Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[NHInsider]

The discussion about Mary’s perpetual virginity came back, of course, to the question of what individuals believe the Bible says, as distinct from what the Church teaches. This is, of course, the central issue in the Protestant schism - does the individual’s ability to read and interpret Scripture for himself trump the authority of the Church?

Catholics believe the preservation of the Scripture is itself an exercise of the authority of the Church, promised to and passed down by the Apostles. Protestants reject an infallibly authoritative Church in favor of infallible personal interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This observation leads me to this question for those who reject the authority of the Church:
what’s your interpretation of Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 14:6, Matthew 16:18, 1 John 4:6?

 

[hansard]

Matthew 28:19-20
This teaches Baptism and the need to follow the commands of Jesus.

Luke 14:6
This teaches that “they had nothing to say”.

Matthew 16:18
This is about the establishment of the Church, with Peter as its first head; also, the everlasting nature of the Church.

1 John 4:6
This teaches that the way of telling if someone if from God or not is whether or not they listen to the Church.

Really, this is standard stuff for anyone interested in early church history, but hardly a disallowing of personal interpretation.

In my view, there can be nothing wrong with an intelligent, slightly sceptical (but NOT disrespectful or wantonly obstructionist) reading of scripture, the Catechism and other religious works.

Luther, a shining example of a good, devout Catholic, was treated appallingly (IMO) in his lifetime, when all he wanted to do was address some of his concerns (of which, some were hardly earth-shattering or unknown at the time). I believe his excommunication still applies—happy to be corrected on that…

As we all know around here, a little debate (heated, dispassionate, whatever) is not a bad thing.

But, I suppose if debate is seen as schismatic or divisive, then it had better be shut down quick smart, the dissenters excommunicated, and a forum like this be turned into a prayer society.

 

[Ginger2]

**what’s your interpretation of **
*Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. This is our mission in life, to witness the Gospel of Christ. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

The Holy Spirit is promised to all believers, not just the Apostles passed down from “pope” to “pope”, but to all. It is how Jesus is “with us always, to the very end of the age.”

ACTS 10:44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues[a] and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

*Luke 14:6 And they could not answer him again to these things.

The Pharisees were following extra-biblical teachings of the Law. Jesus used the Holy Scriptures to correct them in Matthew 12. Jesus didn’t change the law, he pointed out the Pharisees had added to it, and clarified what the law actually said using the Holy Scriptures.

Since they all knew what the Law said, and since they all knew the added restrictions in extra-biblical works have no authority over the Law (Torah), no one could argue with Jesus.

*Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
My interpretation is this:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on (myself) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

*1 John 4:6?

Instead of taking one verse and drawing your conclusion you should read the whole passage to gain understanding.

1Dear friends, **do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. **This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Thank you for asking.

 

[Cachonga]

NHInsider:

The discussion about Mary’s perpetual virginity came back, of course, to the question of what individuals believe the Bible says, as distinct from what the Church teaches. This is, of course, the central issue in the Protestant schism - does the individual’s ability to read and interpret Scripture for himself trump the authority of the Church?

As I stated in the other thread, “I would suggest that any church which teaches mans traditions in place of God’s Word has abandoned any God-given authority to teach. Look at the warnings to the 7 Churches in Revelations for an example.” I assert the Catholic Church teaches man made traditions (ie-perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and bodily assumption (all concerning Mary), just to name a few), and, therefore, has abandoned the authority to teach God’s word.

Matt 28:19-20 - This is (of course) the “Great Commission”. I notice that baptism isn’t the first thing in the list, but that comes after the command to “make disciples”. Ginger2 points out that Cornelius became a believer first, then was baptised. I would also mention the Ethiopian eunuch (see Acts 8:26-38). In verse 36, they came across a body of water and the Ethiopian asked “See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?” Philip answered, “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” Notice, the Ethiopian had been discipled, then he was baptised. There is also the case of the Phillipian jailer (Acts 16) where he and his family heard Paul’s preaching, then they were baptized. The pattern is clear - first they believed, then they were baptized (this is why I was baptized correctly after God delivered me out of the Roman Catholic Church)!

Luke 14:6 - When taken in context (going back to verse 1), we see the hypocrites were ready to accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, but He reminded them of their own activities in regard to their animals. They kept silent because they recognized their hypocrisy.

