DEBATE ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION - Kapatas vs. Max1

Pope Benedict XVI raises the Book of the Gospel

Max1: How do the Roman Catholics here define PRIVATE INTERPRETATION? How do we know that a certain person is engaging in private interpretation? Is private interpretation absolutely forbidden or there are some exceptions?

May private interpretation kung pinaiiral mo yung sarili mong pagpapakahulugan sa nakasulat na lihis sa turo ng simbahan. Pero kung ang interpretasyon mo eh consistent sa turo ng simbahan, walang private interpretation. In the process, you are actually affirming the authoritative interpretation.

Masama ang private interpretation sapagkat nagbubunsod eto ng mga heresiya na maaaring ikapahamak ng kaluluwa ng tao. Gaya halimbawa ng kaso nyo, kanya-kanya kayong mga protestante ng private interpretation, kaya sabog-sabog aral nyo. Kayo-kayo mismo kontra-kontra ang mga aral.

Max1 Isn't that a self-serving definition? Why don't you just simplify it: Private interpretation is anything contrary to the Roman Catholic Church.

That's not self-serving. That's the truth. The church is the official interpreter of the scriptures. As long as one's interpretation is consistent with the interpretation of church, then there is no private interpretation. That is actually subscribing to the official and authoritative interpretation. After all, the church is the pillar and ground of truth, (cf. 1 Tim 3:15) not your pastor, and definitely not you.

Max1 Same question: Has your church given an official interpretation for all (100%) verses in the Bible?

The church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, produced the bible. Therefore, the bible must be interpreted in accordance to the understanding of the church. Yung private interpretation nyo, kanya-kanyang opinyon nyo lang yun. Kaya nga sa hanay nyo, kontra-kontra kayo eh. kapag hindi agree yung isa sa interpretation ng isa, aalis tapos magtatayo ng sariling fellowship. And yet bawat isa nagke-claim na sila raw yung tunay dahil kinakausap ng Espiritu Santo. Naku naman, wag nyo nang isali ang HS sa mga propaganda nyo.

Max1 A classic circular argument! We cannot rightfully interpret Scriptures without the aid of your church. But we must interpret 1 Tim 3:15 to say that your church has basis to do this.

There is no circular argument if there is a clear delegation of authority. Christ established the church, (cf. Mat 18:16) and given her the authority to preach the Gospel to all men and make them disciples. (cf. Mat 28:19-20) Christ communicates through the Church. He said, "He who listens to you, listens to me." (cf. Luke 10:16) So one listens to the Church, not because the church said so, but because the Church was given authority and approval by God. Reject the church and you also reject God.

Max1 Answer me this Kapatas: Without using private interpretation, what makes you choose the Roman Catholic Church as the infallible interpreter over the other churches that also make official interpretations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the INC, the Orthodox Churches etc. ect.? Remember: DON'T USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

Excuse me. Interpretations of INC, Jehovah Witnesses, and also your fellowship are never official. As far as the Church is concerned, they are opinions, heresies to be exact. I 'm not the one who decided that the church is infallible. God did. Christ gave an assurance that the gates of hell cannot overcome the church, and that whatever is bound here on earth by the church will also be bounded in heaven and vice versa. (cf. Mat 16:18-19)

Max1 Sorry but you're not answering the question. If your church produced the Bible, then they should also provided the official interpretation of that Bible. Now, my question was, which you didn't answer, has your church provided an official intepretation of all verses in the Bible? Yes or no.

The church only provides official interpretation if it is necessary, especially if a teaching or a doctrine is challenged. She can if she has to.

Also, why demand something on us when your fellowship has yet to accomplish the same demand? That's a clear double standard for you.

Max1 Well it's ironic that you quote from the same Scripture to prove it while at the same time asserting that no one can interpret it without an infallible church.

Of course I have to quote from the bible. What do you expect me to do? I quote verses from the bible in the light of the teachings of the church. There should be someone who can officially interpret what was written otherwise we will all end up with never-ending debates and chaos. Even the constitution must be interpreted officially to prevent disorder in the land. In this case, the one that provides the official interpretation is the Supreme Court. If your interpretation of the law is in accordance with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, there is no private interpretation. That's subscribing to the official interpretation. Same with the church and the bible. The church through the magisterium is the official interpreter of the scriptures. As long as your interpretation is in accord with the interpretation of the church, then there is no private interpretation.

