Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of something in the face of Scripture.
Per here:
“The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.”
How small you may ask? I am glad you asked.
“The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined”
[Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59]
Better we provide the interpretations to the Romanist in hopes Rome will take them into account and repent:
"...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack"
[Src: PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].
But the Romanist dare not tread into these turbulent waters. Rome does not deny the intelligibility and perspicuity of Scripture, rather it affirms Scripture is only intelligible and lucid to the magisterium.
Few Romanists are as honest as this to state:
"Because none of you possess the Apostolic oral tradition, to which only members of the Church's Magisterium/bishops are privy"
Such is the nonsense of Gnsoticism that pervades Rome's ideologies.
Romanists are just being a consistent Roman Catholics by not appealing to Scripture to justify Romanism. Rather they point to Rome's authority to defend Rome's claims. Romanists understand that their authority is Rome, hence Scripture is useless since any interpretation of any passage of Scripture he may appeal to must await Rome's adjudication for the Romanist to actually know what Scripture is saying. The Romanist wisely knows that anytime he presumes to present some interpretation of Scripture, the knowledgeable Protestant need only remind him that he cannot possibly really know what he is talking about if he is a consistent Roman Catholic.
Given Rome's slow march towards infallibly interpreting Scripture—most studies say around seven verses have been so done by the magisterium—Romainsts spend their lives in a sort of Scriptural limbo, never quite able to state with conviction "thus sayeth the Lord". When pointed to this or that in Scripture, the Romanist must first "check in" with what, if anything, Rome has to say on the topic. This is smart thinking by Rome, for it prevents the laity from ever really digging too deep and perhaps begin to question exactly what he has been fed by Rome.
AMR
Per here:
“The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.”
How small you may ask? I am glad you asked.
“The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined”
[Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59]
Better we provide the interpretations to the Romanist in hopes Rome will take them into account and repent:
"...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack"
[Src: PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].
But the Romanist dare not tread into these turbulent waters. Rome does not deny the intelligibility and perspicuity of Scripture, rather it affirms Scripture is only intelligible and lucid to the magisterium.
Few Romanists are as honest as this to state:
"Because none of you possess the Apostolic oral tradition, to which only members of the Church's Magisterium/bishops are privy"
Such is the nonsense of Gnsoticism that pervades Rome's ideologies.
Romanists are just being a consistent Roman Catholics by not appealing to Scripture to justify Romanism. Rather they point to Rome's authority to defend Rome's claims. Romanists understand that their authority is Rome, hence Scripture is useless since any interpretation of any passage of Scripture he may appeal to must await Rome's adjudication for the Romanist to actually know what Scripture is saying. The Romanist wisely knows that anytime he presumes to present some interpretation of Scripture, the knowledgeable Protestant need only remind him that he cannot possibly really know what he is talking about if he is a consistent Roman Catholic.
Given Rome's slow march towards infallibly interpreting Scripture—most studies say around seven verses have been so done by the magisterium—Romainsts spend their lives in a sort of Scriptural limbo, never quite able to state with conviction "thus sayeth the Lord". When pointed to this or that in Scripture, the Romanist must first "check in" with what, if anything, Rome has to say on the topic. This is smart thinking by Rome, for it prevents the laity from ever really digging too deep and perhaps begin to question exactly what he has been fed by Rome.
AMR