1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The 15 Infallibly-Interpreted Bible Verses by the Catholic Church

Discussion in 'Catholic DIR' started by Quiddity, Oct 5, 2005.

  1. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The 15 Infallibly-Interpreted Bible Verses by the Catholic Church:

    (1)
    Romans 5:12 ("By one man sin entered into this world") refers to original sin.

    (2) I Corinthians 4:7 ("What hast thou that thou hast not received") proves divine grace to be a sheer gift of God.

    (3) Isaiah 7:14 ("Behold a virgin shall be with child, etc." [sic]) must be regarded as prophetic of a Redeemer to come.

    (4) Genesis 3:15 ("I will put enmity between thee and the woman"), and Luke 1:28 ("Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee") contain at least implicitly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    (5) Philippians 2:6 ("Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not prize being equal with God, etc." [sic]) refers to the existence of the person of Christ as the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity before He became man in the Incarnation.

    (6) Matthew 16:16-19 ("Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church") and John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep") contain the doctrine of Papal Supremacy.

    (7) Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not and do thou . . . confirm thy brethren") must be interpreted as providing a basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

    (8) John 3:5 ("Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God") shows the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with water.

    (9) Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24, recording our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "Do this for a commemoration of me", indicate the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the apostles being ordained as priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass or Holy Eucharist.

    (10) Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-29, demand the literal and not merely a symbolical interpretation of our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "This is my body," "This is my blood," so that we must hold they teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist or Blessed Sacrament.

    (11) Malachi 1:11 ("From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice") is a prediction of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

    (12) John 6:54-57 ("unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood") does not require Communion in both kinds instead of under the form of bread only.

    (13) Matthew 18:18 ("Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven") and John 20:23 ("Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them") prove the Sacrament of Penance and the power of priests to forgive sins in confession.

    (14) James 5:14 ("Is any man sick . . . let him bring in the priests of the Church . . . anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord") teaches the existence of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

    (15) Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37 ("Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and souls and mind and strength") do not require a love so spiritual and out of this world as to exclude all human emotional feelings and desires based on devotional sentiments.

    Let it be noted here that these infallible interpretations do not mean that no other, additional interpretation is possible. We know that some Bible passages can have more than one interpretation (e.g. the "woman" in Rev 12:1). But these infallible interpretations mentioned above must be admitted to be true interpretations.

    Got this from CF.com

    ~Victor
     
  2. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,181
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Victor,

    Since you posted this in the Roman Catholicism forum, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of response. Would it be okay if a non-Catholic shared his or her understanding of these same verses, or would that be considered debate?

    Kathryn
     
  3. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +952
    I do believe he posted it for the education of other Catholics.. like me... and I'm no Moderator but I'm sure that you can comment as long as you agree.
     
  4. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,181
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Okay. I honestly wasn't sure what his purpose was. I do agree with some of them, but not all of them. So I guess I'll just let you guys educate each other. ;)
     
  5. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Sorry Katzpur, Scott was right about my intentions. That doesn't mean we can't discuss things elsewhere. :)
    Also keep in mind the last comments made where I said that other interpretations are possible.

    ~Victor
     
  6. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    I have already come to a stumbling step with No 5.


    (5) Philippians 2:6 ("Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not prize being equal with God, etc." [sic]) refers to the existence of the person of Christ as the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity before He became man in the Incarnation.

    Do I read that as meaning that Jesus Christ only became equal with God ofter resurection ? - That I understand, and believe; Am I right ?
     
  7. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Christ regarded himself equal to God but did not expect anyone to fully grasp that. He was God every step of the way. The statement made above is only saying that Christ existed BEFORE he came to the world. That make sense?

    ~Victor
     
  8. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    Now you have told me, yes, thanks.;)
     
Loading...