Max1 So granting that (without conceding), how do you expect me to understand the verses you quoted if I am not able to interpret it correctly? Do I just say, "okay I'll accept it without analyzing."?

Of course you must use your common sense guided by faith. There is no circular argument if there is a clear delegation of authority. Does this make sense? It does. You believe what the church teaches not because the church said so, but because the church was authorized by Christ to preach the Gospel. People believed the message of the prophet not because the prophet said so, but because the prophet was authorized to dispense God's message. Same with the church. Reject the church, you also rejected Christ.

Max1 The question is, how are YOU able to tell that the Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate infallible interpreter? Did someone else pick that church for you? Did you just say yes to your church without thinking? What?

By faith and by common sense. I believe what the catholic church teaches because I know that it is the true church. History testifies that before the existence of your fellowship and other churches, there is the catholic church. Catholic Church is the original christian church. If it is the original church then it is the true church. That's common sense. Now I also believe what the church teaches because God communicates his Grace and his message of salvation through the Church. Now that's faith.

Max1 Ah so you criticize us for our private interpretations whereas you yourselves are still formulating what interpretation to give for verses with no official interpretation yet. So for some church claiming to have a 2,000 year pedigree, it makes me wonder what has it been doing throughout those years.

You are talking as if your fellowship have already released the official interpretation of all verses of the bible, when in fact, what you have are disordered and conflicting interpretations. No wonder, protestant groups are so numerous. They have their own private understanding of the scriptures, each with the gall to claim that what they have is the true interpretation because the Holy Spirit is guiding them. As if the Holy Spirit is contradicting itself.

The church can provide official interpretation if the need arises. It doesn't mean that she can't. And also, there is no rule that the church have to release an official interpretation of all verses of the bible. What for, when there is no dissension or misunderstanding within her ranks. The author of a novel doesn't have to explain the meaning of every line of his work. He can do it if there is a need but it doesn't mean that in every time and every instance he has to release an official interpretation, line by line. There is no rule requiring that. That rule is just a product of your own imagination.

Max1 Sorry, in our case the authority is the Scriptures themselves. Not our interpretations because unlike you we don't have an infallible magisterium (which is an unbiblical office). So my "demand" does not apply to me.

No, you're lying. In your ranks, the authority is your own self. Your own private interpretation is the official interpretation for you. But what is more disturbing is that, each of you claims being guided by the Holy Spirit. How come? When you have different interpretations within your ranks. Does the Holy Spirit contradicts itself? God cannot be fooled. This is just a clear cut case of either some of you are lying or all of you are lying.

Max1 Now you're using analogy. Again, if you quote from Scriptures to say we need an infallible interpreter, how do you expect me to understand that since you claim that no one can understand it without an infallible interpreter?

Of course, I will use analogy. It is an effective tool to hammer reason to your senses. I can see it is effective. You don't even dare touch my arguments. See your actuations. You're by passing it

There is a need for an infallible interpreter of the bible otherwise there will be chaos and divisions in the church. Common sense and faith dictates that it should be so. The true church teaches that it must be so. So it is either you believe that truth or continue with your rebellion.

Max1 So what we have here is a classic Roman Catholic battlecry: My church is true (over the other churches) because my church says so.

You obviously & purposely don't get it. We believe in the church not because the church said so but because the church was given approval by God to preach the Gospel to all men. There is a clear delegation of authority, therefore there is no circular argument. Same with the case of the prophets. God's people believe the prophets not because the prophets said so but because the prophets speak in behalf of God. Prophets were authorized by God to deliver message to his people. Reject the prophet, you rejected God. Same with the church. Reject the Church, you rejected God as well.

Max1 What say you if I exercise faith, common sense, with matching readings from history but I become a member of the Eastern church?

But the problem is you don't that's why you end up being a heretic.

Max1 My church doesn't need to release an official interpretation.

If your church doesn't have to release an official interpretation of all verses in the bible, why demand the catholic church with the very same requirement your fellowship can't even accomplished? You are clearly making a double standard here. You are not being fair, Max.

