Hello Vern,

>RS>Since the Catholic Church is above Scripture and has in fact
>RS>determined what writings were and weren't to be included in the New
>RS>Testament, the same has the authority to determine what is the
>RS>correct interpretation when manuscripts differ.

>BS>Wow.  Has the RCC determined which manuscripts have the original
>BS>readings? I had not heard of that before.

VH>It was the Catholic Church (the Council of Carthage and Pope Damasus) who
VH>established the Canon of Scripture.  The documents which appear in the Bible
VH>are there because they have TRADITIONALLY been considered inspired -- there
VH>nothing in the Gospels, for example that says, up front, "This
is part of th
VH>Bible."  You cannot, via sola scriptura, justify the inclusion
of any of the
VH>documents in the New Testament.  You must step outside the Bible to do that
VH>and use Christian tradition as your criteria.

VH>The Catholic Church recognizes that for the first four hundred years or so,
VH>there was no New Testament (although the Church finally created it and decla
VH>which documents are in that New Testament.)  Christianity was taught and
VH>Christ's message transmitted BOTH in writing and oraly.  The Church holds bo
VH>means, the written and the oral tradition, to be sacred.

VH>The Catholic Church is the transmitter of the messge of Christ, by virtue of
VH>its Apostolic lineage, and hence the interpreter of the scripture and
VH>tradition.

Since, as you put it, the Catholic Church is "the interpreter of the
scripture and tradition", please cite all verses of Scripture that have
been officially interpreted by the Catholic Church.

Clue1: There are less than a dozen.
Clue2: Most of those verses are dealing with the Eucharist.
Clue3: Most of the official interpretations were made at the
       Council of Trent.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Intel on the inside.  Idiot on the outside.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5