Unanswered problem #1 (Scripture interpretation)

[DianaCC]

I think that none of you guys and gals tried to imagine yourselves as apologists…

Try this instead:

• Robert Sungenis, *Catholic Apologetics Study Bible *(Queenship 2004), amazon.com/Catholic-Apologetics-Study-Bible-Matthew/dp/1579182364

Only Genesis 1-11, Matthew, Romans, 1 Corinthians, James, Revelation so far. Never seen it, can’t vouch for it. Or try:

• Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (Ignatius 2009), amazon.com/Handbook-Catholic-Apologetics-Reasoned-Questions/dp/1586172794

It covers atheism too.

 

[david_friol_1]

Try this instead:

• Robert Sungenis, *Catholic Apologetics Study Bible *(Queenship 2004), amazon.com/Catholic-Apologetics-Study-Bible-Matthew/dp/1579182364

Only Genesis 1-11, Matthew, Romans, 1 Corinthians, James, Revelation so far. Never seen it, can’t vouch for it. Or try:

• Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (Ignatius 2009), amazon.com/Handbook-Catholic-Apologetics-Reasoned-Questions/dp/1586172794

It covers atheism too.

I have read both of these, they are excellent, but they do not answer Spocks question of: Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

 

[DianaCC]

I have MANY questions…

Bring it on.

 

[DianaCC]

Thomas Aquinas is a great saint and his works are very good I’m sure but he is not the Catholic Church. So i don’t know where you get the idea that if a person who is Catholic writes something that that make it official Church teaching even if it is in line with the Catholic view.

I got it from actually reading those two works.

 

[david_friol_1]

I think we are still not on the same “page” so to speak. I do not wish to tell you what your “job” is supposed to be, that would be presumptuous on my part. And I have no “special” inclination in the matter.

We can have a nice conversation, without any stake in the matter. But that is not apologetics, is it? As stated in Wiki: “Apologetics (from Greek απολογία, “speaking in defense”) is the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason”. I am always interested in a rational or reasonable discourse.

But isn’t it your “job” to go and spread the “good news” as convincingly as possible? I understand that you are not a missionary, to go and convert the “heathens”, but in this case the “heathen” comes to you and asks for your best “sales pitch”. If you do not wish to do it, I would not want to force you to do it against your better judgment, of course.

I think it is enough that I am staying open to the possibility.

I am proactive by coming to you and asking. I am not willing to accept anything without investigating what is being “sold”. Let me refer you back to the meaning of apologetics: “defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason”. The buzzword is “reason” here, which is not supposed to be confused with “faith”.

Just a short addendum: I have MANY questions, the one concerning the Bible is just one of them. I started this thread to give you guys the opportunity to show that your “apologetics” skills are not as “mene, tekel, ufarsin” - as I found so far…

A biblical definition of apologetics may be found in 1 peter 3:15-16 “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.”
Now the question you asked was: “Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?”

• The Bible was given to us by/through the Church and it is considered a great gift to the Church-the people of God (It is not a Rubic"s Cube that we play with to figure out but something the Church lives out)

-It is not simply a book that needs to be understood word for word and verse for verse but it is lived out in the life of the Church, especially through the Sacraments and through the life of the individual.(Spock have you ever approached the reading of scripture with the mindset that you are approaching God who loves you with a love that can not be described and that everyone who approaches must approach with humility- you said in one of the posts that you feel that you are open to the possibility- can you do that? can you try to be humble before God even if just to say “help me to see”?

• Its meaning is multi-layered and giving a concrete verse by verse and word for word official interpretation of it would actually reduce it to something ordinary. (Spock, I ask with all sincerity, are you really open to the possibility or is there something that is blocking, not something outside of you but something inside you that tears you up inside.
  I hope only the best for you Spock and although I am probably not very convincing I do hope to make up for my faults with real love for you and concern for your questions
  God bless you and your family

 

[Abba]

I just want to jump in here.

Spock God bless you!!! I only have respect for your persistence! One of these days you are going to burst through that door you are kicking and banging on!

inlinethumb58.webshots.com/45945/1323291115015378899S425x425Q85.jpg

peace,

Abba

 

[david_friol_1]

I got it from actually reading those two works.

