Personal interpretation

[TobyLue]

gtrenewed

They see it as God delivering scripture through the apostles and then guiding the councils to protect what was given. The CC as an organization in their view betrayed the Apostles at some point in time.

This is interesting. However, have they stopped to ask themselves the following questions: When did the CC betray the Apostles, and in what manner? When they betrayed the apostles, what teaching did the CC change that was taught by the apostles? And then, who took over to make sure that that betrayal did not continue and who corrected whatever it was that betrayed the apostles? Where do we find that church, organization, or whoever? Is it still around and can they show proof that they have the correct interpretation that agrees with the Apostles?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Aww man! I missed a heated debate! I was asleep during this bout!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

*You have a great deal of patience GreggAlvarez - muito paciencia!

*

Thank you! I was ALMOST running low but my guardian Angel filled it when it was “running on echale”. (Running on empty.)

 

[PRmerger]

Having been a bible school trained protestant pastor before reverting, this is not entirely true.

Fair enough.

They look at the early church as small ‘c’ catholic/universal church. They see it as God delivering scripture through the apostles and then guiding the councils to protect what was given.

What councils? Councils with bishops and a pope? Does that not sound quite, er, Catholic to you?

The CC as an organization in their view betrayed the Apostles at some point in time.While they believe there are some Christians in the CC, it is in spite of, not because of.

Well, since I’m not sure who is included in this “their view”, because there is no consistent “their view” to refute. There’s tens of thousands of “their view”, and while some may agree with the above, some may not.

I really can’t refute a nebulous “them”.

 

[PRmerger]

I have seen you present this arguement many times but your point is not understood because they see scripture delivered and protected by the Holy Spirit.

Ok.

But that is like saying “God created babies.” While that is a true statement, God uses people to accomplish this. Babies don’t just magically appear in a bassinet, all cute and cuddly and swaddled.

Similarly, while God did deliver and protect the Scriptures, how did He accomplish this? Did He magically deliver the Bible, leather bound and in KJV, to Martin Luther?

I am simply presenting an argument that non-Catholics apparently have never considered.

And, I think it bears repeating that if God used the CC to deliver and protect the Scriptures, and these Scriptures are inerrant, then each and every time a Protestant quotes the Scriptures he is tacitly agreeing with the dogma of infallibility. For unless this Protestant believes that the Church erred in, say, including Hebrews and excluding the Gospel of Thomas, the Church accomplished this decision with an infallible charism.

 

[gtrenewed]

gtrenewedThis is interesting. However, have they stopped to ask themselves the following questions: When did the CC betray the Apostles, and in what manner? When they betrayed the apostles, what teaching did the CC change that was taught by the apostles? And then, who took over to make sure that that betrayal did not continue and who corrected whatever it was that betrayed the apostles? Where do we find that church, organization, or whoever? Is it still around and can they show proof that they have the correct interpretation that agrees with the Apostles?

Different groups have different theories.

To most protestants there is not a single organization. Jesus is the head of the Body with the Holy Spirit guiding them. The Body is comprised of believers sprinkled in many Christian groups. That is what makes the reformation work, there is the believer submitted to Jesus. They submit to an earthly group as far as they are in agreement. Most protestant groups require belief in the essential Christian doctrines as in the Apostles Creed except for belief in the Catholic Church. they see a small ‘c’ meaning universal.

The bible forms their doctrine as they understand it or as their group understands it and they agree. This is why there is so many circular debates on this forum but if they stay on it is worth it to keep going in circles.

They fellowship with Jesus in the Word. We fellowship with Jesus in the mass, the sacramenrts and in the Word.

 

[PRmerger]

Most protestant groups require belief in the essential Christian doctrines as in the Apostles Creed except for belief in the Catholic Church. they see a small ‘c’ meaning universal.

This is a very curious paradigm for Protestant groups to hold–belief in the “essential Christian doctrines as in the Apostles’ Creed”???

Who discerned that those are the essentials? Certainly Scripture gives us no indication that certain things are essentials and certain things aren’t.

An outside authority is needed to discern this!

Again, here we are with the need for an authority outside of Scripture.

 

[gtrenewed]

What councils? Councils with bishops and a pope? Does that not sound quite, er, Catholic to you?

