>We need the Catholic Church to interpret scripture for us

>We need the Catholic Church to interpret scripture for us
So how do Catholics interpret the Catholic Church? There's plenty of disagreement as to what statements are ex cathedra, what is infallible and what is not, what the Pope means when he says something, what this creed or papal encyclical or ecumenical council means (and how authoritative they are), what is the definition of certain terms, what is permissible and what is not, etc. How can Catholics interpret all those things on their own but not scripture?

>Just talk to your local priest or bishop
They're fallible and disagree with each other

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's all in the Catechism. Anyone telling you otherwise is probably some trad who got groomed and lost his mind like a discord troony.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's all in the Catechism
      What catechism? And like I said, how do you know you're interpreting the catechism correctly?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you want to understand the Church as it actually is, the CCC/Catechism of the Catholic Church. What's not in it is left for laity, clergy, or theologians to discuss (in other words, some things are left to mystery.. Yes, Catholics appreciate Mystery, just not to the extent Orthodox do).

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If you want to understand the Church as it actually is, the CCC/Catechism of the Catholic Church
          What infallible source did you get this from, and how do you know the source is infallible? And why did you dodge the second part of the question about interpreting the catechism correctly?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't dodge the question. I just didn't want to burden you with more books or tell you to talk to priest just for a mere inquiry. I thought I was doing you a favor. I don't think you're so inept as to not get an understanding from a look at the text yourself. It's clearly written.
            If you want personalized help, great. But you should make an appointment instead of just walking in with 20 questions. Or maybe you might have a Catholic friend, which would be ideal.
            Authority comes from laying on hands, starting with the apostles. That isn't to say other Christians aren't endowed with the Holy Spirit and will be guided too. God is working everywhere, but the fullness of truth is in the Church.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I just didn't want to burden you with more books or tell you to talk to priest just for a mere inquiry
            >Read these fallible books and talk to these fallible people to correctly interpret the catechism
            Do you see the issue here?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's nice and all, but how do you know that Catechism is the objectively correct way to interpret the Bible?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's all in the Catechism
      What catechism? And like I said, how do you know you're interpreting the catechism correctly?

      >If you want to understand the Church as it actually is, the CCC/Catechism of the Catholic Church
      What infallible source did you get this from, and how do you know the source is infallible? And why did you dodge the second part of the question about interpreting the catechism correctly?

      The source is the church itself, which publishes a complete documentation of their beliefs; translated to several languages:
      https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

      https://i.imgur.com/4WX8Mtx.jpg

      >We need the Catholic Church to interpret scripture for us
      So how do Catholics interpret the Catholic Church? There's plenty of disagreement as to what statements are ex cathedra, what is infallible and what is not, what the Pope means when he says something, what this creed or papal encyclical or ecumenical council means (and how authoritative they are), what is the definition of certain terms, what is permissible and what is not, etc. How can Catholics interpret all those things on their own but not scripture?

      >Just talk to your local priest or bishop
      They're fallible and disagree with each other

      >There's plenty of disagreement as to what statements are ex cathedra, what is infallible and what is not,
      Only to those who don't ask. The concept doesn't mean that if the pope says that the sky is green, it must be, or that catholics must believe it. It only applies to specific statements, given at specific times, which only apply on a specific level of doctrine.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The source is the church itself
        moron the whole point is how do you interpret the Church. If you can interpret the documents they publish why can't people interpret scripture?
        >It only applies to specific statements, given at specific times, which only apply on a specific level of doctrine.
        Please tell me what infallible source you got this from, how you know it's infallible, and how you know you interpreted it correctly.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Black person, who cares? No one is saying that the magisterium completely resolves the issue of interpretation. The more important part is that it's EASIER to arrive to the correct doctrines through interpreting the magisterium than it is through Scripture alone. The latter is how you arrive at Protestantism.