Yes, I imagine you did but while your “ideas” and Saint Thomas Aquinas’s writings may be just dandy they still do not speak from the office of the Church, which was what his question was referring to. So do not get me wrong thinking that I am knocking down your glorious “ideas” or Mr. Aquinas’. I am simply trying to point out that they are not official church teachings on the verse by verse interpretation that Mr. Spock was looking for.
Peace to you Diana!

 

[Windfish]

The first response nails it. The Catholic Church is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture. But there is no logical inference from this truth to the proposition that there must be an annotated Bible which goes through each chapter and verse.

 

[Ignatius]

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible.

Dear brother Spoc, That is a false statement. You keep making false statements like this.

It is embarassing to see you display your ignorance in public like this.

Please get a Catechism (you can find a used one for as little as $3 on Amazon.com). You can use that to eleminate these completely false misconceptions you have.

Thank you.

 

[fhansen]

I am going to start with a simple question. (There will be more later on. )

We all know that interpreting the Bible is not obvious. There are passages which are supposed to be taken as literal descriptions of events, and there are other passeges which are understood in an allegorical fashion.

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

In many conversations I saw that an atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…” or something along these lines. Of course these believers cannot give a “proper” interpretation, since there is none. It would be the Church’s duty to officially interpret the Bible.

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

The Church may be the only entity authorized to interpret scripture but her purpose is not to interpret Scripture-her purpose is to proclaim the gospel. Since she wrote scripture (the NT), scripture is understood in light of her understanding of the gospel which preceded the recording of it, rather than the other way around.

 

[danserr]

Remember, you are the ones who try to spread the “word”. At the very least the interpretation should be clearer than the original. Of course, if the Bible would have really come from God, it would need not interpretation, it would be crystal clear, and unambiguous.

Oh come one, Spock, “if the Bible really came from God it would require no interp?” Why should I think that? maybe if I were a fundamentalist, I can see that being a devastating thing to say, but we’re not fundamentalists. We accept that the Bible was inspired and written by individual writers in different times and historical contexts that, taken as a whole, shows a remarkable unity

You seem to be supposing a fundamentalist’s false dichotomy, “either it came from God or man.” But why can’t it be both? Inspiration need not imply inerrancy in every respect. A human author set to write an individual book or part of it, still a part of his historical-social context. God inspired him and allowed him to write a book suitable for his period expressing something of value or some appropriate idea, which when understood in context and all together remains valuable for believers today.

You do not look at the Bible with a predominantly critical eye. Maybe some parts are not as important for you as others. Let’s just look at danserr’s example of Jonas. For an atheist it is just a crazy story, without any significance. But some parts are not insignificant. For example, the whole concept of “original sin” and its alleged consequences. Was there really a talking snake in the Garden? Was there a Garden? Or is that all just a fairy tale? And if it is, what was behind the story? Not so insignificant, is it?

I rather suspect that Christians tend to look at the Bible more critically than the skeptic who simply wants to pick out a troubling passage to wave in the Christian face, in a game of gotcha. Being critical doesn’t mean only criticizing, it means making a rigorous effort to understand the passage in social, historical, and theological context.

As to your examples, since you ask me to look at them from an apologists view, I would say that, on the contrary, though significant and important, they are not so from an apologist view. Why? None of them are reasons to reject Christianity! If the doctrine of original sin bothers you, very well, reject it and become a Christian. The Eastern orthodox Churches do not believe in it. Why does it matter if there was a snake or not? If taking that literally bothers you, fine, take it allegorically and become a Christian. The central point (which the Church does rule on) is man’s disobedience to a morally perfect God and man’s sin and therefore guilt before God. All sin, all are guilty. This is the central point. So I would insist that even if your examples, it is perfectly understandable why the Church does not rule on them. And even then there is room for disagreement among Christians.

A previous poster quoted Augustine “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things charity.”

