Proof that your interpretation is the right one.

[KatholikosMercy]

The Bible, though the word of God is also just words on a page, words that 2 Peter 3:16 tells us can be distorted.

Catholics use sacred tradition ( proof from history) that are beliefs have remained the same. What do Protestants use.
SOMEONE IS WRONG

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit’s action’ (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).

Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation - see here:

catholicapologetics.org/ap031000.htm

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Is that your version of a well-reasoned argument?

Are Methodist pastors not in the habit of bringing facts to bear on their opinions?

Or is this tendency to have unsubstantiated opinions a personal thing?

None of the above.

You asked a question: “given what I’ve just described …, wouldn’t you have to say …?” The answer to that question is simply and hardly needs any substatiation, “No.” One does not have to argee with you just because you put forth what you believe to be well-reasoned arguments. I could choose to not agree for any number of reasons or for no reason. People simply don’t have to agree. Even if I did I agree, I wouldn’t have to. So though your offered very complex argument and wonderfully articulated question, it was still a simple “Yes or No?” question deserving a very simple answer. In this case, my answer was a simple “No.” (Let your Yes be yes, and your No be no. Maybe you’ve heard that someplace before.) I don’t have to agree with you, no one does.

Then I add a bonus thought, though you did not ask for it in your question. I add that not only do I not have to agree with you. It just so happens that I don’t. If looking to understand me better, you could have asked me why it was that I didn’t agree with you. But you choose to respond differently, which is of course your perogative. It seems that you don’t like short, simple answers. So I am providing you a longer response here. I hope it has satisfied you.

For what purpose do you wish to continue this discussion:

To tell me that the Catholic Church is right and all others are wrong?
To correct me from the error of my ways?
To argue for argument’s sake?

If that is all it is, then let’s be done with it. I’m not interested in any of those things. I have answered most of your objections already. You don’t see them.

Fine, you don’t see them, or they don’t make sense to you. I can live with that. I don’t have a need to convince you of anything. Perhaps you have a need to convice me, but I don’t have a need for that either.

I am happy to have a discussion for the purpose of growing in more knowledge and thus, hopefully, better understanding of my brothers in Christ. But that does not seem to be what you seek. I can’t give you what you seek. I can tell you that I don’t find your arguments convincing, as you have apparently found mine lacking as well. Unless we are going to seek to understand where the other is coming from, I don’t see much of a need for continuing. Do you?

Or have I misread you? If so, I apologize.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So long as they called themselves Christians, they could believe anything they wanted to about Jesus and the Church, and still been quite fine in your world of the invisible.

You misread me if this is what you really think that I think. But, apparently I have not the skills to express myself in such a way so as to be understood. I am sorry for that. But do not know what to do about it at the present time.

 

[Allweather]

Thanks Katholikos, isn’t the Catechism beautiful?

I take the liberty of adding the three criteria for interpreting Schripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it which you cite in 111:

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scirpture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46).

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church” - Origen).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith (Rom 12:6). By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

 

[Allweather]

None of the above.
I don’t have to agree with you, no one does.

I’m not expecting you to agree with me. That’s the purpose of having a forum for argument. If we’re going to agree, then there’s no reason for you to be here except to help argue against the others who bring in arguments that deviate from Catholic teaching. When I pose a question that suggests that you would have to agree with my weighty argument, it would be the normal thing for you to respond with a laid-out and weighty counter argument. It seems that you would rather avoid counter argument altogether by giving vague, truncated, roundabout dialogs that do not address the arguments at hand in detail. You say that you’ve already given the answer elsewhere and invite me to go look for it, rather than be polite and restate your answer, or at least lead me back to it in the thread. These posts can get complicated, and be going in three or four directions at once, with more than one person involved.

I add that not only do I not have to agree with you. It just so happens that I don’t. If looking to understand me better, you could have asked me why it was that I didn’t agree with you.

LOL… Brother, I know you don’t agree with me. That isn’t in question. What is in question is why you don’t agree with Catholicism. And I have asked why, and wanted details, which you have failed, as near as I can tell, to provide. Again, if all you want to do is hang out and give yes and no answers to questions which implicitly expect more detailed expositions, then you are in the wrong place. FYI I am not a professional debater. I am not well educated except by my own reading and arguing with people. I see this forum as a place of learning. When I argue, I am forced to get out my books and look up information, and this teaches me. I enjoy learning, but I usually need a push to get me going, and that is why I like to do it by arguing. So that is the answer to your following question:

For what purpose do you wish to continue this discussion:

To tell me that the Catholic Church is right and all others are wrong?
To correct me from the error of my ways?
To argue for argument’s sake?