Matt 16:18 - As Ginger2 pointed out, Jesus is the Rock, not Peter. However, in this particular verse, the “rock” could very well be understood to be Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah. Notice in verse 20 Jesus tells them (not just Peter) not to tell anyone that He was the Messiah. It should be pointed out that in verse 23 Jesus called Peter “Satan” and rebuked him for not minding the things of God (YLT). I would further assert that, since Jesus addressed all of the disciples in verses 15 and 20, that the promise of binding and loosing was given to all of the disciples, not just Peter.

1 John 4:6 - I agree with Ginger2 in that you should not take a single verse and draw a conclusion (the single verse misses the context). Have you “tried the spirits” to see if they are from God? I do not recognise the Spirit of truth in the Catholic Church.

 

[NHInsider]

As I stated in the other thread, “I would suggest that any church which teaches mans traditions in place of God’s Word has abandoned any God-given authority to teach. Look at the warnings to the 7 Churches in Revelations for an example.” I assert the Catholic Church teaches man made traditions (ie-perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and bodily assumption (all concerning Mary), just to name a few), and, therefore, has abandoned the authority to teach God’s word.

And of course, your assertion is infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, right?

When did they abandon the authority to teach God’s word? Before or after they determined the content of the Bible you hold to be a superior authority? And have you checked out the comparative timeline for the Catholic doctrines you despise and the ones you embrace?

Do you accept the Gospel of John? I know you accept John’s Revelation, since you just quoted it. Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas? What about the Shepherd of Hermas?

Do you know that there were many in the early church who rejected the first two and believed the latter to be inspired?

Probably you do, because you’ve been hanging around here.

Look, I don’t know how long ago you left the Church, but I’ve been where you are. I was born and raised in that briar patch, and I know every inch of it. I’ve lived through 3 church break-ups, each one caused by someone’s being “led by the Holy Spirit” to understand a passage of Scripture in a way that 2/3 of the congregation discerned to be inspired by God and the other 1/3 discerned to be the work of the evil one and the result of tickled ears. I know every calumny and condemnation of the Catholic Church that has been tossed - heck, I own Lorraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, the source of most of them, which I inherited from my beloved - and very Godly, surely sainted - great uncle.

If Jesus’ authority and His promise to preserve the Truth, teaching them everything they needed to know, was lost by apostate successors to the Apostles, if there is no authority except an individual’s hunch based on their own readings, how miserable a people we are!

Tell you what - before I place the fate of my eternal soul on your or my or my great-aunt-Martha’s ability to correctly interpret Scripture, I’ll stick with the men to whom Jesus said “whoever hears you, hears Me.” (Oh, and that was what the Luke reference was supposed to have been - 10:16. Apparently I cut-and-pasted a typo).

 

[wmscott]

As I stated in the other thread, “I would suggest that any church which teaches mans traditions in place of God’s Word has abandoned any God-given authority to teach. Look at the warnings to the 7 Churches in Revelations for an example.” I assert the Catholic Church teaches man made traditions (ie-perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and bodily assumption (all concerning Mary), just to name a few), and, therefore, has abandoned the authority to teach God’s word.

Matt 28:19-20 - This is (of course) the “Great Commission”. I notice that baptism isn’t the first thing in the list, but that comes after the command to “make disciples”. Ginger2 points out that Cornelius became a believer first, then was baptised. I would also mention the Ethiopian eunuch (see Acts 8:26-38). In verse 36, they came across a body of water and the Ethiopian asked “See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?” Philip answered, “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” Notice, the Ethiopian had been discipled, then he was baptised. There is also the case of the Phillipian jailer (Acts 16) where he and his family heard Paul’s preaching, then they were baptized. The pattern is clear - first they believed, then they were baptized (this is why I was baptized correctly after God delivered me out of the Roman Catholic Church)!

Luke 14:6 - When taken in context (going back to verse 1), we see the hypocrites were ready to accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, but He reminded them of their own activities in regard to their animals. They kept silent because they recognized their hypocrisy.

Matt 16:18 - As Ginger2 pointed out, Jesus is the Rock, not Peter. However, in this particular verse, the “rock” could very well be understood to be Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah. Notice in verse 20 Jesus tells them (not just Peter) not to tell anyone that He was the Messiah. It should be pointed out that in verse 23 Jesus called Peter “Satan” and rebuked him for not minding the things of God (YLT). I would further assert that, since Jesus addressed all of the disciples in verses 15 and 20, that the promise of binding and loosing was given to all of the disciples, not just Peter.

