Constantine: First of all, don’t you find it ironic that you rely so heavily on Scripture to make your case while at the same time decrying Sola Scriptura? I don’t find one instance in this article where you cite a pope, a cardinal or even a council and yet you seem to rely solely on Scripture to make your case.
BFHU: I use so much Scripture on purpose. I am trying to explain the Catholic Faith to Protestants and Catholics who have questions based on questions or accusations raised by their Protestant friends.
Since Protestants will accept nothing except Scripture I try to explain the Catholic Faith using the best Scripture support there is. Quotes from Popes, councils or Cardinals would fall on deaf Protestant ears. The Catholic Faith has very much surprising support in scripture which Protestant do not see because they are taught to interpret them differently, they just don’t ever notice them or they just ignore them.
Constantine:Secondly, can you please show us where, in any official, dogmatic Roman Catholic document, the official “infallbile” interpretation for any of the bible verses you cite? No? I didn’t think so. So you are really just doing what you rail against Protestants for doing. That is, you are just using your own “private interpretation” and holding it out as though it were a Magisterial teaching. So you really are no different than a Protestant.
BFHU: There is no official infallible commentary on the scriptures. But there is all kinds of writings all the way back to the first centuries in which the scriptures were interpreted and commented upon. These are not at all remotely similar to Protestant interpretations. Plus, if you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will find thousands of scripture used in conjunction with doctrine and teachings. I did not just make this up. These interpretations are as old as the Church.
Constantine:My dear bfhu, that is not even remotely true. St. Cyprian called a council to purposefully contradict the bishop of Rome; St. Augustine and the bishops of North Africa purposefully contradicted the bishop of Rome; the Inquisitors of the 16th century contradicted the bishop of Rome and the entire Gallican Church refused to allow papal bulls to be circulated until the local bishops approved them – and this up until 1800! So the history of Christianity is that nobody – until this most recent century – thought the bishop of Rome was a final authority. I am happy to provide you with numerous sources if you’d like.
BFHU: Rebellion and heresy does not constitute proof that the bishop of Rome is not the final authority. There have always been, are today, and always will be rebels and heretics. Martin Luther was one. Calvin was another. But for the faithful, when voices of men are contradicting each other we are always safe to go with the Bishop of Rome when he teaches on faith and moral to the whole church. This has been the case for 2000 years.