This reminds me of Thomas Aquinas, who was once asked if he really thought that there was a book of life in heaven with our names written in it. He thought about it and answered, “I see no reason for thinking that there is, but there is no harm in thinking so.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am going to start with a simple question. (There will be more later on. )

We all know that interpreting the Bible is not obvious. There are passages which are supposed to be taken as literal descriptions of events, and there are other passeges which are understood in an allegorical fashion.

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

In many conversations I saw that an atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…” or something along these lines. Of course these believers cannot give a “proper” interpretation, since there is none. It would be the Church’s duty to officially interpret the Bible.

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

The following article by Catholic Answers staffer, Jimmy Akin, answers your question in full. I quote only the opening lines to give you a flavor.

**The Limits of Scripture Interpretation **
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

At Catholic Answers, we get questions all the time like, “What is the Catholic position on this Scripture passage?” Many people seem to have the idea that the Catholic Church has an official interpretation of every passage of Scripture. It isn’t true.

The Church has no official commentary on Scripture. The pope could write one if he wanted, but he hasn’t. And with good reason: Scripture study is an ongoing, developing field. To create an official commentary on Scripture would impede the development of this field. [emphasis added]

It’s one thing to create an official textbook for a field that has been fairly well worked out. That’s the case with catechetics, which is why the Church can produce a text like The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

+++

I hope you’ll follow the link to read the article in full.

 

[Spock]

The following article by Catholic Answers staffer, Jimmy Akin, answers your question in full. I quote only the opening lines to give you a flavor.

**The Limits of Scripture Interpretation **
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

At Catholic Answers, we get questions all the time like, “What is the Catholic position on this Scripture passage?” Many people seem to have the idea that the Catholic Church has an official interpretation of every passage of Scripture. It isn’t true.

The Church has no official commentary on Scripture. The pope could write one if he wanted, but he hasn’t. And with good reason: Scripture study is an ongoing, developing field. To create an official commentary on Scripture would impede the development of this field. [emphasis added]

It’s one thing to create an official textbook for a field that has been fairly well worked out. That’s the case with catechetics, which is why the Church can produce a text like The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

+++

I hope you’ll follow the link to read the article in full.

Thank you. I went and read it.

Still, I have a few remarks and questions. I will accept the ongoing research, albeit with a grain of salt (2000 years passed by and the “research” is still not concluded?). Nevertheless, even in this case there could be an ongoing edition with a large disclaimer, along these lines: “As of this moment, the inerrant, but not necessarily final Catholic position concerning the literacy of the Bible is: …”. And then it could be followed by the list of verses which are to interpreted literally.

A few examples: is the story pertaining to the original sin a literal description of the events? Was there a Garden of Eden? In the article it said that Romans 5:12 affirms the veracity of the story in Genesis. So is it an official stance of the Catholic Church that there was a “talking snake” there?

Also the article affirms that the Cathecism is the text to go by. Well, I looked at the Cathecism, and was unimpressed. It says that God’s existence can be known without resorting to faith, by referring to fully rational arguments. Then I went to a list of dogmas (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm) and found:

1. God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)
2. The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

Two nice, and empty assertions. Can be known “how”? The meat of the argument is missing. Do they refer to Aquinas’ debunked “proofs” of God? Or something else entirely? There are no details in the Cathecism either. Why not?

And another question: Where can we find an official list of the dogmas? I found a few lists on-line, but are they “official”? I wonder, are the dogmas also part of an “ongoing research”? That would be really strange.

 

[jmcrae]

Also the article affirms that the Cathecism is the text to go by. Well, I looked at the Cathecism, and was unimpressed.

Psst, it’s spelled “Catechism.” (Although if what you were reading was actually titled “Cathecism” then it’s no wonder you were confused.

It says that God’s existence can be known without resorting to faith, by referring to fully rational arguments. Then I went to a list of dogmas (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm) and found:

1. God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)
2. The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

True.

Two nice, and empty assertions. Can be known “how”?

By not taking everything you see completely for granted. For example, you know for a fact that you didn’t create yourself - you’d have remembered doing that. So, you might conclude that you were created by your parents - so you talk to them, and they don’t really remember the exact date of your conception, or even that they had intended for you to come along (although obviously they are glad you did, anyway.) So, you realize that although your parents participated in your creation, they were not the main actors. Who, then, was the main actor?

