Evangelicals and the Church

[Contarini]

Eden,

You are being less than candid about your original remarks. You said “Alfie’s comments have as much substance as evangelical theology.” Now you’re trying to claim that I’m upset because you say evangelicals are in error or that Alfie’s remarks reveal typical evangelical weaknesses. But that is not what you said. You said, “Alfie’s comments have as much substance as evangelical theology.” Either you defend that remark, or you apologize for it. Those are your only two options.

I doubt that you’ve ever read a single page of serious evangelical theology in your life.

I’m going to say this for the last time: my problem is not with your view that evangelicalism is in error. My problem is with the argument that because we have much superficiality therefore we have no substance. One might as well argue that because Catholics have many banal liturgies they have no reverence, or because they have many evil priests therefore they have no sanctity. Both banal liturgies and immoral priests are evils bemoaned by many good Catholic writers. This is the violation of the Golden Rule to which I’m referring. This is the “nasty game” into which I don’t want to be drawn–listing the faults of the other side and trying to prove that they are relevant to an examination of the other side’s truth, while the faults of one’s own side are irrelevant to the truth claims one wants to make.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Eden:

My statement that Evangelicalism teaches error stands independently from the second premise which is that Evangelicalism is anti-intellectual. Are you saying that I violate the Golden Rule by calling an error, error?

No. You violate the Golden Rule by taking our weaknesses as typical of us, when you would not like us to do the same to you. Do you really want me to take the average Catholic parish as representative of the best Catholicism can do? Do you really think that if I walked into the average parish on a Sunday morning I would be justified in judging Catholic theology by the sermon I heard? And that’s a priest we’re talking about–Alfie isn’t even an ordained representative of her brand of fundamentalism.

I do think that Catholicism has problems as evinced by the state of the average parish. But I also know that Catholicism produces great sanctity and wisdom. If I were trying to dismiss Catholicism entirely (something I have no interest in doing) I’d focus not on your weakest points but your strongest–the writings of your current Pope, for instance. That’s all I ask of you. Read some thoughtful, intelligent evangelical writers. Read some essays in Books and Culture. Then tell me evangelicalism has no substance.

You did not say originally “evangelicalism has a problem with anti-intellectualism.” You said “Alfie’s comments have as much substance as evangelical theology.” Having a problem with anti-intellectualism and having no substance are two different things.

Tell me this–what evangelical theologians have you read? I’ve read quite a few who had far more substance than anything Alfie has said.

Let’s be honest, your strong feelings are not about my perceived “lack of charity” but about the fact that you don’t like my premise that Evangelicalism teaches error and that it has a problem with anti-intellectualism.

No, that is not what I have a problem with. If that were all you had said I would not have objected.

Is the Golden Rule now an excuse for relativism?

Relativism has nothing to do with it. Common fairness is all I ask for. If you don’t want Catholicism to be judged by some random person who says silly things on the Internet, then don’t judge evangelicalism on that basis either.

Edwin

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I read an article by Jimmy Akinhttp: //www.catholic.com/library/how_pius_xii_protected_jews.asp that said that at the end of the War a lot of Jews converted to Catholicism, including the Jewish political representative to the Vatican because of how the Church defended and harboured Jewish people. I also read that after Jewish people Catholics were the 2nd largest group killed by the Nazi’s.

Here is a Quote:

" Three Popes and the Jews Lapide estimated the total number of Jews that had been spared as a result of Pius XII’s throwing the Church’s weight into the clandestine struggle to save them. After totaling the numbers of Jews saved in different areas and deducting the numbers saved by other causes, such as the praiseworthy efforts of some European Protestants, “The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000.”[21] This is a total larger than all other Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies"

Sounds like the Church really supported those darn Nazi’s.

 

[Church_Militant]

Perhaps, Eden would’ve been better off to have said that Alfie’s comments are an example of Evangelical anti-intelectualism.

Now, that said, I would say that a great many of n-C churches suffer a drastic lack of historical scholarship and some seem to have gone so far as to make it up from whole cloth in order to assault Catholcism, mostly offering their “history” without ever even refering to the real early church fathers at all.

