Obedience to the Catholic Church and criticising Bishops

mdebets

Just came accross some posts by Jester Minute (not picking on you, but I just noticed your posts) in the threads about Medjugorje and about the new translation of the mass.

Jester Minute wrote: »

We don't judge which bishop is an apostate. We follow their directions.

Jester Minute wrote: »

I watched my own bishop and PP sit in the sanctuary whilst Holy Communion was distributed a few weeks ago. it's clear that they really haven't got much of a clue. Redemptionis Sacramentum has not been implemented in Ireland (or anywhere?).

Jester Minute wrote: »

The good shepherd feeds his sheep. He doesn't stand on the other side of the fence while the hired hands feed the sheep. I was so disgusted to see the Bishop sit there while a troop of (mostly women) EMHC did their thing. Disgusted, but not surprised.

In the last two quotes, to me at least, are clearly acts of disobedience to the bishop (critising him, rather than following his lead). That raises to me the questions, are Catholics allowed to critisise their Bishops and even the Pope and if they are allowed, how do they determing when to criticise and when not to criticise.
I would be specialy interested in answers to the later question, as apparently (as I understand it from earlier threads), Catholic are not supposed to interpret the Bible for themselves, but follow the Churche's interpretation. So how do they determine if a Bishop is wrong in religious matters (which he must be if they are critisisng him), as they are supposed to follow his lead?

BengaLover

are Catholics allowed to critisise their Bishops and even the Pope and if they are allowed, how do they determing when to criticise and when not to criticise.
I would be specialy interested in answers to the later question, as apparently (as I understand it from earlier threads), Catholic are not supposed to interpret the Bible for themselves, but follow the Churche's interpretation. So how do they determine if a Bishop is wrong in religious matters (which he must be if they are critisisng him), as they are supposed to follow his lead?

The Bible tells us to 'test' things for yourself. 2 Corinthinans :13: 5,6
If you arent happy with what you are being taught, or what you hear as regards religious matters then its your right to not only question it but to seek out the truth.
Seek and ye shall find, knock and ye shall enter, and remember, the Bible is the only place to find real truth.

Jester Minute

Catholic laymen and women have some duties and responsibilities.

Canon law:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which [the laity]
possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the
sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the
Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,
without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward
their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
(Canon 212 §3)

Admonishing the sinner and instructing the ignorant are two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy. I'm still trying to find the answers of how this affects the obligations of laymen and the clergy. If anyone has any insights on that I'd be pleased to hear them.

If I hear a bishop or priest teaching heresy, it would be my duty, I should think, to correct him privately, by word of mouth or by letter. But when one would actually do this, and how serious the error must be which would require direct action, would be up to the individual judgement. If he teaches contrary to the faith and morals of the Church (as contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and magisterial documents), then he should be pulled up on it, respectfully and in charity (remembering that despite everything, he is still a successor of the Apostles, as a bishop, and an alter Christus, as priest and bishop), and, I would suggest, in private.

As regards the bishop not distributing Holy Communion, I have some Church documents which show that such actions are reprobated by the Church.

Pope John Paul II (in Dominicae cenae) criticized the abuse of the permission for extraordinary ministers as "reprehensible".

A platinum Blue Peter badge goes to the person who can find the dioscese in Ireland where Redemptionis Sacramentum has been implemented:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Faithful Catholics have Holy Church on their side, against those who are culpably ignorant.

You know as well as I do how easy it is to pull stuff up on the internet. if we lay Catholics, a simple and uneducated as we are, can do and know this, then pray tell me why can't our bishops and priests???

These are some of the best links I've found:
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/
http://www.vatican.va

This is the frustration of Catholics all across the world. The Pope speaks, the Church teaches, we listen, but our bishops and priests do not.* Meanwhile, most of the ignorant laity chew on bits of barbed wire and the 'best' offerings of the world.

*Of course there are a few faithful priests and bishops in Ireland, we must not forget them.

Jester Minute

One other thing: we must be obedient to our bishops and priests, so long as they do not command us to sin. The Bishop of Mostar has acted properly in Medjugorje and his directives should have been followed. Even if the events there are true, the bishop should be obeyed. This has always been the case in the Church as a means of protecting the flock and discerning the spirits. If I were to say that the Bishop is an apostate just because he has discerned that Medj is a false apparition, then I have just committed a very grave sin. Medj proponents have done this with the Bishop on many occasions. I have to say, anything I have seen or read about the last two bishops of Mostar assures me that they are men who have done their duty in a manful and Christian way. They have been largely ignored.