1 John 4:6 - I agree with Ginger2 in that you should not take a single verse and draw a conclusion (the single verse misses the context). Have you “tried the spirits” to see if they are from God? I do not recognise the Spirit of truth in the Catholic Church.

As a former Catholic you should have learned the difference between man made tradition and Sacred Tradition, big difference.

 

[ejb21]

As I stated in the other thread, “I would suggest that any church which teaches mans traditions in place of God’s Word has abandoned any God-given authority to teach. Look at the warnings to the 7 Churches in Revelations for an example.” I assert the Catholic Church teaches man made traditions (ie-perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and bodily assumption (all concerning Mary), just to name a few), and, therefore, has abandoned the authority to teach God’s word.

Matt 28:19-20 - This is (of course) the “Great Commission”. I notice that baptism isn’t the first thing in the list, but that comes after the command to “make disciples”. Ginger2 points out that Cornelius became a believer first, then was baptised. I would also mention the Ethiopian eunuch (see Acts 8:26-38). In verse 36, they came across a body of water and the Ethiopian asked “See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?” Philip answered, “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” Notice, the Ethiopian had been discipled, then he was baptised. There is also the case of the Phillipian jailer (Acts 16) where he and his family heard Paul’s preaching, then they were baptized. The pattern is clear - first they believed, then they were baptized (this is why I was baptized correctly after God delivered me out of the Roman Catholic Church)!

Luke 14:6 - When taken in context (going back to verse 1), we see the hypocrites were ready to accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, but He reminded them of their own activities in regard to their animals. They kept silent because they recognized their hypocrisy.

Matt 16:18 - As Ginger2 pointed out, Jesus is the Rock, not Peter. However, in this particular verse, the “rock” could very well be understood to be Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah. Notice in verse 20 Jesus tells them (not just Peter) not to tell anyone that He was the Messiah. It should be pointed out that in verse 23 Jesus called Peter “Satan” and rebuked him for not minding the things of God (YLT). I would further assert that, since Jesus addressed all of the disciples in verses 15 and 20, that the promise of binding and loosing was given to all of the disciples, not just Peter.

1 John 4:6 - I agree with Ginger2 in that you should not take a single verse and draw a conclusion (the single verse misses the context). Have you “tried the spirits” to see if they are from God? I do not recognise the Spirit of truth in the Catholic Church.

For 300 years the early Martyrs died for their faith. They didn’t have a copy of the New Testament in their hands when they were fed to the lions and used as human torches. They relied on Sacred Tradition which were the teachings handed down by the Apostles. Now the Apostles were dead, so who did these Martyrs receive this teaching from? The Successors to the Apostles.

You can “assert” all you want. What you offer are opinions, nothing more.

 

[Cachonga]

NHInsider:

And of course, your assertion is infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, right?

I apologize if I ever gave the impression that I was infallible in any way. I have received correction on things before. I am not “locked in” to an opinion, disrergarding everything that contradicts it. However, I will defend my opinion based on Scripture.

I cannot put a date or time on when the Catholic Church abandoned its teaching authority. There was a gradual creeping in of error (as prophesied).

Bringing in the question of the canon is a straw man. The Jewish canon was fixed in Palestine before Jesus was born, and I’ve never heard anyone claim the Jewish Magestirium was “infallible”. Point is, how did they know what scriptures were without some kind of infallibility? The answer is, they didn’t need to be infallible to discover what God had inspired. In the same way, the folks who determined the New Testament canon didn’t have to be infallible to recognize what God had inspired.

NHInsider:

If Jesus’ authority and His promise to preserve the Truth, teaching them everything they needed to know, was lost by apostate successors to the Apostles, if there is no authority except an individual’s hunch based on their own readings, how miserable a people we are!

God has always had people in every generation who looked to Him, so the Church that Jesus Christ founded has continued.

NHInsider:

Tell you what - before I place the fate of my eternal soul on your or my or my great-aunt-Martha’s ability to correctly interpret Scripture, I’ll stick with the men to whom Jesus said “whoever hears you, hears Me.” (Oh, and that was what the Luke reference was supposed to have been - 10:16. Apparently I cut-and-pasted a typo).

So what you’re saying is - you are trusting your understanding of what the Catholic Church is telling you, while I am trusting in my understanding of the Scriptures (would that be a fair assesment of your position)? I would suggest that your decision to believe the Catholic Church is no more infallible than my decision to follow the Scriptures.

wmscott:

As a former Catholic you should have learned the difference between man made tradition and Sacred Tradition, big difference.

So tell me, apart from Scripture, how can you KNOW if a tradition is man made or not? Keep in mind, Jesus exposed the Corban rule as a man-made tradition by comparing it with Scripture (Mark 7:6-13).

ejb21:

For 300 years the early Martyrs died for their faith. They didn’t have a copy of the New Testament in their hands when they were fed to the lions and used as human torches. They relied on Sacred Tradition which were the teachings handed down by the Apostles. Now the Apostles were dead, so who did these Martyrs receive this teaching from? The Successors to the Apostles.

You can “assert” all you want. What you offer are opinions, nothing more.

I would ask a couple of questions. 1 - Is there anything in the New Testament Scriptures that is not in Sacred Tradition? 2 - Has the Catholic Church ever, “infallibly” declared a single word spoken by Jesus, Peter, Paul or any of the Apostles that is not found in Sacred Scripture?

You are correct that my assertions are my opinions, but they are based on Scripture, not some vague, ambiguous “tradition”, or imagined “infallibility”.

 

[wmscott]

I apologize if I ever gave the impression that I was infallible in any way. I have received correction on things before. I am not “locked in” to an opinion, disrergarding everything that contradicts it. However, I will defend my opinion based on Scripture.

I cannot put a date or time on when the Catholic Church abandoned its teaching authority. There was a gradual creeping in of error (as prophesied).

Bringing in the question of the canon is a straw man. The Jewish canon was fixed in Palestine before Jesus was born, and I’ve never heard anyone claim the Jewish Magestirium was “infallible”. Point is, how did they know what scriptures were without some kind of infallibility? The answer is, they didn’t need to be infallible to discover what God had inspired. In the same way, the folks who determined the New Testament canon didn’t have to be infallible to recognize what God had inspired.

God has always had people in every generation who looked to Him, so the Church that Jesus Christ founded has continued.

So what you’re saying is - you are trusting your understanding of what the Catholic Church is telling you, while I am trusting in my understanding of the Scriptures (would that be a fair assesment of your position)? I would suggest that your decision to believe the Catholic Church is no more infallible than my decision to follow the Scriptures.

So tell me, apart from Scripture, how can you KNOW if a tradition is man made or not? Keep in mind, Jesus exposed the Corban rule as a man-made tradition by comparing it with Scripture (Mark 7:6-13).

I would ask a couple of questions. 1 - Is there anything in the New Testament Scriptures that is not in Sacred Tradition? 2 - Has the Catholic Church ever, “infallibly” declared a single word spoken by Jesus, Peter, Paul or any of the Apostles that is not found in Sacred Scripture?

You are correct that my assertions are my opinions, but they are based on Scripture, not some vague, ambiguous “tradition”, or imagined “infallibility”.

Because Sacred Tradition never contradicts Sacred Scripture.

**The true “rule of faith”—**as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Dei Verbum (Latin: “The Word of God”) Is the relationship between Tradition and Scripture. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end
Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
By the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.

 

[wmscott]

I apologize if I ever gave the impression that I was infallible in any way. I have received correction on things before. I am not “locked in” to an opinion, disrergarding everything that contradicts it. However, I will defend my opinion based on Scripture.

I cannot put a date or time on when the Catholic Church abandoned its teaching authority. There was a gradual creeping in of error (as prophesied).

Bringing in the question of the canon is a straw man. The Jewish canon was fixed in Palestine before Jesus was born, and I’ve never heard anyone claim the Jewish Magestirium was “infallible”. Point is, how did they know what scriptures were without some kind of infallibility? The answer is, they didn’t need to be infallible to discover what God had inspired. In the same way, the folks who determined the New Testament canon didn’t have to be infallible to recognize what God had inspired.

God has always had people in every generation who looked to Him, so the Church that Jesus Christ founded has continued.

So what you’re saying is - you are trusting your understanding of what the Catholic Church is telling you, while I am trusting in my understanding of the Scriptures (would that be a fair assesment of your position)? I would suggest that your decision to believe the Catholic Church is no more infallible than my decision to follow the Scriptures.

So tell me, apart from Scripture, how can you KNOW if a tradition is man made or not? Keep in mind, Jesus exposed the Corban rule as a man-made tradition by comparing it with Scripture (Mark 7:6-13).

I would ask a couple of questions. 1 - Is there anything in the New Testament Scriptures that is not in Sacred Tradition? 2 - Has the Catholic Church ever, “infallibly” declared a single word spoken by Jesus, Peter, Paul or any of the Apostles that is not found in Sacred Scripture?

