Your contention that the difficulty in interpreting the Catechism is analogous to the difficulty in iterpreting Scripture is simply untenable. Remember your little comment about hermeneutics? Lexicons? History? Languages? Exegesis? etc? None of that applies to the Catechism. And it provides CLEAR AND CONCISE
Clear and concise to who. Not to me. Not to someone from a different culture TODAY. Many people do not think like Westerners and therefore would need it contextualized.
All information is by definition interpreted. People interpret information through their own history, experince, emotion, culture, language, and most importantly, presuppositions. So to say that the Church does not need to be interpreted because it is contemporary does not make any since and misunderstands the complexities of the aquisition of knowledge.
If I had to guess, I would say that you have come to recognize the inherent flaw of individual Bible interpretation, but rather than embrace that realization you are trying to drag down the Catholic system so that it stands no better in your own mind. That way you can “honestly” justify staying right where you are. Please don’t think this means I think any more of myself or less of you - I don’t. I’m not particularly intelligent and certainly not holy. These are just my observations based on the facts presented and the projection of my understanding of human nature into the whole equation.
No really. I have nothing holding me back from accepting your teaching but its justification. No one has given me any justification for it that would ease my heart.
I was asked earlier why I disagreed with the ultimate authority and infallibility of the Chruch. This is what I put. I am very sincere about this. You have to have stuggled with this as well, tell me how you get by it:
Let me try to explain agian. It is as simple as this: It would be like if some one came to me and told me that they were infallible and they said, “this is how you interpret this passage. Don’t base it on exegesis of what the text says, but what I say it says.”
I ask him “why should I believe you?”
He says because " I agree with Church history."
I say, “OK. How does that make you infallible.”
He says, “Because Church history says it does.”
I say, “What makes me have to believe that part of Chruch history?”
He says, “because I say it does and I am infallible.”
Should I believe him?
I would hope you would say no. But this is EXACTLY the type of question begging circular arguements that I am constantly exposted to. No exegesis of the text at. Honestly, no one is familiar with even basic Bible interpretation.
In short, what problem do I have with infallibility? None, if the Bible says so. But the Bible does not say so anywhere at all when correct exogesis is done. I would challenge anyone to bring ONE correctly interpreted Scripture that teaches either Peterine succession, or Papal infallibility. I am open minded and can be convinced by Scripture.
Thanks,
Michael
Phil