In other words…they reject Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Linus, and Clement, as well as the Didache, but love and rely on their Thompson Chain Reference Bibles and 19th century evangelists. That just makes no sense whatever to me.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Mickey]

Contarini:

Common fairness is all I ask for. If you don’t want Catholicism to be judged by some random person who says silly things on the Internet, then don’t judge evangelicalism on that basis either.

Perhaps this is a silly question. But what does evangelicalism teach? I admit I am not extremely versed on highly esteemed evangelical writers, but is there any kind of doctrinal unity?
One can know what the Catholic faith teaches because of materials such as the CCC, encyclicals, ECF writings, Church history, and how they relate to Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. Even if an individual Catholic has an erroneos opinion, we still know what the Church teaches. But with the evangelical movement, how do we know that one person’s opinion is, or is not, proper teaching?

I’m having a difficult time trying to write out my thoughts here. But perhaps you get the gist of what I am saying.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[magdelaine]

My impression is that you can’t really pin doctrines onto “evangelical” because it is too broad a grouping encompassing many faith doctrines. Which is why I asked this question:

magdelaine:

Hey Edwin,
This is slightly off topic, but if someone such as yourself (an Episcopalian, about as close to Catholic as you can get outside of Orthodoxy and Rome) can be Evangelical, can a Catholic be Evangelical? What is it besides wanting to evangelise for Christ that defines the Evangelical? I know many friends who are Evangelical who have inspired me to have a deeper life in Christ. I would love to see an Evangelical renewal in the Catholic church. Is this something that is possible (in terms of definitions) or am I hopelessly mixing up meanings?

 

[magdelaine]

According to this , Catholics can be evangelical. I don’t have a problem this first definition.

British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. A second sense is to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition.

 

[sadie2723]

Church Militant:

Perhaps, Eden would’ve been better off to have said that Alfie’s comments are an example of Evangelical anti-intelectualism.

Now, that said, I would say that a great many of n-C churches suffer a drastic lack of historical scholarship and some seem to have gone so far as to make it up from whole cloth in order to assault Catholcism, mostly offering their “history” without ever even refering to the real early church fathers at all.

In other words…they reject Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Linus, and Clement, as well as the Didache, but love and rely on their Thompson Chain Reference Bibles and 19th century evangelists. That just makes no sense whatever to me.
Pax vobiscum,

Amen!

 

[Contarini]

This is getting to the point where it needs a new thread. I’ll start one.

And I apologize for getting heated. I know that losing my temper never helps get the point across. And it is Holy Week. . . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

sadie2723:

Contarini:

Go visit Telford Work’s website

.

I would love the opportunity to discuss the matter with him a bit more. Would be interesting to hear his defense of a few items for which there are no Biblical basis, yet the Protestant community holds fast to.

Surely you know (30,000 denominations and all that) that there is no one “Protestant community”? This statement makes no sense.

But please go ahead and email Telford. You can find his address on the website. He seems to put a lot of energy into Internet communication (in fact he encouraged me to start blogging, which I do rather infrequently), so he may well respond.

Additionally, I would be interested in seeing a defense of Evangelical accusations that are not based in fact that are directed toward the Catholic Church.

Why do you assume that just because some people who call themselves “Evangelicals” make these accusations, therefore all evangelicals do? Most of the people you have in mind are probably fundamentalists. Some evangelicals don’t even count fundamentalists as evangelicals, though I think that’s unfair. But they are a very distinct subset.

It is interesting that Noll, in his book, finds a need to stimulate intelectual thought within his church. Why is that necessary? Could it be because there is no Biblical basis or factual basis for many of the claims that they make?

First of all, Noll isn’t addressing “his church.” Evangelicalism is not a “church” but a broad movement. Noll is a Presbyterian, and Presbyterians are not generally anti-intellectual. Actually, as I said, one of the criticisms directed against the book (my wife wrote a review essay of it for a class in grad school) is that Noll is basically engaging in Calvinist polemic against the more Arminian, revivalist, Wesleyan strains of evangelicalism. He blames us (this is the background I come from) for turning evangelical faith into a matter of emotion and sentimentality rather than engagement of the whole person.

Noll certainly does not think that Protestantism as a whole, or even the evangelical tradition as represented by the 18th-century revivals (his hero is Jonathan Edwards), has these problems. He’s making a case against trends in American evangelicalism that began in the 19th century (in his view).