But when a bishop or priest contradicts official Church teaching and directives (as found in Church documents and the Catechism etc....), then it is obvious that he has gone astray. Hence we can correct him or ignore his wrongdoing and certainly not involve ourselves in any sins of disobedience.

mdebets

BengaLover wrote: »

The Bible tells us to 'test' things for yourself. 2 Corinthinans :13: 5,6
If you arent happy with what you are being taught, or what you hear as regards religious matters then its your right to not only question it but to seek out the truth.
Seek and ye shall find, knock and ye shall enter, and remember, the Bible is the only place to find real truth.

Just to clarify your statements:
Personal interpretation of the Bible is allowed for a Catholic. He has not to follow the guidance by the Church if he is not happy with it.
If the Bible is the only place to find the real truth, Catholic tradition has to be ignored when doing the interpretation.

Just asking, as other Catholics (in the Catholic / Protestant Mega thread some months ago) claimed that a Catholic always has to follow the Church's interpretation of the Bible and that Church traditions are on equal footing to the Bible (if I can remember their arguments correctly).

Jester Minute

mdebets wrote: »

Just to clarify your statements:
Personal interpretation of the Bible is allowed for a Catholic. He has not to follow the guidance by the Church if he is not happy with it.
If the Bible is the only place to find the real truth, Catholic tradition has to be ignored when doing the interpretation.

Just asking, as other Catholics (in the Catholic / Protestant Mega thread some months ago) claimed that a Catholic always has to follow the Church's interpretation of the Bible and that Church traditions are on equal footing to the Bible (if I can remember their arguments correctly).

What you have written above is merely your opinion.

The teaching of the Church, however, is clear.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 88

The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

A faithful Catholic is not free to pick and choose which doctrines he likes and which he rejects, nor to interpret Holy Scripture in a way which conflicts with the official Church teaching.

Whatever view you've expressed above, it is certainly not the Catholic position.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium are the three legs of the Catholic stool.

lmaopml

Actually, I think it's rather mean to put up a topic on 'one' poster on the Christianity forum and single them out for scrutiny...? Jester, whether I agree all the time or no, must have made an impact to have deserved such a 'spotlight'..lol..

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, my understanding is ( and correct me if I am wrong ) that one is entirely free to emerse oneself in various dogma and opinion and converse with others of various faiths etc. etc.

Where we get 'guidance' on Scriptural interpretation is only where a 'dogma' has been declared, most important of which is the 'resurrection' of Jesus Christ as saviour, and the reasons for that are there for anybody to enquire and research as to whether they are intellectually trustworthy, or convincing. Yay or nay, the choice, simple.

There are very, very many areas of Sacred Scripture where the Catholic church has not 'defined and declared' as an ultimate dogma, and very many things that are still open to interpretation...

It's up to the Catholic to understand his/her 'faith' at the end of the day - it may seem from the outside like as if it is a structural 'monster', it's 'not' imo, it's very very careful and wholly intellectually satisfying as I would expect from the church built on the rock.

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

Actually, I think it's rather mean to put up a topic on 'one' poster on the Christianity forum and single them out for scrutiny...? Jester, whether I agree all the time or no, must have made an impact to have deserved such a 'spotlight'..lol..

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, my understanding is ( and correct me if I am wrong ) that one is entirely free to emerse oneself in various dogma and opinion and converse with others of various faiths etc. etc.

Where we get 'guidance' on Scriptural interpretation is only where a 'dogma' has been declared, most important of which is the 'resurrection' of Jesus Christ as saviour, and the reasons for that are there for anybody to enquire and research as to whether they are intellectually trustworthy, or convincing. Yay or nay, the choice, simple.

There are very, very many areas of Sacred Scripture where the Catholic church has not 'defined and declared' as an ultimate dogma, and very many things that are still open to interpretation...

It's up to the Catholic to understand his/her 'faith' at the end of the day - it may seem from the outside like as if it is a structural 'monster', it's 'not' imo, it's very very careful and wholly intellectually satisfying as I would expect from the church built on the rock.

I don't care. I think it is good that these questions are asked.

The Deposit of Faith is neatly contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Faith and the smaller, more concise Compendium of the Catholic Church. This is the Catholic faith.

It's actually quite dangerous to the soul to toy around with the other religions, as well as the creeds of non-Catholic Christians. One can easily become ensnared in various errors and arguments.

One little excerpt from the Catechism:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

This video addresses this issue head on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8S8W3zm5AI



-

lmaopml

I can confidently agree with all of that Jester using my 'free will', and still 'converse' with others...even understand others and their motivations etc. etc. no matter what religion they are or if they have none...I 'know' me, my drawbacks, fortes and where I fail miserably..

