The Church has not, nor has ever attempted to, nor ever will...issue an authoritative interpretation on EVERY. single. passage. in Scripture. 

That's why She says that, in the ABSENCE of Her authoritative interpretation, that Scripture is to be taken literally.  That's the default.

A lot of the issues that you make assertions about have been addressed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in statements endorsed by popes.  These are authoritative interpretation.  There is nothing the least bit modernist about accepting these PBC teachings.

The Church has NEVER taught that, in absence of an authoritative interpretation, that one can interpret Scripture as they will.  She has said, through St Thomas and others, that in absence of commentary from the Church, the passage is to be taken literally.  Which is MOST of Scripture.

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I'm saying.  There is authoritative intepretation.  There is commentary from the Church.  It is not absent.  I am accepting these interpretations, not making up my own.

Have you read any of Pontifical Biblical Commision statements on these issues? 

One upvote was made by me and was a mistake.  Meg you really make awful assumptions against people.  I wish you would just back away from the conversation, when you try to undermine peoples character.  You should apologize to Jaynek because she pursued information on her husband's request, she had no intent to be a feminist,  or a modenest.  In this day and age all traditional Catholics know that those comments are hitting below the belt and lack any form of charity.

Ps.  Meg unfortunately can't see this post.

Actually, I can see your post, when I'm not logged in. Since you are a arrogant know-it-all, I expect no less of a response from you. I won't respond to you further on this subject. You need to grow up. 

Actually, I can see your post, when I'm not logged in. Since you are a arrogant know-it-all, I expect no less of a response from you. I won't respond to you further on this subject. You need to grow up.

Oh so you are deceitful as well.  

Don't you have to un ignore me so you can post a comment?  You are playing games and throwing fits.  Normally I don't put my feelings out there about people and normally I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but Meg you have crossed some major lines and I feel fraternal correction is in order.  If I must grow up, you must grow up to.

You can't just assume that you know what it says and that everything is literal.

  This isn't what I said.  I said, as St Thomas said, that the DEFAULT is literal....unless the Church has said otherwise.  Do you know what "default" means?

You said the below:

We have no obligation to accept non-authoritative interpretations of Scripture.

This is wrong.  The % of non-authoritative interpretations of biblical passages, by the Church, is like 80% (or more).  This means the Church has NOT interpreted about 80% (or more) of the Bible.  This is why the Church teaches that the "default" is a literal interpretation.  Because She considers a) most of the bible is to be taken literally, b) She only interprets those passages which become problems and need a decision-maker.

If one were to take your flawed rationale and say "I only accept authoritative interpretations" that would mean that:
a) most of the bible is not authorized/commented on by the Church
b) one cannot read the bible "as is" or "as it was written".
c) which leads to the Modernist heresy that Scripture is some kind of mystery which needs to be unraveled and cannot be comprehended by mankind.
d) which devalues the Church Fathers, who commented on probably 90% of all scripture and who learned directly from the Apostles.

You are unfamiliar with a major resource where the Church interprets the passages which become problems.

Again, the Church has only commented on like 20% of the Bible.  Ever read the Haydock bible?  Most passages aren't commented on.  And even the Haydock isn't infallible 100%.

Only a person who is familiar with it and similar writings knows when to apply the default.  You are not qualified to make pronouncements on what is literal or not. 

  You obviously don't know what "default" means.  Embarrassing.  Your word-salad doesn't change this fact.

The fact that the literal interpretation is the default does not mean that an untrained person should just be assuming it in this area.

That's exactly what it means.    Default = assuming a literal translation.  Was St Thomas stupid?  No, you're hard-hearted.

When discussing "the secrets of nature" we know, as Leo XIII taught, that much of it is not literal.  This is not an area for an untrained layperson to assume it is all literal and denounce everyone who disagrees with his interpretations as a heretic.

If the Church hasn't spoken on a passage, it's to be taken literally.  Period.  Which is like 80% or more.