Max1 The problem with your infallible interpreter system that it leaves out room for Roman Catholics to study the Bible, they simply accept your magisteriums pronouncements without thinking. What does that make you?

No, you're wrong. There's plenty of room for us catholics to study the scriptures. In fact, it is encouraged. We are free to study and interpret the bible so long as our interpretation will not be inconsistent with the teachings and doctrines of the church.

Your statement that "they [catholics] simply accept your magisteriums pronouncements without thinking," is just a product of your delusions. We accepted the teachings of the church because those teachings are in accord with reason and faith. Don't underestimate us catholics because we are smarter than what you think we are. We have more educated people, philosophers and theologians in our ranks than your whole fellowships combine can produce or can even dream of. That's a fact. Live with it.

Max1 Can you show me in history that your church operated in that sense as you claimed?

Look at church's history. The church tends to release an official interpretation of scriptures only if our doctrines are challenged, just as in the case of the Council of Trent and other general councils. Read man, read.

Max1 Actually it is those who practice Scripture plus infallible interpreter that produced cults. Take the ADD for instance, Soriano is their "pope". This is obvious in the "Itanong mo kay Soriano, Biblia ang sasagot" segments.

Actually, those that prescribe to private interpretation usually end up in disintegration and chaos. Just look at your ranks. How many protestant sects are there? All of you resorted to private interpretation of the scriptures. That's what you got. You yourselves don't agree with each other regarding the message of the scriptures. Because each of you believed that your own respective interpretations (though conflicting) are correct interpretations. When in reality, what you've got is nothing more than a stinking opinion on what was written. That's why each of you have their own respective fellowships, each with different interpretations from the other, and each claiming being guided by the Holy Spirit. Maybe not the Holy Spirit but rather the ruling spirits of this world.

Max1 If you ask me, your analogy sucks. Congess and the Supreme Court are two different branches. Whereas your magisterium functions both. So your comparison is off.

Actually, it is your logic that is so way off. It sucks. I used the analogy to demonstrate the relationship of the interpreted material with the one that officially interprets it. In this case we have:

Bible -> Magisterium of the Church
Constitution -> Supreme Court

Now where is Congress in the analogy? Did I say anything about Congress? Did I say that Congress and Supreme Court are the same? You see, you are inserting things to muddle the issue.

Focus on the analogy given. There is the bible, the material that is being interpreted, then there is also the Magisterium, the one that officially interprets it. Same with the Constitution which is being interpreted officially by the Supreme Court. You see the similarity? Without an official interpreter, there will be chaos in the land. Even two lawyers can't even agree on the definitive meaning of a legal provision at all times. That's why there is the Supreme Court to settle issues. Same with the bible. Not at all times, two individuals will arrive at the same understanding of the bible. Saint Peter testifies that there are sections of the scriptures that are hard to understand and are usually misinterpreted and twisted by the ignorant and the unstable. (cf. 2 Peter 3:16) Unless there is an official and infallible interpreter of the scriptures, there will be conflicts and disputes which would end up tearing the whole church. Like what's happening within your ranks right now. No one wields the authority to determine what's the correct interpretation, that's why each of the fragmented groups and sects are so convince in their own delusions that what they have is the correct interpretation. How come? When your interpretations are conflicting and so disordered? You are just fooling yourselves.

Max1 If we need an infallible interpreter then there is no more reason for us to read the Bible since we're not fallible. All we have to do is to say yes to this interpreter. But unlike what we believe, God tells us to meditate on His word (Joshua 1:8).

Wrong. There is no standing rule that if there is an official interpreter, then we will no longer have to study what was written. The Supreme Court is the official interpreter of the constitution. Does it mean that lawyers, legal students, or any concerned laymen should cease studying the constitution? See how ridiculous your self-imposed rules. This is similar with religious matters. It doesn't mean that since there is an infallible interpreter, you will no longer have to study. In fact, all the more that you have to study so that you will be able to know what the infallible interpreter is talking about. Now I like to add further that studying the scriptures is one thing, while inventing doctrines inconsistent with the official interpretation is quite another.

Max1 Now, tell me, if you hear from an infallible interpreter how sure are you that you understood it correctly?