I will respectfully disagree that it is dangerous to 'converse' with others, I don't believe in cotton wool wrapping and never needed it, and I'm sure I'm not alone - conversation is good..

It's just conversation, and I don't know a single piece of the Catechism that says one must not speak to anybody who holds a different view..?? It's just not there!

It doesn't mean that one is less 'Catholic' it just means that one is not afraid to say they 'are' Catholic for a very good reason! 'Reason' is very important, and should always be encouraged and nourished without bias...

..approaching God honestly requires our reason to be as honest. Conversation is good.

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

I can confidently agree with all of that Jester using my 'free will', and still 'converse' with others...even understand others and their motivations etc. etc. no matter what religion they are or if they have none...I 'know' me, my drawbacks, fortes and where I fail miserably..

I will respectfully disagree that it is dangerous to 'converse' with others, I don't believe in cotton wool wrapping and never needed it, and I'm sure I'm not alone - conversation is good..

It's just conversation, and I don't know a single piece of the Catechism that says one must not speak to anybody who holds a different view..?? It's just not there!

It doesn't mean that one is less 'Catholic' it just means that one is not afraid to say they 'are' Catholic for a very good reason! 'Reason' is very important, and should always be encouraged and nourished without bias...

..approaching God honestly requires our reason to be as honest. Conversation is good.

Of course reason is good, and it is good to converse with others. But I am merely highlighting a danger and that is, that it is dangerous for those who are poorly formed in the Catholic faith to mingle with other religions and belief systems. I've seen it myself with people who have fallen into this trap.

You'll find warnings against such things in some examinations of conscience. If one is not well formed in the faith, it can be an occasion of sin to watch, read, or converse with non-Catholics, IF it endangers your own faith, and that danger can be subtle and you may not even be aware of the dangers and risks, even as you engage in them.

lmaopml

I know exactly where you are coming from, this being the, 'find out for yourself..information at your fingertips age'. However, I would never ever think it is a 'bad' thing. I am a reasonably young Catholic returned to the faith and blown away by the depth of thought hidden therein..

If 'Truth' stands it stands on it's own, and makes sense without excuses, I think that's really cool...

There is no harm in 'chat' when one is confident of ones faith and respectful of anothers..

Catholics don't need to be spoon fed, we have a magnificent diversity of opinion, theology, and philosophy rich enough to occupy a whole lifetime and to be very proud to speak and converse about..

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

I know exactly where you are coming from, this being the, 'find out for yourself..information at your fingertips age'. However, I would never ever think it is a 'bad' thing. I am a reasonably young Catholic returned to the faith and blown away by the depth of thought hidden therein..

If 'Truth' stands it stands on it's own, and makes sense without excuses, I think that's really cool...

There is no harm in 'chat' when one is confident of ones faith and respectful of anothers..

Catholics don't need to be spoon fed, we have a magnificent diversity of opinion, theology, and philosophy rich enough to occupy a whole lifetime and to be very proud to speak and converse about..

But as a Catholic, it's very important to understand that there are some things which are not Catholic. There are many opinions, theologies, and philosophies which are incompatible with Catholic faith. That's why we are blessed to have the Magisterium. Otherwise we risk our salvation and wasting our time on errors and falsehoods, as rich as they might appear.

I bet most people haven't read Pope John Paul II's APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM. It is very well worth reading:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/aposcons.htm



-

lmaopml

I agree with you Jester, that some things are not Catholic, and there are so many things we seek guidance on from the Church as regards our faith in a personal way - we all pretty much know the dogma, no doubt!


I believe it's really important to be informed, and I think being 'informed' completely, and honestly involves mixing with others and finding oneself, some do, some don't believe that aspect of their person is required, we can't judge anything really??.....It's important to test all things and find our place, but respect others too..? and to examine the faith we make claim to in order to be confident!

I think 'free will' is the best thing ever, we should really 'prize' the opportunity!

I (personally) believe that being Catholic is only fabulous intellectually! It allows me so much freedom, guidance and support that it just sings to my soul as truth..because it's not at odds with anything I love or understand..It's complete.

I wouldn't wish to impede anybody elses 'journey' cause that's what faith is - the 'first tentative' step...by being so cozy that there is no 'chat'? There is no room for 'fear' imo as regards having a discussion or chat.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Jester Minute

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If an aircraft is in trouble, and the little oxygen masks drop down from above, I'm advised to put on my mask before I help anyone else, because if I don't, I will pass out before I am able to help the others.