You know, we should start a new thread in which you tell me what these “claims” are. Evangelicals are a very diverse bunch–I suspect that you have mostly run up against fundamentalists and you’re unfairly smearing all evangelicals with that brush.

 

[Contarini]

I still fail to see how Catholics need Evangelicals. We existed for centuries without them.

Ever heard of doctrinal development? You existed for centuries without the dogma of papal infallibility as well.

Besides, the pre-Reformation Church was far more open to evangelical emphases than the post-Tridentine Church. Protestants continue lines of development from the pre-Reformation Church that were cut off or stifled after Trent.

If I have misrepresented certain Evangelicals, that is my error.

You haven’t tried to characterize “certain” evangelicals. You’ve made a sweeping generalization. That’s my point.

However, you have to agree that there are an awful lot of them that are throwing dirt at Rome.

Yes, although most of them are fundamentalists, and they are not as numerous as the noise they make would suggest. If you listen to the really vicious anti-Catholics–Chick etc.–you’ll notice a tone of desperation. They’re always complaining about how very few people see the dangers of Rome, etc. That’s because in the past century or so, especially after Vatican II and the softening of the Catholic attitude, more and more evangelical Protestants have come to see that Catholicism is not our enemy.

Haven’t you heard of the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” agreement, signed by prominent evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson? Don’t you know that Billy Graham (perhaps the single most prominent and representative evangelical figure) has had the policy for decades of encouraging Catholics who “make a decision for Christ” in his campaigns to go back to their local parish church?

Evangelical hostility to Catholicism is decidedly on the wane. That’s why the fundamentalists are so angry and so persistent. They think that more moderate evangelicals are being swamped in a great wave of diabolical ecumenism.

Contarini:

When people say this sort of thing I am tempted to buy them a gift subscription to *Christianity Today. *But I’m not that rich, and besides you can read it on the Internet. Browse a few articles and tell me if you see an obsession with hating Catholicism.

Contarini:

Only one publication? Would you like me to cite a few hundred where they do lie about my church?

Fine. Go ahead and do it. Then compare the subscription numbers of those periodicals with CT. Let’s look at how big a segment of evangelicalism these anti-Catholic groups represent.

CT is actually not just one publication. It’s a huge enterprise with a number of magazines (I think it runs to over a dozen) addressing various niches of the evangelical world (I write regularly for one of these affiliates, Christian History). The franchise taken as a whole is one of the most representative institutions within evangelicalism.

One final note about word usage–you’ve been capitalizing “Evangelicals” throughout this discussion. Can it be that when you speak of “Evangelicals” you are thinking of online folks like Eric Svendsen? His bunch makes a big deal out of the term “Evangelical” defined as a very dogmatic adherence to the solas, etc. If those are the “Evangelicals” you have in mind, I don’t blame you for reacting strongly to them. But Svendsen is just one more Internet loudmouth (the same could be said of me, I add in all fairness!). He belongs to some kind of Calvinist house church, if I understand the matter rightly. He speaks only for one tiny corner of the broader evangelical (or “Evangelical”!) community. That’s why I’m trying to point you toward Christianity Today, because it gives you a good sense of the evangelical world as a whole.

Edwin

 

[magdelaine]

Contarini:

That’s why I’m trying to point you toward Christianity Today, because it gives you a good sense of the evangelical world as a whole.

I subscribe to the online daily newsletter.

 

[sadie2723]

Contarini:

sadie2723:

Surely you know (30,000 denominations and all that) that there is no one “Protestant community”? This statement makes no sense.

But please go ahead and email Telford. You can find his address on the website. He seems to put a lot of energy into Internet communication (in fact he encouraged me to start blogging, which I do rather infrequently), so he may well respond.

Why do you assume that just because some people who call themselves “Evangelicals” make these accusations, therefore all evangelicals do? Most of the people you have in mind are probably fundamentalists. Some evangelicals don’t even count fundamentalists as evangelicals, though I think that’s unfair. But they are a very distinct subset.

First of all, Noll isn’t addressing “his church.” Evangelicalism is not a “church” but a broad movement. Noll is a Presbyterian, and Presbyterians are not generally anti-intellectual. Actually, as I said, one of the criticisms directed against the book (my wife wrote a review essay of it for a class in grad school) is that Noll is basically engaging in Calvinist polemic against the more Arminian, revivalist, Wesleyan strains of evangelicalism. He blames us (this is the background I come from) for turning evangelical faith into a matter of emotion and sentimentality rather than engagement of the whole person.

Noll certainly does not think that Protestantism as a whole, or even the evangelical tradition as represented by the 18th-century revivals (his hero is Jonathan Edwards), has these problems. He’s making a case against trends in American evangelicalism that began in the 19th century (in his view).

You know, we should start a new thread in which you tell me what these “claims” are. Evangelicals are a very diverse bunch–I suspect that you have mostly run up against fundamentalists and you’re unfairly smearing all evangelicals with that brush.

I assure you that I will contact, Telford. I will, of course, post any reply that I receive so that we all may have a look at it.

I think that perhaps you and I have gotten off to a bad start here, so I am going to attempt to clarify things a bit. When I speak of Evangelicals teaching error, I am talking about Evangelicals as a whole. There ARE some universal teachings: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fida, etc. Those teachings are in error, and those are the teachings that I am making reference.

Also, when I talk about Evangelicals bashing on Catholics, I concede that I may be slightly out of line. I am speaking, of course, from my own personal experience of those people…and there are thousands of them…who call themselves Evangelicals that engage in tactics that are designed to draw people away from the Catholic Church. Those tactics, and I have yet to see one that is otherwise, are coated in lies about my Church.

I always make the same claim. Show me one Catholic teaching…that we actually teach (no fabrications please)…that is not based in the Bible, and I will walk out of the Catholic Church today and never return.

When I talk about Evangelicals not using intellectual rigor in their argumentation, this is what I am talking about. You see, the Protestant Evangelical Churches teach error, and that is what I am not going to walk away from here. Nor, will I walk away from the fact that those churches that seek to prostalatize Catholics do not do so based on scholarship, as the Catholic Church cannot be attacked as being unbiblical. All Catholic teaching is rooted in the scriptures. Thus, any argument against the teaching of the Catholic Church is in error.

Hope this helps to facilitate some understanding. If I come on a bit strong, it is because I believe in the Catholic Church and her teachings. I also believe that any group taking responsibility for its flock has a responsibility to teach the truth, and to fail to do so is tragic to say the least.

 

[Alfie]

Contarini:

Ever heard of doctrinal development? You existed for centuries without the dogma of papal infallibility as well.

Besides, the pre-Reformation Church was far more open to evangelical emphases than the post-Tridentine Church. Protestants continue lines of development from the pre-Reformation Church that were cut off or stifled after Trent.

You haven’t tried to characterize “certain” evangelicals. You’ve made a sweeping generalization. That’s my point.

Yes, although most of them are fundamentalists, and they are not as numerous as the noise they make would suggest. If you listen to the really vicious anti-Catholics–Chick etc.–you’ll notice a tone of desperation. They’re always complaining about how very few people see the dangers of Rome, etc. That’s because in the past century or so, especially after Vatican II and the softening of the Catholic attitude, more and more evangelical Protestants have come to see that Catholicism is not our enemy.

Haven’t you heard of the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” agreement, signed by prominent evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson? Don’t you know that Billy Graham (perhaps the single most prominent and representative evangelical figure) has had the policy for decades of encouraging Catholics who “make a decision for Christ” in his campaigns to go back to their local parish church?

Evangelical hostility to Catholicism is decidedly on the wane. That’s why the fundamentalists are so angry and so persistent. They think that more moderate evangelicals are being swamped in a great wave of diabolical ecumenism.

Contarini:

When people say this sort of thing I am tempted to buy them a gift subscription to *Christianity Today. *But I’m not that rich, and besides you can read it on the Internet. Browse a few articles and tell me if you see an obsession with hating Catholicism.

Fine. Go ahead and do it. Then compare the subscription numbers of those periodicals with CT. Let’s look at how big a segment of evangelicalism these anti-Catholic groups represent.

CT is actually not just one publication. It’s a huge enterprise with a number of magazines (I think it runs to over a dozen) addressing various niches of the evangelical world (I write regularly for one of these affiliates, Christian History). The franchise taken as a whole is one of the most representative institutions within evangelicalism.

One final note about word usage–you’ve been capitalizing “Evangelicals” throughout this discussion. Can it be that when you speak of “Evangelicals” you are thinking of online folks like Eric Svendsen? His bunch makes a big deal out of the term “Evangelical” defined as a very dogmatic adherence to the solas, etc. If those are the “Evangelicals” you have in mind, I don’t blame you for reacting strongly to them. But Svendsen is just one more Internet loudmouth (the same could be said of me, I add in all fairness!). He belongs to some kind of Calvinist house church, if I understand the matter rightly. He speaks only for one tiny corner of the broader evangelical (or “Evangelical”!) community. That’s why I’m trying to point you toward Christianity Today, because it gives you a good sense of the evangelical world as a whole.

Edwin

Do you consider any of these people to be fundamentalists?

John Hagee
Dave Hunt
Adrian Rogers
Marty Minto
Mike Gendron
Norman Geisler
John Ankerberg
RC Sproul
Ravi Zacaharis
Erwin Lutzer
Michael Yossef
David Jeremiah

A fundamentalist is defined as a conservative Evangelical who supports Israel. I do not consider them intellectually inferior to you. Besides, there is a big difference between intellectualism and wisdom, especially Biblical wisdom. I know people who call themselves Evangelicals and are more liberal than people in Hollywood are. I would love to see you in a debate against Ravi Zacaharis. You would not last ten minutes .

Billy Graham is a wimp. I stopped giving money to him years ago for a number of reasons, among them are his unwillingness to speak out against abortion and his support of Rome.

Everytime someone on this forum uses information to back up their arguements they use Catholic history. Are you going to tell me that Catholic history isn’t biased? You know it is. They can re-write history anyway they choose. If you want me to read anything about religious history then what would you suggest? I sure it would be something that is biased toward your view points.
All history is biased. It is wriiten from the standpoint of what group of people are dominant in society. If you have a war, it is the victor that writes the history not the loser. The Catholic Church has been the dominant Christian religion on this earth and it has the power to re-write history or in the case of the Bible change its writings to fit their political agendas.

 

[sadie2723]

Hey everybody…Alfie is back!

Yahoo!

So Alfie, after being gone for a bit, would you care to continue the discussion about your proposed Catholic involvement with the Nazi movement for which you can present no documentation? We all wait with baited breath…

 

[Eden]

Here is my entire quote:

Alfie’s comments have as much substance as Evangelical theology. It is no wonder she is so inept at discussing history, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” (Cardinal John Henry Newman, 19th century convert from Anglicanism).

Alfie made wild claims about the Church and about Evangelicals in WWII and could provide no sources - no name of a book, no author.

But beyond that, how often have I engaged in a theological discussion with someone who falls under the umbrella of “Evangelical” and I am told that if the source is not the Bible, it is not credible?

As far as the Golden Rule, you state that it is wrong to focus on a theology’s weaknesses. But if I have already stated that a theology is in error, am I wrong to then give my evidence as to how it is in error? For instance, “Sola Scriptura” - if I were to point out why this teaching is in error by focusing on how it is not compatible with scriptures, can I be accused of not following the Golden Rule? Do you see why I do not understand your accusations?

If a theology does not have substance, it means it is superficial. “Sola Scriptura”, “Sola Fide”, “Saying the Jesus Prayer”, “OSAS” and “altar calls” are attractive to many people but when you dig into the theology behind them - the lack of history in Christianity before the last four centuries, it becomes apparent that these teachings are in error, they lack substance.

I found this in the CA Library:

When it comes to Catholic theology, the typical Evangelical feels unhindered about offering criticisms. Fidelity to what he perceives as the truth requires his stating forthrightly just where Rome has gone wrong.

Evangelicals and Catholics are still, to use the late Francis Schaeffer’s expression, “co-belligerents” in the battle against secularism. The onslaught of common enemies requires that certain issues be set aside for the moment, but Evangelical Christianity cannot permit this temporary alliance with Catholics to be misconstrued as a surrender to Rome.