Most people who think through these questions realize, in the end, that there is an uncreated Creator who is acting according to definite rules and a definite plan - this uncreated Creator is called “God.”

 

[danserr]

Also the article affirms that the Cathecism is the text to go by. Well, I looked at the Cathecism, and was unimpressed. It says that God’s existence can be known without resorting to faith, by referring to fully rational arguments. Then I went to a list of dogmas (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm) and found:

1. God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)
2. The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

I went to your link and then to this one below which seems more reliable to me, theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-I-Trinity

#3 on your list is not there, so I don’t know about it one way or another. #2 affirms that God can be known through reason, and possibly more specifically, through creation, which strikes me as unproblematic.

You asked this in another thread I think, “if there is such an argument, why is it not in the catechism or a matter of dogma?” You misunderstand the purpose of dogma and the catechism. The Catechism contains the teachings of the faith, while dogma is “a truth revealed by God, declared binding by the Magisterium.” (note that not all teachings are dogma).

I will give another example. The catechism speaks of the need for social justice and feeding the hungry. It does not give lessons in cookery. It is not a cookbook. That is not its job. It gives the moral principle, but leaves the application to us. There are different ways to feed the hungry. It would hardly be reasonable of you to respond “it tells us to feed the hungry, but doesn’t tell me how to cook or who to give money too, how absurd!” By stating our obligation to social justice it is concerned to protect a specific principle of Church teaching against people who would deny the need to feed the hungry.

Similarly with the dogma that God can be known through reason. This is concerned to protect the Church teaching that man can know God, perhaps especially against some sort of fideist position, or Barth-like view that God is unknowable (I think that is Barth). The individual argument/reason, however, is like giving lessons in cookery, it is not part of the principle, which it is the job of the catechism to define and to give; rather it is part of the application. Which is to us to do.

Furthermore, the church gives no specific argument because it is not incumbent on any individual Christian to accept any specific argument. There is room for much freedom of thought on the matter, but the Christian may not do, is reject the principle that God may be known through natural reason. The catechism says what Christians should think. They should think God can be known through reason, they are not necessarily obligated to accept any particularly argument, and rightly so. Christians are obligated to feed the poor, they are not all obligated to work 3 hours a week on a soup kitchen making bread and pasta.

A few examples: is the story pertaining to the original sin a literal description of the events? Was there a Garden of Eden? In the article it said that Romans 5:12 affirms the veracity of the story in Genesis. So is it an official stance of the Catholic Church that there was a “talking snake” there?

I responded to this in previous post 31. Please consider it.
This is a place where there is room for some freedom of thought. Doctrine or dogma is not imperiled by taking the snake literally or allegorically, so do what you are most comfortable with. Both are legitimate options.

 

[Spock]

Psst, it’s spelled “Catechism.”

Thanks. I should have used a spell checker. My mistake.

Most people who think through these questions realize, in the end, that there is an uncreated Creator who is acting according to definite rules and a definite plan - this uncreated Creator is called “God.”

Most people do not count. The argument is fallacious, and have been proven to be fallacious for a very long time. If that is the best the CC can do…

 

[PJM]

=Spock;7666980][FONT="Verdana

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

**Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically?

FONT]

WOW! GREAT Question…

Here’s the answer; but I’m not sure you’ll be satisfied with it?

Christ founded Only Once Church; One Faith on One New Covenant [which by the way voided all previous Covenants]. The NT has over 100 references to ONLY One Church. Of of which are ignored by the THOUSANDS of man-made competing Christian faiths. Without a resaon explaining why or how this is possible?

The reasons for this are simple and quite logical. IF as God intends there is only ONE place to discover ALL OF THE TRUTHS on Both the Broad Issues of Faith and of Morals; the likehood of misunderstanding is extremely limited. AND IN THIS INSTANCE there is in an absolute sense no-zip-zero- chances for error. WHY?

The specific answer to your OPQ lies in these passages: **2 Peter 2: 1-6 “1 **But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled."