Likewise, if engaging in doctrinal or apologetical debates with non-Catholics endangers my Catholic faith, I'd be well advised to avoid such discussions. Until such times as I am well formed and grounded in the Catholic faith, I'd be as well in not engaging in doctrinal or apologetical debates.

This is not selfish, it is common sense. It is the advice I would give if I was asked.

As regards the thread topic, I attach a leaflet on the subject to this post.

mdebets

Sorry for answering so late, but I didn't had Internet the whole day.

lmaopml wrote:

Actually, I think it's rather mean to put up a topic on 'one' poster on the Christianity forum and single them out for scrutiny...? Jester, whether I agree all the time or no, must have made an impact to have deserved such a 'spotlight'..lol..

Sorry, wasn't trying to pick on Jester Minute. I just saw his posts and remembered the earlier Catholic vs Protestant debate. Nothing personal Jester Minute.

Jester Minute wrote: »

What you have written above is merely your opinion.

That wasn't my opinion, I was just paraphrasing what BengaLover had written.

Jester Minute wrote: »

The teaching of the Church, however, is clear.

A faithful Catholic is not free to pick and choose which doctrines he likes and which he rejects, nor to interpret Holy Scripture in a way which conflicts with the official Church teaching.

Whatever view you've expressed above, it is certainly not the Catholic position.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium are the three legs of the Catholic stool.

If this is true, how can then any Catholic object to the teachings that came out of the Second Vatican Council? As an Ecumenical Council, its teachings would fall under the Sacred Magisterium, which each Catholic has to obey. Many of the objections I see here on various threats would fall under this point.

Jester Minute

mdebets wrote: »

If this is true, how can then any Catholic object to the teachings that came out of the Second Vatican Council? As an Ecumenical Council, its teachings would fall under the Sacred Magisterium, which each Catholic has to obey. Many of the objections I see here on various threats would fall under this point.

Have any Catholic members done that here? Not as far as I can see since I got here. There can be legitimate discussion about these matters amongst Catholics concerning matters which are open to interpretation and which the Church has not ruled definitively on. But we are not free to reject the Second Vatican Council.

But anyway:

Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. […] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.”

(Cardinal Ratzinger, Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)

These matters are complex. I am only working through them myself. I believe it could go either way, and apparently, so does Benedict XVI:

Perhaps surprisingly to some, Pope Benedict XVI, then writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, acknowledged that “[n]ot every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis many of them have been just a waste of time” and in the very next sentence he wrote that “the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken.”

I think Vatican II could prove to be, eventually (once all the silly people have got bored and have gone home), an effective and fruitful council, but equally, future generations could realise that it caused a lot of silly bother. But I haven't given up on the council, and I don't think we should. But I'm not the Pope; I'm a Catholic and I follow the direction of the Pope and the Magisterium. These questions have little relevance to my personal salvation or that of the majority of Catholics.

Finally, I'd refer readers to the Christmas address of Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia in 2005 - he addresses the legacy of Vatican II in the second half of the address:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

It gives a good idea of how the Pope views this situation. He is really the last active cleric who was closely involved in Vatican II and now he is the Pope. It's interesting that this is the case.

This is a particularly interesting section if you haven't the will to read the whole thing:

The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

lmaopml

Lovely post Jester.

Festus

mdebets wrote: »

In the last two quotes, to me at least, are clearly acts of disobedience to the bishop (critising him, rather than following his lead). That raises to me the questions, are Catholics allowed to critisise their Bishops and even the Pope and if they are allowed, how do they determing when to criticise and when not to criticise.
I would be specialy interested in answers to the later question, as apparently (as I understand it from earlier threads), Catholic are not supposed to interpret the Bible for themselves, but follow the Churche's interpretation. So how do they determine if a Bishop is wrong in religious matters (which he must be if they are critisisng him), as they are supposed to follow his lead?

There is a world of difference between "not interpreting the Bible for ourselves" and determining that the directions of a bishop are at odds with the Magesterium or the Faith. The bishops are charged with teaching the faith, the true faith, and not their interpretation of it.

If you will, we Catholics cannot interpret the Bible for ourselves and likewise the Bishops cannot interpret their instructions or their mission as they see fit.

That said I am not aware of any bishop that has openly defied the Church however there are many bishops who do not teach the Faith as it should be taught and often they do not speak out against those things that the Church holds to be abhorrent.

In my opinion if a bishop is seen to be negligent in his duties we have every right to quesion him. To some that may be seen as criticism. The fact remains that the Faith and what the Church teaches is public domain information and determining if a bishop is wrong in religious matters is easy - look to the Pope and the Magesterium. If the bishop is in conflict it is easily determined.

