i am certainly no philosopher or theologian. but i am troubled by the lack of precision when people talk of religion. what we like we take literally; we dont like we take as metaphor. for examples. catholics take the petrine commission literally, but most take the six day creation as metaphor. when we talk of baptism, baptists say only immersion since most scholars say that is how john baptized; but many other religions take this as open to different forms, i could go on but i think the point is clear. oh, be sure and add revelation!!

we say god the father. but certainly father does not mean a man physically. we say mary is the mother of god. ask a priest what that means and you will get pure analogy. we say jesus ascended to heaven, but is heaven a physical location. ask your pastor. we say the trinity is three person in one. how do we interpret person? and on and on.

i say these things as a commited catholic, but i think they are important. lanquage takes many forms and we should be alert to them.

now is the bible so clear that it has no interpretation. if so, thousands of scholars have wasted their lives.

and can we start with a definition and follow its exact consequences? if so calvin was right. if god is all knowing, not limited by time,and all power then predestination MUST follow. the arrogamce of pure reason!!!

now if the bible is subject to interpretation are not statements of the church the same? the statements of paul, mark, matthew, even jesus may be interpreted in different ways, but not council and papal decrees?. let me emphasize, biblical and church statements are most important, but are they so obvious they need no analysis, too me this stageres the mind!

most scholars today, catholic and otherwise, put great empahsis on the context, historical and otherwise, of biblical passages. does not the same apply to church doctrine?

is it allowed or worthwhile to look at infallible statements in their context. the two infallible decrees since 1870 are the immaculate assumption and the bodily assencion of mary. i believe they are "true" but not necessarily factual. both show, and rightly so i believe, the increasing understanding of the role of mary in our faith these dogmas are a way to affirm this. many protestants are coming to recognize the unique position of mary. After all we can speak mainly in analogy when we deal with spiritual truths, but analogy can be most useful.

finally i need to say that i do not accept the argument that church doctrines of an infallible nature are independent of of the reasoning laid out in the decree, and that only the conclusion is infallible. this would be very strange as it violates all human logic and reason and would devastate human communication.

i believe god has spoken to us through jesus. but with all human language it must be understood properly by the hearer. yes the bible is important, tradition is most important, church doctrines are important, but this does not mean that they bypass our need to think, to reason. i don't think that is god' plan. alice