You are ignoring St. Basil who is a Church Father and explicitly says that those who claim Scripture teaches the shape of the earth are misinterpretting passages that should be taken figuratively.

  I've never said the Church teaches the shape of the earth.  Quit putting words in my mouth.

The default is what happens or exists unless something else takes place to prevent it.  If the Church does not teach that a passage is figurative then the default is to take it as literal.

Hey, you got it!!  Congrats.

One sometimes needs to make some effort to determine whether the Church has taught it is figurative, before going to the default.  One looks at commentaries (like Haydock as you mentioned), PCB statements, etc.  

1.  The Haydock Bible is regularly regarded as a very safe guidance on Scripture.
2.  The PCB statements aren't infallible, just so you know.
3.  PCB statements aren't "de fide".  They're from a Commission, after all.

One does not say, "There's an 80% chance it's literal.  I'll just assume it is."  

You're twisting my words, once again.  Going off of the Haydock Bible, the % of his comments vs passages is small, i.e. 20%.  The point being, the % of passages where THE CHURCH HAS NOT PROVIDED COMMENTARY is LARGE, i.e. 80% as an estimate.

Especially not when it concerns "secrets of nature" on which subject we know, due to magisterial teaching, there is a strong possibility it is figurative.

Again, you're twisting the meaning of Pope Leo XIII and the PCB. 

When the Bible says,
And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. (Matt 27:50-51)

1.  In the above passage, the Bible is not trying to explain "the secrets of earthquakes" or the "magnitude" of it.
2.  But it is infallible that an earthquake occurred.
3.  An earthquake is a "secret of nature" but that doesn't mean that the earthquake on Good Friday, right after Our Lord died, was figurative.

You're not distinguishing between a) what Scripture intends to explain (i.e. scientific explanation) vs b) what Scripture intends to convey (i.e. scientific fact).

Pope Leo XIII was saying that Scripture does not (most of the time) explain science.  That's not its purpose.  But it can still convey scientific facts, without an explanation.

You're arguing that anything scientific is figurative.  That's a major error and not what Pope Leo XIII or anyone else is saying.

Since you are unfamiliar with the PCB, it is doubtful that you have made a proper effort to discover what the Church teaches on these things before going to the default.  This means your opinions on the subject have little value.

Give me one example of something the PCB "teaches" which is not in the Haydock bible.

Although, given that St. Basil already taught that those who claim Scripture teaches the shape of the earth have misunderstood passages that should have been taken figuratively, we probably don't even need to bother with the PCB to know that all the flat-earther "proof-verses" are going against Church interpretation.

This is just total BS.  The Church does not teach the shape of the earth in the Bible, or elsewhere.  Never said it did.  But that does NOT mean that there are not facts which must be believed about the earth, which are infallible.  Such facts are non-negotiables.


Similar to the matter of the Trinity.  Such is not in the Bible, explicitly.  But there are facts which must be believed implicitly, which can ONLY be explained by the dogma of the Trinity.  The implicit leads to the explicit.  Just like science leads to Faith.

Your problem is a failure to distinguish.  And also a failure to grasp the overall concept, while getting mired in details.

Ok, so I go back to my original 4 facts, which are in the Bible and which we must believe.  None of the below are 'figurative'.

1.  Firmament
2.  4 corners of earth
3.  Earth's foundation/pillars
4.  Earth doesn't move.


The above does not mean the earth is flat.  The above does not mean the Church has told us the shape of the earth.  What is DOES MEAN is that any theory we come up with, must align with the above, 4 facts.  Or the theory is wrong.

These 4 facts are "guardrails" or "baseline" data that any discussion of the earth's shape or cosmos MUST include.

I'm not saying the earth is flat, but an FE model includes the above 4 facts.  So that's a start.
I'm not saying the earth isn't a globe, but i've yet to see a "modern" globe model which includes the above 4 facts.  That's a fail.

That's the point.