**2 Pet.1: 20 **"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, "

Rom.10: 17 “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ”

And this is why the CC for more than a thousand years prohibited the laity to read and self-interpet the bible.

**2 Cor. 4: 2 **“We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.

**Matt. 16:19 **Jesus GIVES ALL OF THE KEYS to heaven [all access to heaven] to Peter and His CC. **2 Tim. 3:16: **Tells everyone: “ALL Scripture is Inspired [directed] by God” and these passags affirm and confirm Only One Church; One Faith: Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. “

Eph. 4: 4 -8“There is one body Only One Church] and one Spirit,** [Only One set of beliefs]** just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, Only One God] ONLY one faith, **Only One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] ** one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

The reasons are solid and logial: The Dense [heavy and profound] messages require only those qualifed to teach and explaim them; to do so. OBVIOUSLY the Protestant community has yet to figure this out; with many THOUSANDS of different understanings being taught.

After 2,000 years there is one CC with justover 20 brances * has BOTh the Holy Spirit and Christ Himself to guide; guard; protect and guarantee it’s TRUTH cannot be in error on all issuses partaining to the Bible; Faith and Morals…

2ND. Peter 1: 16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

** John 14: 16-17 **And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

**John 17: 14-19 **“I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”

Pat*

 

[Windfish]

Aquinas’ proofs have not been debunked. Many strawmans of his arguments have been debunked, but his arguments have not been debunked.

 

[Spock]

I went to your link and then to this one below which seems more reliable to me, theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-I-Trinity

Thanks. I have both of them in my favorite’s list, and usually choose whichever I happen to click first.

#3 on your list is not there, so I don’t know about it one way or another. #2 affirms that God can be known through reason, and possibly more specifically, through creation, which strikes me as unproblematic.

My opinion is different. All the alleged “proofs” of God’s existence contain logical fallacies (usually the fallacy of composition). But I don’t want to derail the thread by going into the details. All the “proofs” have been debunked and discredited zillions of times.

I will give another example. The catechism speaks of the need for social justice and feeding the hungry. It does not give lessons in cookery.

Sorry, I fail to see the signifince. The moral command: “be good, and feed the hungry” is completely different from a simple assertion: “God’s existence can be known without resorting to faith”. The first one is a command, which does not need to be substantiated. The second one is an assertion, which needs an underpinning. (By the way, if the command would also give an incorrect recipe to feed the hungry, I would point it out as a good reason why the Bible is not to be taken seriously. )

You see, I don’t care why some things are in the Catecism and / or the list of dogmas. What I care about is: “how can we know if they are correct or not”. Presumably Catholics are required to believe whatever is among the dogmas, they are not in the position to doubt the dogmas. I am free to doubt anything.

There is only one way to convince me: by using logically valid arguments based upon a rational foundation. It is a basic principle, which I have been advocating for a long time now: “Always argue on your opponent’s playing field”. When talking to a Protestant, only use Sola Scriptura - because that is the only argument he will accept. When talking to an atheist, never mention the authority of the Church, or an argument based upon the Bible or the Magisterium - as arguments! Of course mention anything and everything as an explanation of your beliefs. But be aware that none of those will be persuasive arguments. I hope you find this reasonable.

This is a place where there is room for some freedom of thought. Doctrine or dogma is not imperiled by taking the snake literally or allegorically, so do what you are most comfortable with. Both are legitimate options.

Maybe for you it does not matter. I am not inclined to accept magical, talking snakes. This is the difference between us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)

Doesn’t scripture say the same thing? Or, more correctly, isn’t the Catholic Church simply stating what the Bible and the Church have always taught in this regard?

Oops…I thought I was arguing with a Protestant. Here is the Bible passage I am referring to:

Romans 1:18-32
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

1. The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

Two nice, and empty assertions. Can be known “how”? The meat of the argument is missing. Do they refer to Aquinas’ debunked “proofs” of God? Or something else entirely? There are no details in the Cathecism either. Why not?

Debunked?

However, for the purposes of THIS thread, I think a reasonable answer has been given to your question concerning an annotated Catholic Bible.

:tiphat: