regarding the fact that the Church has NOT Abrogated the Practise - you have gone on to claim that the Church has abrogated the Practise and that St Paul and the Early Fathers are incorrect. So once again - Prove your argument. I have submitted my Proofs - where are yours? Women dont cover their heads in your Church - they do in mine. I have submitted why they do in mine. But all you have submitted is the fact that they DO NOT in yours but you have not said WHY it is that they do not. On that point - we wait. Still. Patiently.

Pax ( as in an unsnotty a fashion as can be offered)

Thank you – I think there is an answer in here somewhere. You claim that the Church has not abrogated the practice, correct? (However, you claim that the Modernists in charge of our Church look the other way, if I may put words in your mouth.)

I don’t see why I’m being accused of creating a strawman. I asked if the Church requires women to cover their heads, which after all was the initial debate between us, correct? Your answer has finally come through as affirmative: head coverings are required.

With that, I now concur that St. Paul’s words are being followed and the “immemorial tradition” has been preserved. So all is happy again. (We could now discuss why the Church doesn’t enforce the rule. I suppose that can be chalked up to your contention that “modernists” have infiltrated the See of Peter.)

But Mal, do you see why I kept asking the question? If it is established that the Church DOES still require coverings, then I have no qualms about the rest of the debate. My point was that the Church DOESN’T currently require them.

My proof was in the practice of the Church and the leadership displayed by our pope and the bishops in union with him. But I can now see that any proof that I produce would simply be met with your mantra that the leaders of the Church are modernists, the pope is deluded on this point, and the true Church is being persecuted from within, and perhaps even that Vatican II was not legitimate, the gates of hell have prevailed, and on and on and on…

So I thank you for your time. If someone is able to post the official reply from the Vatican to Mr. Sungenis, then I will perhaps jump back in.

 

[Malleus_01]

Thank you – I think there is an answer in here somewhere. You claim that the Church has not abrogated the practice, correct? (However, you claim that the Modernists in charge of our Church look the other way, if I may put words in your mouth.)

Malleus: No actually I quoted Dr Robert Sungenis who made that claim. Are you saying he is wrong?

I don’t see why I’m being accused of creating a strawman. I asked if the Church requires women to cover their heads, which after all was the initial debate between us, correct?

Malleus: No thats incorrrect. You made the claim that I was self interpreting St Paul in 1 Cor Ch 11 - CORRECT or do you need me to repost it a third time?

Your answer has finally come through as affirmative: head coverings are required.

Malleus: According to St Paul , St Augustine St Jerome , Hermas , Tertullian , Canon Law 1917 ETC ETC not to mention 1900 years of Catholic Art and practise to this day in TRADITION where , you know Tradition as in the Traditional thread where my initial Post appeared and where you came to preach your way to us?

With that, I now concur that St. Paul’s words are being followed and the “immemorial tradition” has been preserved.

Malleus: In tradition , correct - because despite your defection in modernism and culture over liturgy we have no problem continuing what both he and the Early Fathers preached

So all is happy again. (We could now discuss why the Church doesn’t enforce the rule.

Malleus: Well the heresy of modernism comes to mind.

I suppose that can be chalked up to your contention that “modernists” have infiltrated the See of Peter.)

Malleus: Well , since you claim to be more Holy than the Wonder Worker St Vincent Ferrer - I guess your opinion can be chalked up to your own Personal Holiness and example of Charity as evident here these past few days.

But Mal, do you see why I kept asking the question? If it is established that the Church DOES still require coverings, then I have no qualms about the rest of the debate.

Malleus: But that wasnt the debate. And you didnt approach it from that standpoint did you. Remember - I didnt go to the modernist forums and insist that you believe as I do - you came here. Not only did you insult me personally - But you made false claims you cannot support with apologetics. The Church does in fact require head coverings where ever the TLM is offered. I said what I said on the TRADITIONAL FORUM. What part of that dont you seem to understand?

My point was that the Church DOESN’T currently require them.

Malleus: And my point is that it never has abrogated them and Dr Sungenis agrees.

Pax

My proof was in the practice of the Church and the leadership displayed by our pope and the bishops in union with him. But I can now see that any proof that I produce would simply be met with your mantra that the leaders of the Church are modernists, the pope is deluded on this point, and the true Church is being persecuted from within, and perhaps even that Vatican II was not legitimate, the gates of hell have prevailed, and on and on and on…

So I thank you for your time. If someone is able to post the official reply from the Vatican to Mr. Sungenis, then I will perhaps jump back in.

 

[Malleus_01]

My proof was in the practice of the Church and the leadership displayed by our pope and the bishops in union with him. But I can now see that any proof that I produce would simply be met with your mantra that the leaders of the Church are modernists,

Malleus: Some Bishops and Priests are worldly. Some are Heretics. Do you deny this?
How much proof do you require? Even the most hardened Conservative Catholic admits there are Heretics loose in the Church today.

the pope is deluded on this point, and the true Church is being persecuted from within, and

Malleus: No , everything is rosy like the New Current Pedophile Scandal in Germany. Priests and Bishops are supposed to act like this. Or have Women ordained. Or have Clown masses. Or homosexual outreach. Or Nuns driving women to abortion clinics. I never said anything about the Pope being “deluded” those were your words not mine. But obviously times are not NORMAL and you would have to be blind not to see these things.

perhaps even that Vatican II was not legitimate, the gates of hell have prevailed, and on and on and on…

Malleus: Some believe Vatican II was pastoral. And the GATES of Hell will never prevail. thats Scriptural. All Heresies come to an end. Even this one.

