Luther was right

[josie_L]

Indeed. Part of the problem is that historians come to a text like Foxe assuming that a lot of it will have to be taken with many pinches of salt. But conservative Protestants swallow it all as Gospel truth. I’m not defending this uncritical approach. I’m just saying that he’s neither entirely reliable nor entirely unreliable. He should be used with caution. And his condemnation of the brutal treatment of St. Edmund Campion by the English government should surely count in his favor with Catholics. He’s one of the few sixteenth-century Protestants who seems genuinely to have believed in religious toleration. So I have more respect for his vitriolic exposes of Catholic persecution than I do for a lot of sixteenth-century polemic.

Where was his religious toleration towards the Catholics (and citing St. Edmund Campion does nothing to assuage the many lies/misconceptions/mistakes that permeate this book) especially since it was under Henry the VIII’s (the Church of England) reign that persecution began?

Note that this is from a later revision–it’s not by Foxe himself.

Edwin

Yes, I did notice this, but unfortunately that does not change the fact that people attribute this to him and moreover believe his book to be true.

p.s Thank you for your response.

 

[Contarini]

Where was his religious toleration towards the Catholics (and citing St. Edmund Campion does nothing to assuage the many lies/misconceptions/mistakes that permeate this book)

I didn’t say that it did.

especially since it was under Henry the VIII’s (the Church of England) reign that persecution began?

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Foxe was 20 years old when Henry died, and furthermore Henry wasn’t very favorable to thorough-going Protestants like Foxe either. Are you saying that Foxe ought to have been saying something as an eighteen-year-old about the execution of Thomas More, for instance? Perhaps he ought.

I hope you’re not committing the typical modern error of conflating toleration (not persecuting people) with “tolerance” in the popular contemporary sense (not saying anything critical or nasty about anyone).

Foxe never advocated persecution, and he was one of the few Protestants (the only one I know of, actually, though I hope there were more) who protested the persecution of Catholics. I am not saying that that excuses his vitriolic language about Catholicism or his willingness to take some liberties with the historical evidence. I’m just saying that beating up on Foxe as some kind of bigot is anachronistic and unfair. By the standards of his day, he was a remarkable person who genuinely cared about behaving in a Christlike manner toward those with whom he disagreed. He saw the Catholic Church as a vicious, evil, persecuting organization, and from his perspective one can see why. If you can’t put yourself into his shoes enough to understand him (as I do with someone like Thomas More or Edmund Campion), then frankly it’s your loss.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Foxe never advocated persecution, and he was one of the few Protestants (the only one I know of, actually, though I hope there were more) who protested the persecution of Catholics. I am not saying that that excuses his vitriolic language about Catholicism or his willingness to take some liberties with the historical evidence. I’m just saying that beating up on Foxe as some kind of bigot is anachronistic and unfair. By the standards of his day, he was a remarkable person who genuinely cared about behaving in a Christlike manner toward those with whom he disagreed. He saw the Catholic Church as a vicious, evil, persecuting organization, and from his perspective one can see why. If you can’t put yourself into his shoes enough to understand him (as I do with someone like Thomas More or Edmund Campion), then frankly it’s your loss.

Edwin

But his perspective was skewed because of lies and misconceptions and my point in bringing up Henry VIII was because he speaks of the many “atrocities” committed by the Catholic Chruch but it seems he is adverse to mention those that birthed his own Church.

 

[Convert66]

Don’t you people ever have to work, or sleep?:compcoff:

Tanner,

**Show me where you asked me "I will ask of you the same questions I asked Tanner, and he curiously refrained from answering. How do you know the Holy Spirit is confirming your interpretation of the Scriptures? **

Post 129 of this thread (yesterday it was page 9) I asked:

Tanner,

I would like for you to explain how you know you are being guided solely by the Holy Spirit when you interpret the Scriptures and not by your Reformed traditions or own understanding? Do you get a burning in the bosom? Is your mind at ease? Sleep improves? Dreams and visions? What is it, exactly? You always agree with Calvin? Your views are supported by a majority group of reformed scholars?

We know it is not by Apostolic authority, so it must be something. What is it?

Please . . .do, tell.

All my best . . .

You replied after I posted almost the identical questions to Hisalone in Post 169, with Post 182:

I will answer here and now; if one has the Holy Spirit He will lead to the truth of God; there is only one truth of God. This is not something comes easy; it takes a lot of time and effort to rightly divide the Word. The rewards are great and His people do know the truth; the more diligent the more He reveals about Himself.

So, to the question how do you know if the Holy Spirit is your sole guide to the interpretation of Scriptures, and not your Reformed traditions or your own understanding?"----you respond, “if one has the Holy Spirit he will lead to the truth of God; there is only one truth of God.”

That is, at best, begging the question. It seems to me like a circular evasion. Second, you say this does not come easy (rightly dividing the Word of Truth), but you claim that a sinner’s prayer is sufficient for salvation? Interesting. Why doesn’t the Holy Spirit just “impute” understanding to you as in the case of your “election?” If it takes you “a lot of time and effort . . .” I guess we could call that, “the development of Christian Doctrine”?

Please try again.

**It is the natural man that cannot understand. Look at the parable of the soils and the explanation Jesus gives concerning the soils; the last soil, of the 4 soils, was the only one that both heard AND understood, then bore fruit to prove it. That simplicity of words from the Lord speaks volumes concerning salvation or lack thereof. Hear the gospel, believe the gospel, then bear fruit…it is really that simplistic. **

While this may be true, you are over a hundred words in to your answer, with no sign of an actual answer to the questions I posed in sight.

**You have no idea how much people like myself and HisAlone and other protestants that actually read, study diligently and understand His Word by the grace of God; **

Again, not an answer, but interesting nontheless. So which is it? Diligent study, or Grace? Could it be. . . both, perhaps? Careful now, those “both/ands” make you sound a little Catholic.

Seriously though, do you think I sprang full-formed from my mother’s womb as a papist? I was Protestant for 23 years and Reformed for 12 of those. I know exactly the time and effort it takes to study the Word of God. Conservatively, I’ve read 100 books a year on average for the past twenty-five years, and I don’t like fiction, if you catch my drift. I know what it takes precisley because I’ve actually put the time and the effort in myself. I resent any suggestions otherwise.

we pity the brightest in this bunch because the lack of knowledge and understanding is so far off the map; that it is very obvious to us that you do not and cannot at this point understand the Scripture. As long as you depend on some organization to interpret in a manner not in accord with Scripture or God IMO & IMObservations; then you will never come to the knowledge of the truth.

If it wasn’t so serious, because souls are on the line, it would be laughable; but it is no joking matter to us or to God.

Contrary to what you may think, or perhaps, what others may feel about it, I admire your zeal. Obviosuly I disagree with you here, though. I think I have a pretty thorough grasp of Scripture, and contrary to what you may think, it was my own study over the past 6-7 years, after years as a Protestant and a Reformed Protestant, that the Truth of God became clear.

So you see, we are still in the dilemma I posed in the form of several questions which you evaded.

How do we know our interpretations are correct? I have two thousand years of Christian tradition behind my interpretation with the Magisterium of the Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded. You have???

Still waiting . . .

All my best . . .

 

[Convert66]

I’ve spent the past 12 or so years doing apologetics (not well, I might add, ) but, I had to become a Catholic to really appreciate how deep the chasm is between protestants and Catholics. You see . . .

I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, Our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under PontiusPilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead and ascended to the right hand of God, the Father Almighty from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, Amen.

I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit when I was 22 years old. I’ve studied the Scriptures and materials various and sundry that relate to the Scriptures for the past 23 years.

I’ve spent countless hours in prayer, meditation on the Word, fasting, hearing and doing the Will of God, and yet, now that I have become a Catholic by the leading and prompting of the Holy Spirit, I am considered a pagan, an apostate, an enemy of God.

It’s odd that I would be so categorized by people who would profess the same things as I did in the Apostles Creed above, would point to their own baptism as evidence of their intent to follow Christ, yet, in a world in which secularism has recently gotten even more militant and imperial; radical Islam has defined the West as it’s next mimetic victim; our country is torn in two politically, sociologically and fallen into the worst manner of idolatry, selfishness, murder, deceit and perversion and yet in spite of all of that, I find that many protestants think that I, the papist in the Bible belt, am the real enemy. Go figure . . .