You are correct that my assertions are my opinions, but they are based on Scripture, not some vague, ambiguous “tradition”, or imagined “infallibility”.

Here are some examples of manmade traditions discussed in the NT

Mt 15:1-3 - break commandment of God for your tradition

1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? 2 They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal.”
3 He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

The tradition of the elders: The purpose of the hand washing was to remove defilement caused by contact with what was ritually unclean.

Mk 7:8-9 - set aside God’s commandment to uphold tradition
8 You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition."
9 He went on to say, "How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!

Col 2:8 - seductive philosophy according to human tradition
8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

I hope this helps

 

[estesbob]

The Holy Spirit is promised to all believers, not just the Apostles passed down from “pope” to “pope”, but to all. It is how Jesus is “with us always, to the very end of the age.”

then it is a very michevious Holy Spirit-whispering thousands of differnt versions of the Truth to different people. how do we sort that out?

 

[greggy53]

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and **that Rock was Christ.

Here is how the Douay Rhiems Bible explains that scripture.
“In Moses”… Under the conduct of Moses, they received baptism in figure, by passing under the cloud, and through the sea; and they partook of the body and blood of Christ in figure, by eating of the manna, (called here a spiritual food because it was a figure of the true bread which comes down from heaven,) and drinking the water, miraculously brought out of the rock, called here a spiritual rock, because it was also a figure of Christ.**

 

[Cachonga]

wmscott:

Because Sacred Tradition never contradicts Sacred Scripture.

So what Sacred Scripture makes it OK to bow and pray to an image of someone? What Sacred Scripture do you rely on to believe that Mary (or any Saint) can hear your prayer in Heaven? What Sacred Scripture tells you that Joseph and Mary deviated from the norm by NOT having marital relations AFTER Jesus was born?

In response, I would point to Acts 19:13-41 where Demetrius (a Silversmith) got together with other craftsmen and complained about Paul and the “new religion”. The reason for the complaint was, primarily, because it was affecting their pocket (see verse 25). They rioted, shouting “Geat is Diana of the Ephesians!”, but this was an excuse (the city wouldn’t riot if they complained about their loss of income). If it was OK for Christians to make images of Jesus, Mary, etc…, why didn’t these craftsmen find someone who could describe Jesus and start making images? They would have had a booming business IF that was acceptable in the early Church. They could have made images of Stephen, and even asked Paul to pose for when he left this life (good to be prepared). This didn’t happen because it was not an acceptable practice in the Church!

How loud do you have to speak in order to be heard by someone in Heaven other than God? Scripture doesn’t indicate any clear communication with those who have passed on. I have seen some try to use the story of Lazarus and rich man, but the rich man was in hell and looked across the chasm to see Lazarus and Abraham in Paradise (this would be a case of someone who died talking to someone else who died). I also wonder about the ability of anyone to hear accurately everyone who would speak to them. For example, if every Roman Catholic in the world (approximately 1 Billion) made a 1 second personal request of Mary on the same day, she would have to listen to over 33,000 people per second. I was one of eight kids, and every time more than 2 of us tried to ask mom for something at the same time, her response was usually something like, “SHUT UP!! One at a time!” Unfortunately, Mary can’t say that! I’ve heard the excuse that Heaven is outside of time, and therefore the Saints have all of eternity to listen to the prayer requests, but I have yet to see this in Sacred Scripture.

Finally, I have noticed that Scripture usually tells us if something deviates “out of the norm” (such as how Lot’s daughters became pregnant, that Abraham became a father at 100 and Sarah became a mother at 90, that Jonah was swallowed by a large fish, etc…), yet there is nothing specifically stating that Joseph kept Mary a virgin all his life. There is nothing in Scripture that tells us that Mary remained a virgin her entire life! Leaving aside the clear indications that Joseph and Mary had other children, I can find nothing in Scripture to indicate that the marriage of Joseph and Mary was not a normal marriage (other than the fact that their firstborn son was God in flesh).

wmscott:

Here are some examples of manmade traditions discussed in the NT

This still doesn’t answer the original question - apart from Scripture, how can you KNOW if a tradition is man made or not?

 

[greggy53]

Which came first, the Bible or the Church?

 

[estesbob]

This still doesn’t answer the original question - apart from Scripture, how can you KNOW if a tradition is man made or not?

Without your personal interpreation of Scripture how do you know anything?