          It's far harder to misinterpret the magisterium than it is to misinterpret Scriptures. If I were God, then wouldn't I want to choose the most efficacious route at getting people to arrive to the most correct doctrines possible?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The more important part is that it's EASIER to arrive to the correct doctrines through interpreting the magisterium than it is through Scripture alone
            >It's far harder to misinterpret the magisterium than it is to misinterpret Scriptures.
            Black person no it's not. Scripture is clear and concise while figuring out what the Catholic Church actually says on an issue is a complete matter of opinion and people disagree about it all the time.

            >moron the whole point is how do you interpret the Church
            The same way you interpret any church or religion. the choice of faith (which faith you believe) is always individual

            > If you can interpret the documents they publish why can't people interpret scripture?
            the argument that most long-standing church's make is that they've had thousands of years to debate each issue among themselves; and that they are experts in the field. It's not incorrect. If someone doesn't speak Latin, for example, they will have a hard time fully grasping a library of documents in Latin.

            >Please tell me what infallible source you got this from, how you know it's infallible, and how you know you interpreted it correctly
            taught and reinforced over the years by various parish priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes. Again, the only people who think this is an issue are the people who can't be bothered to look up what the people involve say about it.

            >The same way you interpret any church or religion
            Which is?

            >the argument that most long-standing church's make is that they've had thousands of years to debate each issue among themselves
            I'm talking about the RCC and that's not the argument they make. They say they have certain divinely ordained infallible methods of teaching matters of religion but pinpointing specifically what these methods are and what they teach is the question.

            >taught and reinforced over the years by various parish priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes
            That's vague. Tell me specifics, they matter.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Scripture is clear and concise
            You, a Protestant, believe Scripture is perfectly perspicuous? How. Fricking. Rich. You heretics have denominations that deny the fricking DEITY OF CHRIST, one of the - if not, THE most - single important doctrine ever.

            What do you think is harder to misinterpret in regards to the Trinity? The Nicene/Apostles Creed, or the totality of Scripture? Be fricking real with yourself.

            >figuring out what the Catholic Church actually says on an issue is a complete matter of opinion and people disagree about it all the time.

            No, there is no dispute. You're just a moron.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You, a Protestant, believe Scripture is perfectly perspicuous? How. Fricking. Rich. You heretics have denominations that deny the fricking DEITY OF CHRIST

            Those people aren't protestants.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You heretics have denominations that deny the fricking DEITY OF CHRIST
            moron I'm not a part of any of these denominations. I can say that you have heretics who worship a demon named Santa Muerte.
            >What do you think is harder to misinterpret in regards to the Trinity? The Nicene/Apostles Creed, or the totality of Scripture?
            Those creeds are supported by scripture. There's no conflict.
            >No, there is no dispute
            Who are sedevacantists, SSPX, gay progressive clown mass Catholics, etc?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Those creeds are supported by scripture. There's no conflict.
            That's not the point, moron. The creeds themselves AREN'T scripture, but explications of scripture - specifically in regards to certain revelations. They interpret scripture for you by affirming the deity of Christ.

            I'll ask again: which is harder to misinterpret in regards to the Trinity? The Nicene/Apostle's Creed, or the totality of Scripture?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The creeds themselves AREN'T scripture, but explications of scripture - specifically in regards to certain revelations. They interpret scripture for you by affirming the deity of Christ.
            Ok and? I agree with all that.
            >which is harder to misinterpret in regards to the Trinity?
            The creeds.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, good. Now, don't you think that God would want the least amount of misinterpretation possible? Even if you still have to interpret the magisterium, do you not agree that it's far easier to interpret the magisterium than it is to interpret the totality of Scripture?

            Scripture is clear. Or else God is a liar.

            Oh yes, because God is so clear a communicator that his own people killed him for alleged heresy. Right.

            Nowhere does the Scripture say that scripture is perspicuous. Nor does it say that the Bible is the direct Word of God. It's the INSPIRED word of God, communicated through prophets.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nowhere does the Scripture say that scripture is perspicuous.
            >Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
            That's not the same as saying Scripture is perspicuous, but even if it WAS, then all you're proving is that it's a lamp and a light to THIS SPECIFIC PERSON, not all of humanity.