That's why the need to study the scriptures, so that you may be able to follow what the infallible interpreter is talking about. You still need to study. Look at the Jews at Berea. Although St. Paul is giving them official interpretations of the scriptures (since he is guided by the Holy Spirit), the Jews from Berea verifies it using their knowledge of the scriptures. (cf. Acts 17:11) That's one biblical proof that your self-imposed rule that "since there is an infallible interpreter, then there is no need to study, blah blah.." is utterly wrong. Your rule falls flat in your face.

Max1 Yeah but there are false churches and false prophets. How do you know that you're church is the infallible one

By faith and by common sense. Example, let's compare the Catholic Church and your fellowship. Using common sense and a bit of history, I can arrive to an unassailable conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true church because it is the Original Christian church. The original is always true. Long before the existence of your fellowship group or any other so called christian groups, the Catholic Church was already there, preaching the Gospel of salvation for all men, in obedience with the commandment of Christ. (cf. Mat 28:19-20)

Max1 Is your method of choosing infallible? How can you be sure?

I do claim that my method of choosing the true church is correct. If you have doubts or violent reactions, test me.

Max1 Ah carriage before the horse. Don't you notice that in the eyes of any religion your are false just like you consider them false. So please don't give me a method which can be used against you.

So what? Do I have to worry at what you think about us? Do I have to lose sleep, lose an appetite, and be intimidated just because you think we are followers of the devil? You are making me laugh. You yourself denounce infallible interpretation. So chances are, you are fallible. If you are fallible, so as your way of thinking. That's why I see no reason for concern. Your thoughts on us don’t mean anything.

The christian church suffered many persecutions. Not only the pagan people at their time think that they belong to the devil, pagans and judaizers alike actually inflicted verbal and physical abuse on christians. Does the unpleasant appraisal of unbelievers to christians at that time means anything? No. The christian church is still true no matter what the pagans and the judaizers think against them.

That's why your thoughts don’t mean anything.

Max1 Our church is scripture alone. If we give an offiicial interpetation, then it's no longer scripture alone. So my demand does not apply to me.

But you and your cohorts do gave interpretations. And your respective interpretations, no matter how conflicting against each other, are correct interpretations, at least in your own respective minds. So it is not true that you don't release official interpretations. Maybe you don't call it official, but for you it's the correct one. But what's disturbing is that, it's fallible. (since you don't believe that there is such thing as an infallible interpreter)
If it is fallible, there's no guarantee that your interpretation is free from error. Looking at the way things are happening in your ranks, with the divisions and chaos, I see that errors do abound in your interpretations.

Now why excuse yourself from the burden you are trying to impose on the Catholic Church? The very same burden your church can't even accomplished despite its tendencies to release or issue "correct interpretations". Isn't this a double standard?

Max1 You claim to have a 2,000 year pedigree and you have an estimate of 1 billion members. What are the odds that all of them can consistently interpret the Bible in accordance to your magisterium given your assertion that they can't interpret it correctly without an infallible interpreter.

The sure fire method of avoiding errors is to stick with the infallible interpreter. As long as catholics will continue to listen to the teachings of the Church through the Magisterium, they will be free from erroneous beliefs.

In your church, there is no guarantee that what your pastor is saying is free from error. Because you don't believe in infallible interpreter. You don't believe that your pastor is infallible. Your pastor is fallible. You are fallible. And you make private interpretations. So your interpretations are fallible as well.

Max1 Well how do you know that you do not contradict your magisterium if you do not have an offiicial interpretation of all the verses of the Bible? How often do your priests monitor your members? How often do your members think if they interpret it correctly?

We refer to the catechism, papal pronouncements, and other official church documents as our guide. These documents contain the church official teachings. So long as our understanding of biblical verses will not end up in creating doctrines and beliefs inconsistent with those stated in the aforementioned church documents, then there's no problem.

Max1 So they are exercising private intepretation if that's the case.

No, they don't. Catholics believe in infallible interpreter, which is the Magisterium headed by the Pope. So there's no private interpretation. What you have are people subscribing to the authoritative interpretations and teachings.

Max1 Your councils only impose rules. Not intepretations. I'll save you the trouble, the occurences of your magisterium of releasing an official interpretation of Bible verses arising from inquiry or dispute throughout the past, especially those over five hundred years ago is rare.