 

[wmscott]

Cachonga

WoW are you for real, I really am having doubts that you are a former Catholic, you are hitting all of the anti-Catholic playbook pages. You have been provided factual information on Sacred Tradition and you still do not comprehend.

It is not OK to bow and pray to an image of someone, I do not do it, I do not know of any Catholic that do it, and if they do they are wrong.

in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!

Sacred Scripture regarding where Mary (or any Saint) that can hear our prayers in Heaven. Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. It is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.

The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!” (Ps. 148:1-2).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: “[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3-4).

And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that “the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

To read more try this LINK

As for the Blessed Mothers virginity try this LINK

 

[Cachonga]

greggy53:

Which came first, the Bible or the Church?

Is this a trick question? Who is the author of Scripture? Isn’t it God? Who founded the Church? I would say God (I bet you would agree with that, but correct me if I’m wrong). So God founded the Church and authored the Scriptures, and He knows the end from the beginning, so I would say they came about at the same time. It did take a bit longer for the Scriptures to be recorded and recognized, but God is the author, not the Church!

I would also point out that nobody asked Jesus what he was referring to every time He said “It is written…” The Old Testament canon was set and in place before Jesus was born, and this is what the early Church was founded on and used until the New Testament was completed (and recognized).

BTW - I believe the Old Testament is just as valid today as it was when Jesus said, “It is written…”

 

[estesbob]

I The and used until the New Testament was completed (and recognized).

quote]

By who?

 

[PJM]

The discussion about Mary’s perpetual virginity came back, of course, to the question of what individuals believe the Bible says, as distinct from what the Church teaches. This is, of course, the central issue in the Protestant schism - does the individual’s ability to read and interpret Scripture for himself trump the authority of the Church?

Catholics believe the preservation of the Scripture is itself an exercise of the authority of the Church, promised to and passed down by the Apostles. Protestants reject an infallibly authoritative Church in favor of infallible personal interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This observation leads me to this question for those who reject the authority of the Church:
what’s your interpretation of Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 14:6, Matthew 16:18, 1 John 4:6?

Hmmmm. Let me see…

Catholic Church is 2.000 years old and still One Church, One Faith, One set of Moral beliefs, One Baptism, One set of doctrine and dogma, and 22 brances.

Protestants with independent minds, wills, self interpretation is about 400 years old, and now proudly has in EXCESS OF 30,000 [that is at least 1,978 MORE denominations], each doing, each believing, each practicing what they choose, and if they can find no common ground simply start another brand of “the church.” Can that be what God wants and envisioned when He founded His Catholic Church

Because one can, has neven empowered one “to do!” what ever one pleases. Amen

Denial of ONE Bible, and its One set of what is THEE TRUTH is denial of God, God’s authority and God’s Wisdom and power. Should one be surprised at the results?

Let us pray for Wisdom, Understanding and the courage of the Martyrs. And praying for humility might be another good idea. This cannot be the Will of God.

 

[greggy53]

Is this a trick question? Who is the author of Scripture? Isn’t it God? Who founded the Church? I would say God (I bet you would agree with that, but correct me if I’m wrong). So God founded the Church and authored the Scriptures, and He knows the end from the beginning, so I would say they came about at the same time. It did take a bit longer for the Scriptures to be recorded and recognized, but God is the author, not the Church!

There is nothing tricky about it. The Church came first. God Talked to Mosses and established his covenant and subsequently their religion Before anything was written down. The same with the New Testament. The scriptures were given by God to the Church, and the scriptures tell us that Christ and his Church are one even as a Husband and wife are one. Not the Bible and God, The Church and God. Jesus established his Church and that Church (being one with Christ) decided which writings were scripture and which were not.(387 AD at the Council of Rome). Not the other way around. The Chuch has the authority to interpret scripture you and I as individuals do not. So, when you tell us we are interpreting scripture wrong we answer back that Christ’s Church that he established, gave us the interpretations, and Christ and his Church are one.

I would also point out that nobody asked Jesus what he was referring to every time He said “It is written…” The Old Testament canon was set and in place before Jesus was born, and this is what the early Church was founded on and used until the New Testament was completed (and recognized). BTW - I believe the Old Testament is just as valid today as it was when Jesus said, “It is written…”

The early Church was founded on Jesus Christ crucified, and risen from the dead. Not from Old testament scripture. Certainly old Testament scripture was fulfilled by Christ, but the Church both then and now is based on our Lords crucifixion and resurrection. Better read that bible of yours some more my “back-slid” friend.