            Anyway:

            >Acts 8:30-31 - Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

            OH? I thought Scripture was perfectly clear! Now frick off, heretic.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's not the same as saying Scripture is perspicuous
            Yes it is. If it’s true then it is true now. Or else do you think the Bible is errant.
            >Acts 8:30-31
            Scripture interprets Scripture. What was the part of scripture the Ethiopian was struggling with? Oh it was a prophecy about Jesus Christ which he had never heard of. So the Gospel was spoken to him and it became clear what the prophecy was about. Thankfully you have the Gospel along with that prophecy and it can be clearly understood. You’re not making the point you think you are making.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Ethiopian is plainly saying that he requires help interpreting what he is reading generally. He doesn't simply say: "I do not know to whom this prophecy refers." But rather: "I cannot understand what it is I am reading unless I have someone there to guide me."

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”
            Literally read the rest of the story. LMAO

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am saying that he begins by stating that he cannot interpret scripture on his own. That is the starting assumption. Not that he simply doesn't know who the prophet is referring to. That is his specific problem in this instance, but this doesn't preclude the overarching theme, which is that scripture cannot ordinarily be wholly interpreted by isolated laymen.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes it is. If it’s true then it is true now. Or else do you think the Bible is errant.
            No, it isn't, you fricking dullard. As I said, all it proves is that the word of God is a light for THAT SPECIFIC PERSON, not all of humanity. The word of God is also a light to my path, and yet I learn new things about the Bible every time I read it.

            And if Scripture was perfectly perspicuous, you would have zero division in the Christian churches, because everyone would intuitively know the correct doctrines and dogma, bred from the same, clear understanding. But that isn't reality, is it?

            Also, funny how you fellate Martin Luther, the same guy that CHALLENGED anyone to reconcile James 2 with the epistles of Paul. THAT'S your posterboy for the perspicuity of Scripture? Fricking morons, I swear.

            >What was the part of scripture the Ethiopian was struggling with? Oh it was a prophecy about Jesus Christ which he had never heard of.

            Why did Philip elect to "teach" him, then? Why not just instruct him to keep reading? Oh, wait, because scripture isn't perfectly perspicuous, moron.

            >Scripture interprets Scripture.

            Interpret this, heretic.

            >2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD, which they that are UNLEARNED and unstable wrest, as they do also the OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction.

            BOOM! KJV, too, so you can't weasel your way out of this, fricker. Now don't (You) me again, fricking moron.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >2023
            >cuckoldics still think they're le supa dupa intimidating af when they call someone a "heretic"
            I hope that LITERAL BLOOD AND FLESH you'll eat next Sunday will have plenty of copium in it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I hope that LITERAL BLOOD AND FLESH you'll eat next Sunday will have plenty of copium in it.
            Bitch, even your daddy Luther believed in the Real Presence. How nice of you to mock your own prophet so that I don't have to.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And if Scripture was perfectly perspicuous, you would have zero division in the Christian churches, because everyone would intuitively know the correct doctrines and dogma, bred from the same, clear understanding. But that isn't reality, is it?
            >2 Peter 3:16-Which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do other scriptures, to their own destruction.
            No, scripture being clear would not mean everyone would agree. You forget that humans are a fallen race. The sinful hates God's Word. The sinful flesh is lazy and does not want to study God's word. The sinful flesh wants to change it so that it appeals to its own values and sensibilities. Consider 2 Timothy 4:3-4. Many church's doctrines add man's opinions to the biblical doctrine in order to make it palatable to the flesh and human reason.
            >Martin Luther, the same guy that CHALLENGED anyone to reconcile James 2
            James 2 does not contradict Paul's epistles. There is nothing to reconcile. I don't know what you're on about with Martin Luther.
            >Why did Philip elect to "teach" him, then? Why not just instruct him to keep reading?
            anon.... the Gospel was not written yet. The Gospel was being spread by word of mouth.