Rene’ Girard, where are you when we need you!?

All my best . . .

 

[josie_L]

“men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.”

What you said is true regarding: “St. Paul is referring to, it is the very interpretation of scripture handed down to them by Christ” ( i.e. Sacred Tradition) We agree; it is the Scripture, which all the ECF’s would say tradition meant the teachings of the apostles lead by the Holy Spirit, which is Scripture.

But Sacred Scripture cannot interpret itself, therefore it is your interpretation that becomes authoritative not the Bible’s. What you’re really advocating Tanner is that you are the infallible authority. Furthermore, Sacred Tradition helped to bring about Sacred Scripture but Sacred Tradition is not Sacred Scripture (but they do overlap and stem from the same source, God). Here are some verses to help you understand that the Church already had doctrines that were passed down by Jesus (Sacred Tradition) to the apostles.

“Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered . . . He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” 1 Titus 1:7-9

“You must teach what is in accord to sound doctrine.” 1 Titus 2:1

“What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you - guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” 2 Timothy 1: 13-14 (recollect that St. Paul is writing to St. Timothy who was given apostolic authority to teach within the Church)

"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. 2 Timothy 2: 2

"Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you. Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. " 1 Timothy 4: 11-15

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15

The Church had passed down the teachings of Christ that we call Sacred Tradition (infant baptism, eucharist, trinity, sunday worshipping . . . etc.) to enable us to interpret scripture, this interpretation is the reason that the Church was able to recognize heretical teachings/doctrines. Those who spoke with no authority and abused Sacred Scripture were many.

 

[josie_L]

I’ve spent the past 12 or so years doing apologetics (not well, I might add, ) but, I had to become a Catholic to really appreciate how deep the chasm is between protestants and Catholics. You see . . .

I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, Our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under PontiusPilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead and ascended to the right hand of God, the Father Almighty from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, Amen.

I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit when I was 22 years old. I’ve studied the Scriptures and materials various and sundry that relate to the Scriptures for the past 23 years.

I’ve spent countless hours in prayer, meditation on the Word, fasting, hearing and doing the Will of God, and yet, now that I have become a Catholic by the leading and prompting of the Holy Spirit, I am considered a pagan, an apostate, an enemy of God.

It’s odd that I would be so categorized by people who would profess the same things as I did in the Apostles Creed above, would point to their own baptism as evidence of their intent to follow Christ, yet, in a world in which secularism has recently gotten even more militant and imperial; radical Islam has defined the West as it’s next mimetic victim; our country is torn in two politically, sociologically and fallen into the worst manner of idolatry, selfishness, murder, deceit and perversion and yet in spite of all of that, I find that many protestants think that I, the papist in the Bible belt, am the real enemy. Go figure . . .

Rene’ Girard, where are you when we need you!?

All my best . . .

Who’s Rene Girard?

 

[JonNC]

But he was not allowed to debate the Church’s God-given authority by introducing Sola Scriptura (which was never part of the Church’s tradition, councils and creeds, the ECFs etc.).

Hi Josie,
Actually, I’m not sure about that either. Certainly his position of the relationship between scripture and tradition was not formed from whole cloth, and most of the development came after his excommunication, so he wasn’t under Rome’s authority anyway.
This article I’ve posted before. It is from a Protestant perspective, to be sure, but it is interesting.
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Jon

 

[Bill_Pick]

**Josie,

You are among the lazy concerning the reading, studying and understanding the Word of God; you know that I am telling the truth; you can fool yourself or get busy.

Tell me one lie I have said about your church and I will apologize. Don’t confuse a lie with a mistake, we all make mistakes and when I do, I am willing to openly thank the person for pointing it out.

You say “Foxes Book of Martyrs” has been debunked, by whom? Your Church? You can not change historical fact, but you can manipulate it by revisionist history.

As bad as it was a few centuries ago and throughout its history; it was far worse in the 20th century. I know that for a fact because I have the documentary/historical record and eyewitness, my Father in law, who is Serbian saw what the Church did to his countrymen, Eastern Orthodox and Jews, and the massive slaughter that occurred with the approval of the Vatican and direct participation of priests and bishops in the slaughter; working sise by side with the German statist.