At the same time, Evangelicals take umbrage when Catholics claim a similar right to criticize what appears to them to be Evangelicalism’s errors. It’s not that Evangelicals have no sense of fair play. They just see themselves as representing C. S. Lewis’s “mere Christianity” over against the denominational particularism of the Catholic Church.

As spokesmen for Christianity in its generic sense, Evangelicals feel their version of “historic” Christianity is the norm by which all claims to religious truth are to be judged. To challenge their theology is considered tantamount to challenging Christianity itself.

Holding this position is not so bad, provided one realizes that it’s a position to be defended, not a self-evident truth to be accepted. The trouble is that Evangelicals get upset when Catholics do challenge it. They’re too used to squabbling with liberal Protestantism, where it’s clear they represent the more traditional and orthodox side. They’re not accustomed to arguing with aggressively Catholic apologists making the same claims for Catholicism.**

In a sense, it’s like the experience of a star minor league ballplayer suddenly thrust into the majors. In the minors he sat comfortably on the top; now he must struggle against players who are his equals–or his betters.

More here:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001prot.asp

And here is another:

**Evangelicalism is a truncated Christianity. Certain things are missing. Evangelical book stores carry books about prayer, but those books do not remotely approach the level of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, and that is because Evangelicalism does not have a theory of spirituality. It cannot talk about what it does not know. If Evangelicals want instruction in how to advance in the spiritual life, they have to read Catholic authors. **

**Similarly with moral issues. Evangelicalism has no moral theology. It has no unified body of knowledge, worked out over the centuries, built up partly from observation, partly from revelation, partly from consideration of the nature of man and the natural law. Catholic moral thinking, when seen at its best, is impressive and eloquent and satisfying. It prevents us from confusing ends and means—and prevents us from not thinking about means at all. **

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009fr.asp

 

[SDAgirl]

Wow. Are these chat rooms always hostile? We are supposed to be sharing what we know in our own faiths and coming to a deeper understanding of each other? Not trying to be clever and sound smart when all you’re doing is quoting somebody else.

 

[Alfie]

sadie2723:

I always make the same claim. Show me one Catholic teaching…that we actually teach (no fabrications please)…that is not based in the Bible, and I will walk out of the Catholic Church today and never return.

** True Church**

Membership by Spirit baptism.
There is no salvation outside this church.
Members enter by God?s will upon believing His Gospel.
Members are secure in Christ, can never be excommunicated.
One authority?the infallible Word of God.
One Head and One Mediator.
Foundation is Jesus and the Apostles.
Proclaims the true Gospel.
Justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Promise of future glory with Jesus Christ

** Roman Catholic Church**

Membership by water baptism.
There is salvation outside this church.
Members enter by man?s will or by parents? desire.
Members are not secure, can be excommunicated and condemned to hell.
Three authorities?the Bible, Tradition and the infallible Magesterium.
Two Heads, many mediators.
Foundation is Peter.
Proclaims another gospel.
Justified by faith plus works.
Promise of a purging or punishing fire for sins.

 

[SDAgirl]

Also, the Bible, like it or not, can be interpretted a hundred different ways, each person bending it to fit their will. So instead of trying to prove each other wrong, why dont you share what you believe and why and without the “heres why your wrong” or the “if you can prove it” ? can we all just get along? lol

 

[Eden]

SDAgirl:

Also, the Bible, like it or not, can be interpretted a hundred different ways, each person bending it to fit their will. So instead of trying to prove each other wrong, why dont you share what you believe and why and without the “heres why your wrong” or the “if you can prove it” ? can we all just get along? lol

Yes you are very easy to get a long with,SDAgirl, so I am sorry if I offended you. One thing though, this is not a chat room but an apologetics forum. So, you will see Catholics explaining and defending the faith not just chatting about it.

As far as the Bible and interpretations, please remember that it was the bishops of the Catholic Church who set the Canon in the late 3rd, early 4th centuries.

As they were given the authority to set the Canon, their heirs also have the authority to interpret it. For the first four hundred years or so, Christians (at that time only the Catholic Church - as Protestants would not appear for another 1100 years) did not have “The Bible” as we know it - the Old Testament and the New Testament together in its entirety. For 400 years much of what they knew and learned about Christ and His Church was oral.