?????? The CC hasn't gone through each individual verse in the Bible and given an interpretation for each one.
You have already established that point:
Which book; God's inspired written word, or RCC's interpretation of issues that arise?
But, you said it can be found within the church; where: at the back, at the front, in the sacristy?
why isn't it?
is that a quote from a catholic source like the ccc? did you c/p it or post from memory?
did someone here ask for that list?
What are you looking for?
"Written admire word"? What does that mean?
Where can we get the list of verses which deals with issues that arise from the Word of God, that have been authentically interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church?
I don't know that anyone has compiled a list.
The same place I can get a list or lists of all the God Breathed doctrines the Scriptures teach.
well the ccc is wrong as usual. It is not God's word.
Note: underline mine.
That is true your RCC is not a religion of the book, if that means the scritpures, it doesn't even put the book first. The book is the word of God. It is the only thing we know for sure is the word of God and it is living, it speaks, it speaks to individuals, it spoke about the past and applies to now.
Why not? I mean how hard would it have been. Note the first verse that was infallibly interpreted and as another one is interpreted, then add that to the first one. You have a list. I mean without said list how do they know they aren't doing a verse twice. I mean is that why the RCC has changed its position on Judas - is that because the second infallible interpretation disagreed with the first infallible interpretation. I mean it could become extremely confusing. All because they never list these so called infallibly interpretated verses, they can say phew it was never infallibly interpreted.
What's with you Romanists being incapable of pointing to a volume or volumes of works defining what their "authentic teacher of Scripture" has taught? Seems like such a tome would be valued by RC apologists, at least!
And how do you – RPO– know what the "authentic teacher of Scripture" has authentically taught? If you have a question about Romans 1:26-32, how do you find out what your "authentic teacher of Scripture" has taught on it? Do you go through 2,000 years of Greek and Latin? What if Bishop X wrote something about it in Swahili? Or Urdu?
Perhaps your difficulty comes down to not knowing the history of Christianity so well. For example, did you realise that throughout the history of Christianity, there have been conflicts over the meaning of Scripture writings? Hence there has been a history of discussion, debate, study by theologians and scholars within Christianity. Eventually for Christian unity an authentic interpretation has been made in each case where essentials of belief are at stake. These are recorded and preserved as part of the deposit of faith. You can find documents and doctrinal statements by knowing which issue you want clarified. For example, if you want to know the scriptural genesis for the doctrine of Original Sin, the Church has those records preserved and at this stage of history, they can be easily accessed in libraries all over the world.
I understand the list of verses, which deals with issues that arise from the Word of God, that have been authentically interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, is not accessible.
the issue is that Carm-posting Catholics play loose and sloppy with their categorizations of Catholic interpretations: