The Interpretation of Scripture

[Paphnutius]

Has anyone thought that this has been beaten into the ground or at least making circles?

[LittleLes]

Ah yes. The old slavery was good for the slave argument. So what if the slave had no rights and all his children would be enslaved and worked or sold to a new owner. By observing his Christian master, he would learn about Christianity and "save his soul." So slavery was a good thing.

The significance of this claimed moral legitimacy of slavery - which we now recognize as a sin and contrary to the natural law - is that the Church's interpretation of scripture until relatively recent years endorsed it. Once again the interpretation that the church"has held and holds." Thus, an infallible moral teaching under boththe extraordinary and the universal ordinary magisterium.

Well, at least until it changed. Who said infallible teachings ar irreformable?

Little Les

[peach_cube]

Let's summarize,

LittleLes considers himself Catholic.

He does not believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures.

Because of this he cannot believe in the divinity of Christ.

Obviously he wouldn't believe in infalliblity if he sees error in the scriptures.

His positions are very similar to those of Budge and Bruce S.

Like them he is probably someone who was raised Catholic and then one day started to "take a closer look" and he magically discovered the errors of Catholicism. Like them he is most likely older and set in his ways. His faith seems to reside not in Christ but in Science and "Scholarship." His beliefs on the Scriptures mimics those of any secular college study bible commentary.

Because of this the debate will go nowhere. The issue that needs to be discussed is Christ. The other threads are fruitless without this. I don't know his meaning for being here. Perhaps he is making one last shot at Catholicism to give it a chance. Perhaps death has been on his mind of late and this has caused either doubt or bitterness in him. Regardless the issue needs to be Christ.

Littleles, who do you say Christ was?

[LittleLes]

I think the thread deals with the interpretation of scripture and C-Mother gets upset if we get off topic.

Still, I'll risk a short reply.

Christ was an first century itinerant preacher who advocated reform of Judaism and believed in, as did many during this period, the imminance of end times.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Once again the interpretation that the church"has held and holds." Thus, an infallible moral teaching under boththe extraordinary and the universal ordinary magisterium.[/quote]

P1. The Church studies and applies science in certain matters
P2. The Church teaches infallibly on faith and morals
-------------------------------------------
C. The Church teaches infallibly on matters of science.

What is wrong with this line of reasoning?

This is the reasoning that Littles is ascribing to. The fallacy is quite simple. However, I am not going to do your philosophy homework for you. It is glaring and obvious.

When you can answer this, then you can understand your error.

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]I think the thread deals with the interpretation of scripture and C-Mother gets upset if we get off topic.[/quote]

Oh, it is more than c-mom. Does this mean that you are, finally, going to address the statements posed to you on this thread?

[quote]Christ was an first century itinerant preacher who advocated reform of Judaism and believed in, as did many during this period, the imminance of end times.[/quote]

Way to provide a half Arian answer. Are you denying the divine nature of Christ with that definition of Jesus Christ?

Cam

Edited March 13, 2005 by Cam42

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 13 2005, 06:35 PM']
Way to provide a half Arian answer. Are you denying the divine nature of Christ with that definition of Jesus Christ?
[/quote]
I believe since he doesn't feel the scriptures are a "reliable" source of information and also the ECF fathers he can reason as being either unreliable or ununified in their opinions, thus giving him a very divided picture of early christianity.

[Cam42]

[quote]Has anyone thought that this has been beaten into the ground or at least making circles?[/quote]

Yes

[LittleLes]

So far, its been shown that, despite its "infallible" claim ( Vatican I the universal ordinary magisterium) to always interpret scripture correctly, the Church:

(1) Was in error in insisting on the literal interpretation of Psalms and Chronicles that the earth does not move.

and

(2) On scriptural grounds (and the natural law as well) taught that slavery was morally legitimate.

and next

(3) Interpreted scripture to mean that the loaning of money for (any) interest to be a sin.


LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]So far, its been shown that, despite its "infallible" claim ( Vatican I the universal ordinary magisterium) to always interpret scripture correctly, the Church:

(1) Was in error in insisting on the literal interpretation of Psalms and Chronicles that the earth does not move.

and

(2) On scriptural grounds (and the natural law as well) taught that slavery was morally legitimate.

and next

(3) Interpreted scripture to mean that the loaning of money for (any) interest to be a sin[/quote]

By whom and with what proof? You have not done that. You have not even come close. There has been a point by point refutation of every single one of your points with stable and complete docuementation.

You are on very thin ice trying to prove that you have held up at all.

BTW, I do believe that this is the first time that usury has been brought up in this thread or any other for that matter. So (3) is totally out of place. Do you think that we don't read??????

How about trying to actually prove your assumptions and putting up a genuine effort in defending your position. This juvenile attempt is really quite fun. I am not really even trying all that hard.

Finally, I would really like to see how you respond to the incorrect argument that you put forth and I diagramed. I don't think that you can justify it or correct it, but I would really like to see the attempt.

Cam

[LittleLes]

As has been shown, the First Vatican Council taught infallibly that the church always interprets scripture correctly. Moreover, whatever the Church has taught at all times and in all places is considered infallible by way of the universal ordinary magisterium.

Based on the Church's interpretation of scripture, charging any interest on money loaned was considered a sin. (Until a way around this was found in the 1700's). It should be noted that the term "usury," which now means excessive interest , originally meant any interest. (See The Sin of Usury in the encyclical Vix Pervenit).

An example is Deut 23:20 "You shall not demand interest from your countryman on the loan of money or of food of anything else on which interest is usually demanded."

Pope Clement V, Canon 29, the ecumenical Council of Vienna (1311 A.D.)
"If indeed someone has fallen into error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we declare that he is to be punished as a heretic..."

Strictly speaking, this teaching is still on the books and hasn't been withdrawn.

LittleLes

[Archangel]

For those who don't mind clicking on hyperlinks, click here:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709fea3.asp"]The Red Herring of Usury[/url]

For those who do, click here:

The Red Herring of Usury



... yawn ...

[Cam42]

[quote]As has been shown, the First Vatican Council taught infallibly that the church always interprets scripture correctly.[/quote]

It has been refuted that your position is incorrect. The Church only acts infallibly in matters of faith and morals....that is like the 1 millionth time we have said that.

Why shotgun usury. And Archangel just refuted you....sorry.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Yes indeed. Not being able to refute the facts of history, Catholic apologists try to label the Church's error in scriptural interpretation regarding charging interest as a "red herring" in the hopes that they can avoid addressing this error in the Church's interpretation of scripture, and the reader will be satisfied with their labeling of it in stead of an explanation. But they can't refute the facts which are just too well documented.

There is disagreement whether if, in itself, Vix Pervenit, the encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV written in 1745, is an infallible ex cathedra statement, but it summarizes the former scriptural based teaching on the "sin" of charging interest rather well, and also outlines how it may be sidestepped.

I. "The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in the loan contract....but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious."

II. "One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive...This law has to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made.

So tell your Catholic banker that if he has charged you any interest, he must make restitution and return all the interest to you. After all, its a scripturally based teaching and the Church infallibly interprets scripture correctly!

Little Les

[jasJis]

Les obviously didn't read the article. If Les did read it, he would have seen the crux of where he again goes wrong. It's in the definition of USURY. Note that Les "[i]conveniently[/i]" edits the excerpt labeled I in his post. Did the Pope say any gain on a loan is sinful? No. How could he because Scripture specifically allows it and one example Jesus gives a parable where Jesus as Master is rightfully due intrest. The sin of usury is refusing to be generous to those in need. Read the article Les. Again, you arguments fall about with an examination of a reasonable mind.