Festus

mdebets wrote: »

If this is true, how can then any Catholic object to the teachings that came out of the Second Vatican Council? As an Ecumenical Council, its teachings would fall under the Sacred Magisterium, which each Catholic has to obey. Many of the objections I see here on various threats would fall under this point.

I think you'll find that Catholics do not object to the teachings that came out of Vatican II but rather object to the way they have been misinterpreted.

Those Catholics who think there is something worth rejecting would do well to acquaint themselves with the truth of Vatican ][ and not some third hand mis-information.

That said there is much that has been instituted under the auspices of Vatican II that is in error and should be challenged.

Jester Minute

Festus wrote: »

I think you'll find that Catholics do not object to the teachings that came our of Vatican II but rather object to the way they have been misinterpreted.

Those Catholics who think there is something worth rejecting would do well to acquaint themselves with the truth of Vatican ][ and not some third hand mis-information.

That said there is much that has been instituted under the auspices of Vatican II that is in error and should be challenged.

Like TOTALLY changing the Mass*, ripping out altar rails, religious ditching their habits, Communion in the hand, tearing out high altars, Mass facing the people, statues - Vatican II never said any of that should have happened. Those things were done by iconoclasts, ideologues, and wreak-o-vators using Vatican II as an excuse, knowing full well the common man couldn't check because the internet hadn't been invented. (I love saying that. It makes the Vatican II crowd sound sooo old!!!)

What Vatican II wanted to do was present the Catholic faith** in a way that modern man would understand, whilst preserving the totality and integrity of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Some hippies and free-love advocates in the Church in the 1960s, probably having smoked one joint too many, thought (or wanted to think) that Vatican II meant we didn't have to believe all that old stuff, like the Ten Commandments... and stuff.... YEAH! That was it! So then they told the media about it, and the media told the world.

But they didn't really think it through, and then there was the Holy Spirit Who was keeping an eye on things... Plus the Pope. Those pesky Popes - always meddling...

In all seriousness, the Spirit of Vatican II crowd will peddle the same story, without the laughs, without realising that they and their spirit only make sense with either laughs or anger that they got away with so much, for so long. But, the Church prevails. And now the tide has turned.

It's so cool to be part of the Church at this exciting time (and deeply frustrating too). I always thought there was something not quite right when I was growing up, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. The liturgy was part of it, so too the rebellion against sexual morality and the whole 'primacy of conscience' thing against the obvious, common-sense teaching of the Church on such matters. It didn't ring true.



* http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
** http://www.adoremus.org/0510VaticanIIRenewal.html

Festus

I hear ya JM. You might like this, http://www.realcatholictv.com/cia/ , paricularly the upcoming "Rebellion in the Church" and the already available " Weapons of Mass destruction".

CIA episodes are freely available as are the tons of supporting research.

Jester Minute

Festus wrote: »

I hear ya JM. You might like this, http://www.realcatholictv.com/cia/ , paricularly the upcoming "Rebellion in the Church" and the already available " Weapons of Mass destruction".

CIA episodes are freely available as are the tons of supporting research.

You know what - I am a paid up subscriber. I think that is where I learned my rhetoric!!!

Rebellion in the Church sounds good. Have you seen Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz's recent interview? Very good stuff.

Here's a wee taster for anyone interested: http://www.realcatholictv.com/share/watch.php?vidID=shep-2010-11-05

Festus

Just signed up to premium.

Wow!

Jester Minute

Festus wrote: »

Just signed up to premium.

Wow!

I'm looking forward to CIA this week. We'll have to one of us post a link to the film for our friends here on boards.ie.

summerfield5

mdebets wrote: »

Just to clarify your statements:
Personal interpretation of the Bible is allowed for a Catholic. He has not to follow the guidance by the Church if he is not happy with it.
If the Bible is the only place to find the real truth, Catholic tradition has to be ignored when doing the interpretation.

Just asking, as other Catholics (in the Catholic / Protestant Mega thread some months ago) claimed that a Catholic always has to follow the Church's interpretation of the Bible and that Church traditions are on equal footing to the Bible (if I can remember their arguments correctly).

Personal interpretation of the Bible is not allowed by the Roman Catholic Church- this task lies with the Teaching Authority of the Church.Sadly this concept split the Church during the Reformation which in turn led to many thousand different Denominations where each one in turn becomes his own "POPE" and his own "AUTHORITY" There are many different interpretatins of the Bible and for fifteen hundred years the Roman Catholic Church was the sole custodian until the Reformation when Luther(who was catholic) nailed his infamous theses to the Church doors in Wittenberg Germany.