            I am saying that he begins by stating that he cannot interpret scripture on his own. That is the starting assumption. Not that he simply doesn't know who the prophet is referring to. That is his specific problem in this instance, but this doesn't preclude the overarching theme, which is that scripture cannot ordinarily be wholly interpreted by isolated laymen.

            It says he was specifically reading Isaiah. He does not state he could not interpret any scripture on his own that is not the starting assumption. With the context he could not understand a prophecy in Isaiah.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, scripture being clear would not mean everyone would agree.
            Is this disagreement borne out of difficulty in understanding, as 2 Peter 3:16 states and you so conveniently left out, or just intentional deceit?
            >James 2 does not contradict Paul's epistles. There is nothing to reconcile. I don't know what you're on about with Martin Luther.
            Martin Luther is your prophet, dickhead. He founded the cult of Protestantism.
            >anon.... the Gospel was not written yet. The Gospel was being spread by word of mouth.
            What does the Gospel have to do with anything? The dude's question was about whether the prophet was speaking about himself or another, not Jesus specifically. You don't need to know about Jesus to discern which passage is a messianic prophecy or not. Talmudic rabbis do it all the time. If Scripture was perfectly perspicuous, the dude would've at least known that it was clearly a messianic prophecy of some sort, right? And lo and behold...

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it is born out of the part you conveniently left out that I added and the verse I brought up 2 Timothy 4:3-4. People will distort the Bible to make it palatable to themselves.
            >Martin Luther is your prophet, dickhead. He founded the cult of Protestantism.
            Take your meds.
            >What does the Gospel have to do with anything?
            Philip knew the passage was fulfilled by Jesus. And so told him the Gospel or Jesus’ ministry and resurrection.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it is born out of the part you conveniently left out that I added
            I will give you a million dollars to show me where I left out ANY part of 2 Peter 3:16. You're a liar like your father, the devil.
            >People will distort the Bible to make it palatable to themselves.
            So this distortion is done intentionally and not out of ignorance and difficulty understanding? Yes/no.
            >Philip knew the passage was fulfilled by Jesus. And so told him the Gospel or Jesus’ ministry and resurrection.
            It was fulfilled by the Messiah, yes. You don't have to know the Messiah is Jesus to know that the Messiah will be the one to fulfil the passage.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Scripture is clear. Or else God is a liar.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >moron the whole point is how do you interpret the Church
          The same way you interpret any church or religion. the choice of faith (which faith you believe) is always individual

          > If you can interpret the documents they publish why can't people interpret scripture?
          the argument that most long-standing church's make is that they've had thousands of years to debate each issue among themselves; and that they are experts in the field. It's not incorrect. If someone doesn't speak Latin, for example, they will have a hard time fully grasping a library of documents in Latin.

          >Please tell me what infallible source you got this from, how you know it's infallible, and how you know you interpreted it correctly
          taught and reinforced over the years by various parish priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes. Again, the only people who think this is an issue are the people who can't be bothered to look up what the people involve say about it.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        What level of doctrine would be devoting random things to Mary?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          A pivot I probably should have expected. If you won't believe me about papal infallibility, why would I bother starting the mary conversation

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which Catechism?
      The one that says St Adolphus should have a day dedicated to him or the one that doesn't?

      Most Roman Catholics I know don't even have a Catechism.

  2. 7 months ago
    Dirk

    Just listen to Taylor Marshall bro

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're a hundred times better off with just some sweet grandma or nun.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just trust the Science, I mean, the Church bro.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The bishops do. In theory the bishops are the successors of the apostles and they interpret both scripture and Church tradition as the only legitimate and authoritative teachers of the Christian faith.
    >What if they disagree
    Then they argue about it until a consensus forms or a church council rules on it.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    "Who interprets scripture" is the dumbest argument against sola scriptura. Everyone interprets something. Faithful Catholics have to interpret Papal decrees. You are always the last link in the epistemic chain.

    By the way, Christ argued from scripture against the Pharisees, who were the keepers of the tradition common to then Israel.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    By the magisterium and exegesis; those who disagree are just ignored or excommunicated; simple as.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *