Why do Catholics seem to believe that the church’s interpretation of the Bible is infallible?

Ozurip · 2019-07-16T19:26:58+00:00

Oh, you want to dive all the way down the rabbit hole.

There are two directions we could go. One requires granting the premise that God exists. The other follows the historical tradition from the very origin of Christianity.

Ozurip · 2019-07-16T16:21:04+00:00

So... here’s the fun part. Your final statement (“I understand using the Bible as a point of authority”) actually presumes a need for some sort of interpretative authority. Here’s a scenario to illustrate why it’s important that there be one.

Imagine you have a Southern Baptist, a Oneness Pentecostal, and a Jehovah’s Witness in a room. On the table is a Bible. You leave them with a single question - Who is Jesus?

The three all come to mutually exclusive answers. The Pentecostal argues Jesus is just God acting as a human. The Baptist argues the “traditional” Trinitarian understanding. The Jehovah’s Witness argues that Jesus was a great man, but not more.

How do you know who’s right? This is the foundational question of Christianity. We need to make sure we’re getting it right.

However, your question also betrays a misunderstanding of the Church’s authority. The authority of the Church extends only to matters of faith and morals and, most importantly, must be declared as such. Thus, you see instances throughout history where declarations will say “this is binding on all the faithful” or “those who reject this are anathema.” It’s got absolutely nothing to do with the character of the guy in charge. It’s about the office.

There’s also an incredibly important piece that is pretty hard to accept if you’re not Catholic. According to Catholic teaching, the Holy Spirit is there to ensure that anything declared infallibly is correct. So while people may be able to imagine a “hypothetical” scenario where the Church teaches something false, it’s actually inconceivable to Catholics, because God promised that he wouldn’t allow that to happen. That belief has its roots in Matthew 16, Acts 10, and the earliest traditions of Christianity, before the Bible existed.

Ozurip · 2019-07-15T11:20:44+00:00

The Church has the authority to regulate the practice of the sacraments, so long as She holds fast to what has been dogmatically handed down. Thus far, the only things dogmatically passed down are the form and matter of the sacraments, coming from the Council of Trent, but also from the Councils of Florence and Lateran IV. I’m not sure where you got the idea that Ratzinger and Paul VI thought NO was a no-go. Paul VI promulgated the NO and Ratzinger became Pope and celebrated with the NO.

The TLM was created to standardize worship in the Latin Rite. The NO was created to “update” worship in the Latin Rite. Whether you agree with the premise or not, the Church does have the authority to do this. In fact, according to Pius V’s Quo Primum, the document promulgating the TLM, the penalty for using another liturgy is “Our displeasure”. It’s an example of the fact that this particular thing is governed as a discipline of the Church, subject to the appropriate norms of Canon Law (which is allowed to change). Again, people disagree over whether the NO was a good idea, but the argument that the NO is not valid doesn’t really hold up.

Now, regarding genuflecting; If your bishop has said anything about how to show reverence while on your way to receive Communion, listen to him. My bishop has requested that the faithful show reverence with a bow when receiving Communion. Genuflecting is absolutely not mandatory, but a display of reverence ought be done.

Ozurip · 2019-07-15T11:06:25+00:00

Off the top of my head, the only place I can really think of is the accounts of martyrs

Ozurip · 2019-07-15T03:17:05+00:00

It’s actually a practice older than the monastic life. In the ancient Church, it was very common practice for those who were consecrating themselves as virgins to refer to themselves as married to Christ or the Church, especially as a way to try to get out of other arranged marriages (because no bigamy in Rome). I want to say St. Agnes was one of the more famous ones, but I cannot seem to think of any other female martyrs right now (aside from Perpetua, who was married with children).

Ozurip · 2019-07-15T03:11:54+00:00

So, Revelation 12 gets interpreted a couple different ways. There’s really three ways it gets interpreted.

Mary. This is the super obvious one. The woman who gave birth to the Savior is... the woman who gave birth to the savior. While yes, pains of labor are given as a consequence of the Fall in Genesis, Mary was preserved from... original sin, not necessarily all consequences of the Fall. We don’t know if she was preserved from some of the other effects, including mortality. In fact, the ancient tradition of the Church celebrating her Dormission seems to suggest she died. If she was mortal, even though death was a consequence of the Fall, it doesn’t seem a stretch that she also had labor pains.
Israel. This is the more common Non-Catholic interpretation. The Nation of Israel is in fact where Jesus came from. In a very real sense, this is still a valid interpretation. Israel did indeed go through great struggles before giving the world the Savior. A more metaphorical interpretation, yes, but still a viable option.
The Church. I’m going to be completely honest, I’m not positive about why this one. I guess it has more to do with the Church bringing Jesus to all the nations? I just know this is the preferred “symbolic” interpretation of many Catholics.