At least you admitted, though rare. So you already refuted yourself. Furthermore, you said our church ONLY imposes rules yet at end of your statement you also said that the catholic church tend to release official interpretations (though rare). You contradicted yourself. No wonder because you are fallible.

Max1 The majority of those who have given biblical interpretations are from the church fathers which you would definitely agree are not infallible.

No. When the Church released a decree, it is accompanied with supporting biblical verses and its official interpretations. Case in point, John 20:22f

"For on behalf of those who fall into sin after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance when he said: Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

[The Fallen and Their Restoration, Chapter XIV, Sixth Session Decree Concerning Justification, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 39, translated and introduced by Rev. H.J. Schroeder, O.P.]

In this case, the church provides the official interpretation of John 20:22-23. These verses established the sacrament of penance. Proof that in decrees, the church also provides official interpretations of biblical verses.

Max1 Unlike yours we don't live in hypocrisy asserting the need of an infallible interpreter when there has no official interpretations made for all verses.

Unlike you, we are not foolish enough to say that there is no need for an infallible interpreter, yet claim that our respective private and fallible interpretations (though conflicting and disordered) are correct, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to boot, therefore must be believed and agreed upon by everyone.

Max1 To answer you on that, your Magisterium functions both as congress and supreme court. This you can't deny with all the papal pronouncements and your claim that it is infallible. So your logic is way off.

Of course analogies are not perfectly similar. Who told you that? Analogy operates on vestiges of similarity between two things. In this case, what I'm trying to show is the similarity in the relationships between Bible-Church & the Constitution-Supreme Court. So there's the interpreted material (i.e. the Bible & Constitution) & the one that officially interprets it. (i.e. the Church & Supreme Court) The similarity dwells on" who officially interprets" and "what is being interpreted." Now inserting anything other than what was demonstrated, like your blather regarding "congress" is just a red herring on your part. You are evading the issue. So your logic is actually the one that sucks big time.

Max1 And do notice even with our Supreme Court there is chaos in the land. Why is that? Some people are stubborn and even deliberately deceptive. They know how to interpret the law but they are twisting it.

There is order. The official interpretation of the Supreme Court is binding throughout the land and is respected by everyone. That's why we don't end up in civil war. Of course in every decision, you can't please everybody. There are those who are always not contented. But it doesn't mean that since there are dissatisfied few, there is no order. Actually, there is order. The decision of the Supreme Court is supposed to be respected otherwise, we will all end up in anarchy and mob rule. Mob rule and anarchy is the absence of the rule of law as upheld by the Supreme Court. Remove the Supreme Court and will all end up in anarchy and mob rule, the cultivation of the culture of protest and rebellion, the very same chaos that plague your ranks.

Now, I ask you: Can you guarantee that if we remove the Supreme Court there will be order? Can you guarantee that? I don't think so. What's happening within protestant ranks, with its chaos and disunity, is a testament that your proposition is actually erroneous. Remove the official interpreter of the constitution and we all end up in chaos, in the same manner, remove the official interpreter of the bible and you will end up in disunity and chaos, just like what is happening within your ranks.

Max1 So don't blame sola scriptura for the disunity, blame the attitude.

Oh ok. Since there is disunity among your ranks, then most of you if not all, have issues regarding attitude? That speaks volume about your protestant group.

Max1 Don't tell me you are united. Just this recent RH Bill even P-Noy, son of the devout Cory Aquino and whom your mentor endorsed, is inclining to implement it. Do I blame your Scripture plus infallible magisterium for this or do I blame attitude?

Of course we are united on matters of faith. Just like the bible said: One Faith..., (cf. Eph 4:5) Doctrines that the Catholic Church preached here in the Philippines are the same with those preached by Catholic Churches in America or in Africa. Even the Gospel Readings during masses are virtually the same. Unlike in your group, you are all professing as bible christians but you have many contrary religious beliefs and doctrines.

Now regarding the RH Bill, particularly on contraceptives, the stand of the local church in the philippines is the same with the catholic church in africa or in america or in india. There is no disunity in us when it comes to contraceptives, doctrinally speaking. The Catholic Church is very clear in its position regarding contraceptives. Unlike in your ranks, there are churches that teach that contraceptives are perfectly alright, while on the other hand, there are other churches that teach the contrary. So when it comes to contraceptives, protestant churches are greatly divided, doctrinally speaking.