This is one reason the Vatican, under Paul II I believe, issued an apology on behalf of people like you, the laity; they would not take personal responsibility in order to avoid staining the magisterium. All this under the name of God.

Thank God for people like Luther, who had guts to stand up for what is right in the sight of God.**

“Foxes Book of Martyrs” has been debunked, time after time and most of the book is false . if you believe that book I got some land in FLA you will love to buyand I will make you a great deal

 

[workingman]

Tanner9188;5566276]No you are claiming to see God’s elect?

Many preachers and teachers wish they had that supernatural ability. There is a distinct reason the Holy Spirit gave us the NT in Greek and not Aramaic as you want to dive into concerning the word “rock”. If that were the case, then Jesus play on words would not make any sense at all, but like you implied, that is a different debate for another day, Lord willing.

Agreed a different debate.

You can always tell the value of God’s word in one’s life, by the way they understand Scripture. In the same manner, you can also tell by the pocket book a persons commitment to the Lord.

Yes ones life should be a example. Not quite sure what you mean by the pocket book comment though. Mine is always empty. Are you referencing the lovely sermons one sometimes hears about tithing?

By the way, the claim about Peter as head on earth; God makes the same claim, both cannot be right.

God is the ultimate head of the Church, but and I know you probably won’t agree that he also set a visible Church on earth. The visible Church needs a visible head/Vicar of Christ. This is why Peter was appointed as the first Pope and the apostolic succession began.

Were you raised as a Catholic or did you convert?

No, I was not raised Catholic though I was Baptized Catholic as a infant but never confirmed. I was actually raised in several different denominations ( baptist, evangelical free, non-denominational, and as a adult became a Lutheran in the Missouri Synod). I converted to the Catholic Church is the long and short of it. It was a long journey home. I am glad for my experiences and that I quit fighting going where I was being guided.

God bless and glad you joined in.

Thank you and I look forward to further discussion.

 

[Tanner9188]

Here’s my evidence for the papacy courtesy of Sacred Scripture:

In Matthew 16 (you knew this was coming) Jesus demands of his apostles who they think he is, and it was Peter who responded first (Peter was always first in knowing the truth, you see this in acts with Ananias and Sapphira and the revelation given to Peter by Jesus about baptizing the Gentiles) through the Father. Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, SImon son of Jonah. . .” Now Jonah in hebrew means “dove” so Peter is the son of the dove, a dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, so Peter is a son of the Holy Spirit. Now name changes are really important in scripture as they connote the essence or destiny of the individual, Simon’s name was changed to Peter (the rock) just before he was handed the keys to the kingdom (just like the prime minister Eliakim was given the keys by the King of Israel).

"And I tell you that you are Peter (rock) and on this rock (Peter) I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.

Peter is the rock, the rock is Peter. And whoever should be part of this church (Christ’s church) built on rock the gates of Hell will not prevail. Now the keys that were given to Peter were given to him only (and we know this because just a few chapters after this he gives the autority to loose and bind to the other apostles but without ever giving them the keys which connote a final authority in matters of loosing and binding),

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The keys signify authority to loose and bind in a manner given to the prime minister in the OT.

“I will place on his shoulder (prime minister) the key to the house of David (Jesus was the son of David and the King of Israel); what he opens no one can shut and what he shuts no one can open.”
Isaiah 22

The prime (the first in authority and rank) minister was given the keys (which his fellow ministers were not given of which there were 11) just like Peter (our first Pope). The prime minister was a foreshadowing of the pope’s role just like the Davidic kingdom is a foreshadowing of the Church. The keys enable the pope who is authorized by Christ himself (and guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit) the final say in matters of loosing and binding. God bless.

**First; Isaiah 22 cannot be taken as Peter since the whole of the OT points to the person of Christ as the Messiah; even a casual reading would render that interpretation, which is proof of the intention to distort the Scripture to usurp the authority given to Christ IMO. It is the hallmark of all false religions. Furthermore, you cannot look at Isaiah 22 without factoring Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah 66, Isaiah 9 & Revelation 3, which all of those support that Christ is the picture in Isaiah 22 and not Peter. But as I said before until you begin to study diligently and test the doctrine of the Church against what is taught in Scripture; then you will never come to the knowledge of the truth. Think about how the Church and its members are taught to put down Sola Scriptura; how do they attempt to do that? Through Scripture. Circular reasoning.