So I thank you for your time. If someone is able to post the official reply from the Vatican to Mr. Sungenis, then I will perhaps jump back in.

Malleus. So still no Scriptural Exegesis. Just more of the same untenable rhetoric.

 

[ncjohn]

My regard for Dr. Sungenis notwithstanding, his contention that this somehow survives through some “liturgical law” gambit, when it is clear and absolute that ALL of the 1917 Code was abrogated unless specifically brought back in, just doesn’t hold up.

Even before the 1983 Code was brought in the Church had expressed its official views on this topic through the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it wrote Inter Insigniores in 1976, making a clear point that it is “scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance…” that no longer has normative value…

In Section 4 of the document, which primarily deals with the question of ordaining women, it states:
Inter Insigniores:

Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

I don’t see anyone here claiming the Church has abrogated the immemorial custom of headcovering. It cannot do so. But again the confusion seems to be in the force of law that immemorial customs give. They do NOT impose a requirement but only prohibit abrogation of the right to continue with the action, similar to the “kneeling for communion” example I provided earlier.

You are right that the custom survives almost completely intact within the TLM community and has much to be said for it. It is not a requirement though according the Church, however much importance individual earlier Church fathers might have attributed to it in their non-infallible preachings.

Peace,

 

[surritter]

You are right that the custom survives almost completely intact within the TLM community and has much to be said for it. [sign]It is not a requirement though according to the Church[/sign] however much importance individual earlier Church fathers might have attributed to it in their non-infallible preachings.

Peace,

Mal, I’d be interested in your response to john, seeing that you were quite adamant that my posts making the very same point were not persuasive.

 

[Malleus_01]

My regard for Dr. Sungenis notwithstanding, his contention that this somehow survives through some “liturgical law” gambit, when it is clear and absolute that ALL of the 1917 Code was abrogated unless specifically brought back in, just doesn’t hold up.

Malleus: No one said Canon Law 1917 wasnt abrogated. thats an assumption.
In regards to if the Practise of Women covering their heads being abrogated - it was OMITTED as was the Automatic Excommunication for being a Freemason. But you are still automaticcally excommunicated if you are a Freemason. It merely no LONGER APPEARS in Canon Law. You cannot assume abrogation thrrough omission You seem to have forgotten that in order to be abrogated - specific language has to SAY SO. That isnt the case in regard to Women covering their heads.

<<<Even before the 1983 Code was brought in the Church had expressed its official views on this topic through the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it wrote Inter Insigniores in 1976, making a clear point that it is “scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance…” that no longer has normative value…>>>>

Malleus: But the debate remains the Scriptural Exegesis of St Paul - 1 Corinthians Chapter 11. Either Scripture is the WORD of GOD or it isnt. So is then your point that GOD spoke through Prophets and Saints and the Holy Ghost guided them in the formulation of Scripture and in deciding what was and was not the Word of GOD and the proper interprretation of same. Therefore - you must then if you take the position you take - explain how Either the Saints I cited were incorrrect - or the Holy Ghost Himself Incorrect - or cite a new Scriptural Exegesis where the Passage is explained. You have done none of the above. As much as you would like to introduce your own argument and then argue from that Strawman platform - you have failed to ADDRESS the subject matter. Once again - Revisit the Title : " Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul "

In Section 4 of the document, which primarily deals with the question of ordaining women, it states:

I don’t see anyone here claiming the Church has abrogated the immemorial custom of headcovering. It cannot do so. But again the confusion seems to be in the force of law that immemorial customs give. They do NOT impose a requirement but only prohibit abrogation of the right to continue with the action, similar to the “kneeling for communion” example I provided earlier.

Malleus: No - this is not the debate at all. You have come into the Thread and decided that the thread that I began has to address your own Strawman argument. I began this thrread , you didnt. If you want to argue that Point then might I suggest you start your own thread. This thread was supposed to be a debate on the Scriptural Exegesis of 1 Cor Chapter 11. In your post I see not a shred of apologetics. All I see is a poor attempt to elicit a modernist justification for departing an Ancient Traditional Catholic Practise which was never the intention from the outset.

You are right that the custom survives almost completely intact within the TLM community and has much to be said for it. It is not a requirement though according the Church, however much importance individual earlier Church fathers might have attributed to it in their non-infallible preachings.

Peace,

Malleus: Scripture is the Word of GOD and thus is infallible. Now if you want to argue that the Interpretation of these Early Church fathers is non Infallible - then perhaps you can direct us to the Theologians you think are (GEE WASNT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD TO BEGIN WITH?) And BTW - that statement is likewise incorrect. St Jerome compliled the Latin Vulgate and the Council of Trent defined it infallibly as free from Doctrinal Error. Therefore , as stated earrlier - i have yet to see your proofs for proper Exegesis. You appear to be saying that the Church Fathers including St Jerome and St Augustine were wrong and you are right. Sorry , But we believe St Paul St Jerome and St Augustine. they are closer to infallibility than you are.

Pax