If ever there are catholics who subscribe to contraceptives, that is their decision. They disobeyed the church's teachings. But it doesn't mean that since there are those who disobeyed the church, there is no unity in the church. We are talking about unity in doctrine here max1. You pale in comparison with us. You are not united in doctrine. You are greatly divided because of your private interpretations. That's a fact.

Max1 Let's expose that hypocrisy. Based on the frequent arguments given by Catholic apologists: Are people infallible to interpret the Bible? No. How sure are you that you're interpreting the Bible correctly? I can't be sure. Do we need an infallible interpreter in this case? Yes. Whose interpretation now governs? The infallible interpreter. Why is that? Becuse we're not infallible. Now, can you honestly say we can still need to read the Bible knowing we're not infallible?

Yes. You will read under the guidance of the Church. Just like a serious law student or lawyer, you will read and study law, largely based on Supreme Court decisions. That's why there is the voluminous SCRA. You will not make your own decisions. Because your decision is nothing more than an opinion. Supreme Court decisions are considered LAW of the land. So if you want to study law the right way, you will align your understanding of jurisprudence based on the interpretations and decisions of the Supreme Court. But how can you understand the Supreme Court's ruling if you are ignorant of the basics of jurisprudence? Same with the Church and the bible. If you want arrive at the correct understanding of the scriptures, you will consult the Church. But how can you know what the Church is teaching if you are mainly ignorant? That's why you have to know the basics. You still have to read the bible and know the details. Therefore, your rule that since there is an official interpreter, there is no need to study is erroneous. Actually, it is illogical. It's not even practical.

Max1 Are the Bereans of Acts 17:11 infallible? If not, how can they be sure that they understood Paul?

The Jews from Berea are not infallible but they are correct in believing St. Paul, which is largely possible because of their knowledge of scriptures. How's that to you?

This is a proof that your rule that "since there is an official interpreter, there is no need to study," is fallacious and will not hold water.

Max1 But the Eastern Churches also has a claim to history. Yes, you will contest their evidences. But do notice that when you contest it, you're exercising private interpretation.

We are not talking about the Eastern Church here. (they are catholic of course) We are talking about your newly-invented church. By consulting history and a wee bit of common sense, one can arrive to an unassailable conclusion that between the catholic church and your fellowship, the Catholic Church is the true church. How come yours is true when it was only founded recently, not by Christ but by your fallible pastor?

Max1 I was asking if it is infallible. In what ways you are sure? Are you infallible?

I do claim that my method of choosing the true church between the Catholic Church and your fellowship using faith and common sense is correct. Since it is correct, it is infallible, at least in this instance. Other than this, I have no other claims whatsoever.

Max1 Just admit it, in this particular case you're telling me that you merely accepted your church's claims without thinking.

Why admit something that has no basis in reality? How can we accept something if we do not understand? That's why the need to study the scriptures so that the teachings of the Magisterium be accessible. That's why your lousy rule that "since there is an official interpreter, there is no need to study" is all baloney.

Max1 When you prescribed to me your method but I gave a situation where I chose a different religion, you reacted differently. What you're telling me is, don't think just accept our claims because you're not infallible.

Of course I will react because you do not belong to the Eastern Church. Furthermore, the option is between the Catholic Church and your fellowship. Using history and common sense, I can arrive to an infallible conclusion that the true church is the Catholic Church. Not your fellowship. What is wrong with that?

Also, why do I care with what you think of us? Do I have to worry about your not-so-pleasing appraisal of us? Who are you anyway? You are fallible so your thoughts on us don't mean anything.

Max1 Since it is not official, it isn't binding to anyone. It is subject for scrutiny.

Of course your private interpretations are official, correct, and binding for you and your followers. Maybe you don't call it official but still, it is binding for you and your followers and you are willing to defend it to those who teach the contrary. If that is the case, why excuse yourself to the very same burden you've imposed to the catholic church? That's a double standard. If you can't release an interpretation of all verses of the bible, why demand the same on the Catholic Church?

Max1 At least our members are exercising diligence to prevent false teachings.

Your members are exercising diligence in furthering disunity within your ranks. By subscribing to private interpretations, you end up with multiple, conflicting, and disordered interpretations, each of you claiming it is the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit. That's really disturbing.