Also, as I have said before; you cannot ignore the audiences Jesus is speaking to in Matthew 16 or Matthew 18. You cannot derive an accurate interpretation without accounting for reality or practicality, that anyone who has the gift to give the gospel can loose and bind based on the acceptance or rejection of the message and the key simply represent the power in the message; not the messenger. Also; to leap into apostolic succession based on passages taken out of context; is perverting Scripture to an extreme level IMO. It will not go unpunished by God.

I can only point to the Water; only the Holy Spirit can persuade someone drink the Water.
That’s why I’m adamant about reading and studying diligently and being like the Bereans. Even with that; unless one has dealt with one’s sin and offense before God and has truly cried out for Mercy, like the tax collector in Luke 18; then no matter how much one reads and studies, they will not be able to understand.

I am so grateful to God for people like Luther; even with all his imperfections…as Romans 8:28 states: "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose.**

 

[Convert66]

JosieL.,

Rene’ Girard is a historian of first rank. Here is an article you or others may find interesting. We have many “scapegoats” in America, and we should notice that the rhetoric is gaining in intensity.

All my best . . .

 

[Tanner9188]

Agreed a different debate.

Yes ones life should be a example. Not quite sure what you mean by the pocket book comment though. Mine is always empty. Are you referencing the lovely sermons one sometimes hears about tithing?

God is the ultimate head of the Church, but and I know you probably won’t agree that he also set a visible Church on earth. The visible Church needs a visible head/Vicar of Christ. This is why Peter was appointed as the first Pope and the apostolic succession began.

No, I was not raised Catholic though I was Baptized Catholic as a infant but never confirmed. I was actually raised in several different denominations ( baptist, evangelical free, non-denominational, and as a adult became a Lutheran in the Missouri Synod). I converted to the Catholic Church is the long and short of it. It was a long journey home. I am glad for my experiences and that I quit fighting going where I was being guided.

Thank you and I look forward to further discussion.

**I hope you continue to agree to disagree in such a charitable manner; you are refreshing in that sense. Thank you and don’t change.

The comment on knowing the elect is where you referenced the “visible” church…which I was just joking with you anyway; I know you were referring to the Catholic Church. According to Scripture the visible church is the local gathering of professing Christians. Jesus made this very clear in Revelation 2 and 3.

Sounds like you had quite the journey in your religious pursuits. I wonder if you believe that you were fallible in your previous choices or not; then what makes you believe this choice is any different particularly in light of Scripture?

I was one who was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church; my Aunt was assigned as my God-parent. I thank God that my mother was pulled away from the Church and became born again although my father is not to my knowledge.

I always believed in God and even Jesus, but I did not know God, nor did He know me. looking back I can see where God was working in my life to the point where i realized I was very offensive to God in my sin against Him and others; although when I compared myself to others, i thought I was a “good person” and why would God not allow me into heaven since I had a form of belief. Once I was born unto new life (at the age of 38); my eyes were open to the truth and the ugliness of my transgressions and the real need for forgiveness through the Savior.

God Bless “Working-man”!**

 

[Tanner9188]

“Foxes Book of Martyrs” has been debunked, time after time and most of the book is false . if you believe that book I got some land in FLA you will love to buyand I will make you a great deal

**Even if what you said was true, no one has provided any proof; only rhetoric. Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt and only some of it is true, then in light of the 20th century and the scandals of the 21st century and the consistent history of ungodly character permeated from the highest levels should be a warning for most IMO; not in so much that it happened as the way they have covered it up at the expense of its members and other non-Catholic Christians and Jews.