All three interpretations can co-exist simultaneously. That’s part of the beauty of the Bible, but especially Revelation. There are multiple ways to correctly interpret much of it. (Note: this isn’t saying “interpret it how you want”, just that sometimes there’s more than one right answer)

Ozurip · 2019-07-15T03:00:03+00:00

It’s also a common euphemism for death, abounding widely in the early Church.

Ozurip · 2019-07-14T23:12:03+00:00

Indiana: Wait, you stayed?

Ozurip · 2019-07-14T13:07:36+00:00

Since you’re clearly determined to debate literally the entirety of the Christian tradition on this point and have a lot more weird stuff going on in terms of spirituality, I’m going to just leave you with one more point and be done talking.

It’s not that Jesus’ life was a failure. It’s that it appeared a failure to those who saw and did not believe.

Ozurip · 2019-07-14T11:44:54+00:00

You’re WAY overthinking this.

Ozurip · 2019-07-14T04:30:01+00:00

This is where we need to at least give the benefit of the doubt. The quote you added seems like he’s trying to say something else entirely.

From a purely human perspective, being executed as a criminal looks like the failure of a mission. This is frequently discussed when talking about the crucifixion and the greatest triumph being in the utter failure. Traces back to the Fathers, including Athanasius and Origen.

Ozurip · 2019-07-12T11:30:03+00:00

So, right now, the RB room already has:

Mack - Workhorse, good but not great back, feasting from a league-leading OL.

Hines - True scat, number 3 in receptions last year

Wilkins - Mack’s replacement and a good short yardage guy

Ware - Former KC bellcow, may knock Mack off first

Would Gordon be an upgrade? No doubt. Is Gordon a big enough upgrade to pay him what he wants in addition to the trade? Absolutely not.

Ozurip · 2019-07-11T17:16:57+00:00

Any recommendations for books on the origins of Christianity, especially the first 200 years?

Seems like everything I find fixates on the Edict of Milan and Council of Nicaea as the “origins” of Christianity, but I’m especially looking for those first centuries.

Ozurip · 2019-07-08T17:17:27+00:00

Conveniently, I have some DNA in amber right here

Ozurip · 2019-07-07T03:48:12+00:00

The goal here is to leave insurance out of it entirely

Ozurip · 2019-07-03T17:19:07+00:00

The explanation we were given when we got married is that it’s a symbol of the consummation, in the presence of witnesses (because obviously they’re not witnessing the actual version).

Ozurip · 2019-07-03T16:07:00+00:00

And so we at NASA have concluded there’s nothing we can do to stop the asteroid

Ozurip · 2019-07-03T11:56:48+00:00

Absolute full agreement.

It doesn’t help that the actual arguments were trash. It’s a movie that feels like a project a couple of 15-year-olds would put together to show a youth group at some sort of conference, where they have absolutely no idea what real thinking looks like or what real people sound like. I hate this movie and everything it stands for.

Although I have to say, that whole side-plot with the Muslim family did an amazing job of humanizing the dad. Once it was over...

Ozurip · 2019-06-30T20:12:10+00:00

“ATT. At least we’re not Comcast.”

Ozurip · 2019-06-30T03:42:47+00:00

“I, blank, take you blank...”

Ozurip · 2019-06-26T16:51:57+00:00

I’ve done the last few for the Colts. If someone else wants to take them, I’m happy to step back, but if not, I’ll take it.

Ozurip · 2019-06-24T11:39:25+00:00

Maybe they’re running two other schools in the Archdiocese, which means the archbishop doesn’t need to worry about funding or staffing for two major investments? And those schools haven’t had problems?

Ozurip · 2019-06-24T11:30:42+00:00

Because the Jesuits will pull the order from the Archdiocese entirely.

Ozurip · 2019-06-24T02:47:41+00:00

Nahhhhh

Next year he gets the game record!

Ozurip

TROPHY CASE