Max1 No because we don't have an infallible magisterium. We are not subject to a pope. Whenever we quote some church father that opposes your magisterium you keep saying they are not infallible and their comments are not official.

You don't have magisterium, but for you, the official interpreter of the bible is yourself. Me and the bible right? That's your teaching. So why demand the Catholic Church on something you yourself, with all your private interpretations, fallibility and bogus claims of being guided by the Holy Spirit can't even accomplish?

Max1 Ah okay, so this time you're actually admitting that you just accept whatever is fed to you without analyzing it.

How can we accept something if we don't understand it? The human mind seeks to understand. It must know that it knows. It cannot just assimilate senseless ideas. Ideas in order to be accepted must be comprehensible and accessible. That's why the need to study to be able to arrive to the truth. But that is not enough since human intelligence has its limits. One must have faith.

Now if one believes what the Church teaches after exercising diligence in studying the word of God, what's wrong with that?

Max1 Granting that they are complete, then you can forego reading the Bible.

I didn't say that. You did. My position is that so long as our interpretation is not contrary to official church teachings and doctrines, we have no problem.

Max1 You're not infallible.

So as you. But what's disturbing about you is that you create doctrines and you are fallible. So there is no guarantee that you are telling the truth all the time. There is still a margin of error. No sensible man will entrust the eternal destiny of his soul to a preacher who has the tendency to teach erroneous doctrines.

Max1 By the way, are they complete?

As far as the salvation of souls is concerned, they are enough.

Max1 Make up your mind, are you saying you just accept their pronouncements without analyzing it?

Why force me to admit something that we don't do? You're desperate. We believe the teachings of the Church because it is consistent with reason and faith. Your accusation that we only accept what is given to us is erroneous. How can we accept and assimilate something if we don't understand it in the first place? Of course we analyzed it, and since the church is infallible on matters of faith and morals, church teachings are always in accord with reason and faith, therefore it is just right to believe in it.

Max1 My argument was, in case you forgot (but you really did), has your church given her official interpretation to all (100%) verses of the Bible. Therefore, your co-members are still figuring out the vast majority of the verses not yet interpreted by your so-called infallible interpreter.

Don't evade. You said this:

"Your councils only impose rules. Not intepretations. I'll save you the trouble, the occurences of your magisterium of releasing an official interpretation of Bible verses arising from inquiry or dispute throughout the past, especially those over five hundred years ago is rare." [Max1 Post#138]

You said categorically that our councils ONLY impose rules. Not interpretations.

Yet, at the end of your statement you said that the Magisterium also releases official interpretation of bible verses though rarely.

You refuted yourself. You are caught by your own contradiction. Proof that you are indeed fallible. If you are fallible how can you expect catholics of good will to entrust the eternal destiny of their souls on your teachings?

These bible verse holds true for you:

Proverbs 6:2
you have been trapped by what you said,
ensnared by the words of your mouth.

Max1 So that's two down, how about the rest of verses in the Bible?

But you said a while ago that our councils ONLY impose rules. Not interpretations.

"Your councils only impose rules. Not intepretations. I'll save you the trouble, the occurences of your magisterium of releasing an official interpretation of Bible verses arising from inquiry or dispute throughout the past, especially those over five hundred years ago is rare." [Max1 Post#138]

And yet here you are accepting (since you have no choice) that in the Council of Trent, the Church released an official interpretation of John 20:22-23. That's another contradiction. Indeed, when you said: "Your councils only impose rules. Not interpretations, you are actually lying with your teeth. You've been exposed.

Proverbs 14:25
An honest witness can save your life, but liars can't be trusted.

Max1 Claiming to be correct does not necessarily mean we're infallible.

Since you're fallible, your claim of correctness in teachings is also fallible.

Max1 Our brethren can exercise diligence to verify what we're saying are true.

That's why you end up in disunity and never-ending disintegration. Because each of you are so absorbed in your respective "correct" interpretations you just don't want to submit yourself to the teachings of others. So what you guys do next is to go on your separate ways and create your own respective fellowships. Your group is like an amoeba, splitting itself.

Max1 You don't have this privilege because when your pope declares something you say amen without thinking.

If that's a privilege, I'm happy I don't have it. It's a curse.