If Luther were here; I’m sure he would have some horrible stories to tell. The more I learn the more I understand the reason for the individual local churches as the visible church on earth as Jesus reveals in no uncertain terms in Revelation 2 and 3; and not the behemoth as the central church; makes more sense, knowing the wickedness of man in matters of money, greed, power, abuse & corruption. God knows the heart of man and wickedness of men and having a visible body at the local level, in god’s divine wisdom, restrains man from the abuses to the level we know to be true form history in all religions; especially those that sleep with the leadership of countries; Islam is a great example IMO.**

 

[Tanner9188]

That’s not true. The Vatican did not approve of what the Croatian regime did, although unfortunately Cardinal Stepinac managed to persuade the Pope not to condemn the regime outright. That is very much to the discredit of both the Cardinal and the Pope, but it is a lie to claim that the Vatican approved of the slaughter.

Edwin

**Unfortunately; pictures are worth thousands of words. Plus my Father-in-law lived through the massacre of Eastern Orthodox Serbians and Jews; as Catholic Bishops and layity (plural) participated side by side with weapons and oversight. Did I mention the burning the total destruction of some of their churches, the stolen artifacts and other pillaging, the destruction of church records. Why do you think the pope apologized, well kind-of, blamed the people like yourself, the layity in order to protect the magisterium. Don’t be surprised nor in denial; to deny is to participate and approve. It is the history of the Church and one of many reasons for the God-driven reformation IMO.

As you alluded to in your comment about the reflection on a “bishop” and a “pope”; actions speak louder than words, or lack of action in this case and others.

Stepping back a moment; the Catholic people have done many wonderful things for the benefit of all mankind; the first thing that comes to mind are hospitals; how many hospitals have their roots in Catholic heritage especially in the United States; so not all is bad and I need to be careful to make sure you know that I also recognize the good.

God bless!**

 

[Tanner9188]

That Tanner is the last time you call me lazy.

**I agree; I won’t mention it again concerning you.

God bless!**

 

[Tanner9188]

But Sacred Scripture cannot interpret itself, therefore it is your interpretation that becomes authoritative not the Bible’s. What you’re really advocating Tanner is that you are the infallible authority. Furthermore, Sacred Tradition helped to bring about Sacred Scripture but Sacred Tradition is not Sacred Scripture (but they do overlap and stem from the same source, God). Here are some verses to help you understand that the Church already had doctrines that were passed down by Jesus (Sacred Tradition) to the apostles.

“Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered . . . He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” 1 Titus 1:7-9

“You must teach what is in accord to sound doctrine.” 1 Titus 2:1

“What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you - guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” 2 Timothy 1: 13-14 (recollect that St. Paul is writing to St. Timothy who was given apostolic authority to teach within the Church)

"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. 2 Timothy 2: 2

"Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you. Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. " 1 Timothy 4: 11-15

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15

The Church had passed down the teachings of Christ that we call Sacred Tradition (infant baptism, eucharist, trinity, sunday worshipping . . . etc.) to enable us to interpret scripture, this interpretation is the reason that the Church was able to recognize heretical teachings/doctrines. Those who spoke with no authority and abused Sacred Scripture were many.

Apply the same standard to the Church’s ability to interpret and where do you end up and how did you get there? In other words it comes down because “the Church” said so; therefore it is true, the exact argument you pull on Protestants.

 

[Tanner9188]

He set Peter as first among the Apostles. He ‘recognizes’ the Pope’s authority inasmuch as he is the SOURCE of the Pope’s authority.

BTW, you should capitalize proper names and titles. It’s “Pope”, not “pope”, whether you’re a Catholic, a Muslim, or a Jack Chick-style Protestant.

As for where Scripture tells us, it’s quite clear that Peter had primacy over the other 11. Fortunately, I’m not left to rely on Scripture alone (along with Pastor Billy Bob’s private interpretations), since I have Holy Tradition to rely on as well.

**How do you derive the “Church’s” ability or authority to interpret Scripture? You can only end in “because the “Church” says it is true” or you rely on Scripture as proof. **

 

[Tanner9188]

**Bill Pick;

I lost #129; sorry about that and I discovered along the way that i have overlooked others as well; guess too much going on and not being as careful as I said.

I will not neglect, except in rare circumstances, to answer a post. thanks for bringing it up; I did answer the question off of your post to HisAlone.**

 

[Zundrah]

pt 1 ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=200

pt 2 ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=201

Luther? …was right? Hmm…

If I came over to your house and randomly ripped some pages out of your bible would you then say “Amen, from now on I will follow you”…?

…just a thought.