• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    112 days ago

    I don’t think your quote at all addresses the concept of whether Catholics doctrine declares the Bible to be literally true. Inerrant, yes.

    I think there is confusion because the church believes that some passages should be taken literally and other symbolically, and the church will tell you which is which.

    • Flax
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 days ago

      So how’s that different from protestantism, except from a church existing to tell you which is which?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 days ago

        There are so many flavors of protestantism, it’s hard to give a blanket answer.

        For example, high Anglican practice and theology are almost indistinguishable from Catholic, except that the head of their Church is an archbishop (and above him theoretically the King of England) rather than a pope, and their priests can get married. That makes some historical sense, because the church was created simply because Henry the 8th wanted to divorce and the Pope wouldn’t allow it.

        Most mainline Protestant churches believe that it is the individual’s right and responsibility to read and interpret scripture for themselves.

        • Flax
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 days ago

          For the sake of semantics, the Church of England was created in 597, what Henry VIII did was excommunicate the Bishop of Rome / Pope over a divorce, thus joining the Reformation movement, albeit not for good reason.

          I think it depends on the Anglican denomination. The Church of Ireland still likes to keep itself distinct from Roman Catholicism in many ways, but this is getting ahead of the conversation.

          Give an answer to how interpreting the Bible as part literal and part figurative is different from how a Baptist would.