Quote
There is nothing which prevents me from reading the Bible and coming to my own conclusions regarding a passage of scripture. What is prohibited is that I sit down and come up with some sort of esoteric interpretation which opposes 2000 years of teaching, much as Luther, Calvin, and the other deluded Reformers did, and then try to insist that my interpretation and not that of the Church is correct.

To be consistent with your position on infallible authority, you ought first to learn Rome's interpretation of any given passage, so that you may know for certain that you understand it correctly. After all, studying privately could lead you to some very dangerous conclusions, as we all know.

Quote
As far as I know, the Church allows for various eschatological interpretive grids: ammillenialism, Preterism, Post Millenialism. You could even be a Premillenialist I suppose, if you were that stupid as to be a Catholic and believe that your Church is the "whore of the book of revelation" as most premillenialists do.

Is the Pope incapable of infallibly interpreting those passages related to eschatology? If not, why does he not infallibly relate to all the meaning, so that we may no longer be in the dark about what the future holds?

Quote
We were having a fairly decent discussion on the other thread. Why all of a sudden you gotta be a wise acre?

This goes directly to the heart of your position and the position of Rome regarding her infallible ability to interpret Scripture. If you aren't looking to Rome first, then you simply cannot know whether you are understanding the meaning of Scripture properly. Note, however, that this is your own position, not mine, although I must say that I think your interpretations are off in several areas. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.