Ya’ to me but not to them. Remember that the first millenium councils gave the Bishop of Rome primacy but not necessarily supremecy. Modern protestants see the pope in light of supremecy which bothers them as it does the Orthodox.

Well, since I’m not sure who is included in this “their view”, because there is no consistent “their view” to refute. There’s tens of thousands of “their view”, and while some may agree with the above, some may not.

I really can’t refute a nebulous “them”.

True enough but the tens of thousands arguement is a bit of a red herring. Many groups split due to style of worship or perceived worldliness and not necessarily doctrinal reasons.

I would encourage you to refute the person at hand and not the “their view”. They don’t necessarily know what other protestants believe.

 

[Cinette]

Of course.



But, as there has never been a single Magisterial document that proclaims that Catholics must worship Catholicism (how :whacky: is this propostion! I must say that in all my years on the CAFs hearing objections to my faith, this is the first time I’ve ever encountered this criticism), there is no need to bark up this tree.

I just as soon might say that those who praise the Bible can turn their praise and affection into worship of the Bible.

*Praise is the highest form of worship.
:bowdown2:
*

 

[Cinette]

Indeed.

There is nothing–no objection to Catholicism --that cannot be refuted. Thus, one needs to create a Catholicism which exists only in the anti-Catholic imaginations in order to persist in being anti-Catholic.

Well said!

 

[PRmerger]

*Praise is the highest form of worship.
:bowdown2:
*

I’m not sure I agree with this, Cinette.

Again, I praise my children. But I don’t worship them.

And, worship, I think, involves some sort of sacrifice. Which is why when objectors posit that we “worship” Mary I often ask, “Do you see us sacrificing anything at altars to Mary? If not, then how can there be true worship without sacrifice?”

 

[gtrenewed]

Ok.

But that is like saying “God created babies.” While that is a true statement, God uses people to accomplish this. Babies don’t just magically appear in a bassinet, all cute and cuddly and swaddled.

Similarly, while God did deliver and protect the Scriptures, how did He accomplish this? Did He magically deliver the Bible, leather bound and in KJV, to Martin Luther?

I am simply presenting an argument that non-Catholics apparently have never considered.

And, I think it bears repeating that if God used the CC to deliver and protect the Scriptures, and these Scriptures are inerrant, then each and every time a Protestant quotes the Scriptures he is tacitly agreeing with the dogma of infallibility. For unless this Protestant believes that the Church erred in, say, including Hebrews and excluding the Gospel of Thomas, the Church accomplished this decision with an infallible charism.

OK repeat away; however, your statement “Did He magically deliver the Bible, leather bound and in KJV, to Martin Luther?” seems condescending. How does that help bring about a fruitful dialogue?

 

[PRmerger]

Ya’ to me but not to them.

That’s exactly my point. What other conclusion is there? No Protestant has been able to answer me this question: * if it wasn’t the Catholic Church, then what church was it that had bishops, popes and met in ecumenical councils? And why doesn’t your church have this?*

Remember that the first millenium councils gave the Bishop of Rome primacy but not necessarily supremecy. Modern protestants see the pope in light of supremecy which bothers them as it does the Orthodox.

This is a non-sequitor. And again, there is no such thing as a “modern protestant” view.

True enough but the tens of thousands arguement is a bit of a red herring. Many groups split due to style of worship or perceived worldliness and not necessarily doctrinal reasons.

That they feel they have the authority to “split” is a testament to their departure from the faith of the apostles. There is no magisterium. There is no authentic interpreter of Scripture. There is only them and their perceptions. Their fallible perceptions.

I would encourage you to refute the person at hand and not the “their view”. They don’t necessarily know what other protestants believe.

Indeed I do. However, in this discussion with you, you are proferring a nebulous “them” yet presenting them as a unified “them.” Doesn’t exist. Impossible to refute.

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Doggg,

Let me point out the problems in the approach you have chosen…

It appears that you are treating ‘objective fact’ as some kind of impediment to ‘personal interpretations’. Ultimately, if there are no facts then we become like the ancient Greeks looking at the heavens and naming stars and constellations to match the pagan gods they have created. Everything is done from whole cloth - and while they make for interesting stories - this is a sad way to approach eternity since Christ has come and purchased our salvation with His Blood.

One of the problems with having an opinion on everything without the facts to back it up is that those who differ with you do not even have to aim - they just pull the ‘logic trigger’ and your argument is destroyed.

Let’s see how this works in practice…

Matt 16:18 Christ founds His Chruch on Peter, tells him that the Gates of Hell will not prevail and gives him the Keys to the Kingdom as a sign of Peter’s unique authority. Note, there were not eleven others sets of keys that Christ handed out that day.

John 14:26 Christ promises that the Holy Spirit will come and remind the Apostles - the First Bishops of the Catholic Church of all that Chirst taught them (please note, CC is an acceptable abbreviation, but RC is meaningless except in the demeaning sense used by Protestants who boast about not being lead by the men Christ put in charge of His Church - a truly curious statement from splinter groups claiming to want to follow Christ - but, to do so on their terms)

John 16:13 Christ promises that the Holy Spirt will guide His Church - and this means that it can not teach error, it can not teach people to leave Christ and form their own man-made religion and can not teach that merely saying, “Lord!! Lord!” (it appears that Christ anticipated the SF heresy) would they be saved (Matt 7:21).

Your cliche about the '…weakest link…" should immediately invite you to re-examine your own chain - one of the 30,000+ ‘chains’ dangling around that can not support the weight of their own man-made doctrines.

Bottom line: Christ founded His Church on Peter, and Peter began leading the Church after Christ ascended into heaven. Christ did not leave us orphans (John 14:18) and the successors to Peter NEVER taught error - and, we have Christ’s Word on that. So, who are you going to believe - Christ or some 16th (or later) Century malcontent who missed the entire point of Divine Guidance being able to work through sinful men - and that includes sinful Popes.

So, you do not think Faith is necessary, Doggg? In the above verses I have quoted and referenced we have the Words of Christ - and we are expected to believe. Look at all of the false arguements offered by Protestants on why these very clearly stated Words should not be believed. When I ask myself, “Self, how can they deny what is plainly written?” the answer I get back is that it has nothing to do with the Words of Scripture - it has everything with an agenda. There must be an on-going argument to justify the voluntary split with the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) or else they would have to return. Human pride has simply blocked that approach.

Let me invite you to read the 25th Chapter of Matthew. There are three very interesting stories as to why such claimed ‘faith without works’ is really dead - and leads to eternal death.

We have a story of 10 virgins - five were wise and five were foolish … and we have to ask ourselves just what did foolish mean. In my opinion this does not mean stupid - rather they chose to do things their own way. Note at the end of the paable, the door is shut against them - the Bridegroom does not change His Mind and say something like, “Aw, they were pretty good girls…and lets them in!” Nope they stay out in the cold.

The lazy servant - knew the Master … or, at least thought he did! And, looks what his laziness (doing things his way and NOT Christ’s Way) cost him. Please recall, Christ founded a Church for a reason - and, we are to use the means provided by Christ.

Finally, the group who claimed they would have done good if they had actually seen Christ in the hungry, naked and imprisoned. They do not come to a good end.

As I see it, the issue really comes to down to Faith. Either you believe Christ and that means EVERYTHING HE SAID - or - you are on your own. Please note there is not a lot of grey area between these two positions.

I invite you to respond with a reasoned argument to this presentation.

*Excellent posting Tom! 10 out of 10!

This posting deserves ATTENTION. One should pause and examine and THINK. It is the TRUTH and DESERVES credit. Anyone who ignores this posting is IGNORING Jesus. For you cannot say you believe in Jesus and not accept his teaching.

I urge Doggg to read this posting carefully and check out the verses referenced and pray for enlightenment.

God bless all
Cinette*

 

[gtrenewed]

This is a very curious paradigm for Protestant groups to hold–belief in the “essential Christian doctrines as in the Apostles’ Creed”???

Who discerned that those are the essentials? Certainly Scripture gives us no indication that certain things are essentials and certain things aren’t.

An outside authority is needed to discern this!

Again, here we are with the need for an authority outside of Scripture.

While Jesus set up the Church, essentials for eternal life can be found in scripture. However, there is more and we see this in tradition from the Apostles to the early church fathers and to this day through apostolic succession.

 

[PRmerger]

OK repeat away; however, your statement “Did He magically deliver the Bible, leather bound and in KJV, to Martin Luther?” seems condescending. How does that help bring about a fruitful dialogue?

Not condescending at all. It’s simply hyperbole to emphasize the absurdity of this position that it wasn’t the CC which produced the Bible.

If it wasn’t the CC, then how did it appear? Magically?

Think about it.

 

[PRmerger]

While Jesus set up the Church, essentials for eternal life can be found in scripture.

This is quite un-Scriptural. There is not a single verse that tells us what’s an essential doctrine.

Now, to be sure you can make your own list of essentials, and provide Scripture to back it up…

But you are not using Scripture to discern what’s an essential. Thus, what Scripture verse tells us if Malachi 1:11 is an essential doctrine or not?

You are using something outside of Scripture.

 

[Cinette]

DogggExactly!!! Now you got it. We Catholics DO HAVE FAITH IN JESUS. But what is that faith?
Faith that we believe in what Jesus said. Faith that Jesus’ words were true when he said “Upon this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH” Which Church was it and is it still around
Faith In Jesus that He spoke the truth when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail. Upon who? His Church.
Faith in Jesus when He said “This IS my Body, This IS my Blood”
Faith in Jesus when He said “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Faith in Jesus when He said “I will not leave you orphans”.

So you see dogg, we DO have faith in Jesus, and He left us the means to know if what we perceive as Faith is true and not just our own personal feelings, or our own PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS, that can lead us astray. Again as has been pointed out to you, look at what personal interpretation has done in 500 years; thousand of different denominations, of which the one you belong to falls in that same error.

Faith in Jesus that HE left us a church, and not a book. And it is that Church that tells us that that book is the word of God.

Faith in Jesus that He left us a Church that can, with the authority received from that same Jesus, make the claim that IT IS INFALLIBLE.

If the Church is not infallible, then that same Church could have error in compiling the Bible from those hundreds of letters and gospels that were floating around, and we are all hopelessly lost as we have no guarantee that what is stated in that book is the true Jesus, the true God.

How did you learn about Jesus, doggg? Did He manifest Himself to you one day, or did you read Him in a book. How do you know that that book is true?
I dont know if you said it or someone else said that the Bible is infallible. That is NOT true. That bible is NOT infallible, but it is inerrent. (sp) The Church through its authority given to Her by Jesus, makes that claim and it has to be infallible to make such a claim. Without the infallibility of the Church you would never have known who Jesus was and is.

Oh, and we don’t mock Jesus. We believe in His every word. It is YOU who mocks Jesus by claiming His Church is " some alleged infallible religious institution by which genuine faith (in Jesus) is mocked." Be careful, you are very close to calling Jesus a liar.

*Another excellent post!:clapping: Wow!

Pay careful attention Doggg. If you are a humble man you will certainly give these last two postings your thorough and undivided attention.

God bless you all
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

I’m not sure I agree with this, Cinette.

Again, I praise my children. But I don’t worship them.

And, worship, I think, involves some sort of sacrifice. Which is why when objectors posit that we “worship” Mary I often ask, “Do you see us sacrificing anything at altars to Mary? If not, then how can there be true worship without sacrifice?”

*Perhaps I should have said “Praise of God” is the highest form of worship.

Praise you Jesus, you are our Redeemer!
Praise you Jesus, you are our Saviour!
Praise you Jesus, you are the Word made Flesh!

As I see it, it is “higher” than intercessory prayer because we are not asking for anything, we are just praising God.

*

 

[gtrenewed]

This is quite un-Scriptural. There is not a single verse that tells us what’s an essential doctrine.

Now, to be sure you can make your own list of essentials, and provide Scripture to back it up…

But you are not using Scripture to discern what’s an essential. Thus, what Scripture verse tells us if Malachi 1:11 is an essential doctrine or not?

You are using something outside of Scripture.

On the contrary, essential doctrine is quite scriptural. Read the words in red for example. Your chioice of Malachi 1:11 is as curious as it is a ridiculous example but you tend to do that I have noticed.

Not having an asterisk denoting essential doctrine next to a verse, does not mean we cannot know it is essential, that is why we have the Holy Spirit. Since we can error, Jesus provided a vessel to deliver His words to us faithfully.

This is the mistake of the protestant, understanding the essentials but not seeing all of the essentials in scripture.