And I would add that the answer is a qualified “yes” to all three of your questions. I would expect that you, being a professional man of the cloth, would be interested in leading me out of Catholicism and into Methodism, or at least out of Catholicism, since you apparently believe that Catholicism is in “error” in very significant ways. Why would you want me to remain in error if I am your Christian brother? Shouldn’t you desire me to know your truth? I assumed that that is why you’re here in this place of argument.

Or have I misread you? If so, I apologize.

I think you have misread me, but there’s no need to apologize, though I take the softness of your statement in the brotherly manner it is offered, and thank you. I must have misread you as well. I can see now from this post that you aren’t interested in argument, but rather a sort of softcore sharing of data. I gather that you’re attuned to a sort of universal brotherhood of Christianity that incorporates all theological versions without question, preferring instead to focus on the Love of Jesus and things that unite rather than theological issues that divide. And that’s fine, I understand and appreciate that position, but I’m afraid it doesn’t lead to stimulating argument, LOL.

 

[kujo313]

111 “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

Acts 2:17
‘ And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,Your young men shall see visions,Your old men shall dream dreams.’

The Greek word for teacher “didaskalos” means master, teacher or doctor. As a teacher you are one who communicates knowledge, guides, makes known or relays facts. You are likely more in-depth than the average Sunday school teacher. You have the Spirit-given capacity and desire to serve God by making clear the truth of God’s Word with accuracy.

Who, tell me, opens up the Scriptures for Billy Graham? Who interprets for him? Where did he get his “stuff”? He was given the Spiritual Gift to do what he did.

And Luther: why did the RCC want to kill him for translating the Bible for the people?

The only Divine Interpretator is God, Himself. He opens up the Scriptures just as Jesus did for His disciples. To say that one man or one religion has the only right or gift is blasphemous.

 

[Allweather]

You misread me if this is what you really think that I think. But, apparently I have not the skills to express myself in such a way so as to be understood. I am sorry for that. But do not know what to do about it at the present time.

Well, why don’t you give me the Methodist position on this Scripture? I don’t know anything at all about Methodism, so here is your chance to inform me, and the rest who may be reading in silence. You said you wanted to share information for purposes of understanding. I want to know about Methodist understandings of Church, please teach me.

 

[kujo313]

“First of all, Catholicism is not a denomination. Denominations didn’t exist until post reformation. Secondly, which of the Protestants correctly interprets the Bible?”

The church that I go to looks at the origional Hebrew, Greek and Aramiac and studies the lifestyles of the days that the text was written. By the power of the Holy Spirit (poured out on ALL flesh), it is brought to Light on how it applies to us today THROUGH Jesus Christ. Our Divine, Infallible interpretation of the Bible is the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21

“no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Straight from your own “pope”, himself. You say that your denomination’s leaders interpret Scripture and my pastor doesn’t?

 

[Allweather]

111 “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

kujo, don’t forget the three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. I quoted those three in a post recently above. Notice that these three criteria are necessary in order to interpret in accordance with the Spirit. For instance, take #113. If you take Scripture out of the Tradition of the Church which “carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word” then you can’t arrive at good interpretations. This is why the Protestant sects and cults which have taken themselves OUT of Sacred Tradition have arrived at so many hundreds of interpretations.

Acts 2:17
‘ And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,Your young men shall see visions,Your old men shall dream dreams.’

This is a favorite among the pentecostals I used to hang with. What do you mean by it?

Who, tell me, opens up the Scriptures for Billy Graham? Who interprets for him? Where did he get his “stuff”? He was given the Spiritual Gift to do what he did.

I tend to agree, but Billy Graham is a type of preacher who does a type of preaching. AFAIK he is not a pastor. He doesn’t shepherd a flock. He travels around getting people into the front door, and then hopes that local pastors will be available to be shepherds. He isn’t a bishop or a Pope, charged with responsibility to teach sound doctrine. He doesn’t make doctrine, he preaches the saving power of Jesus.

I don’t know a heckuva lot about BG, but because he is a Protestant, he has certain peculiar interpretations about Scripture, regarding the nature of the Church. I would accept that he preaches under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but I couldn’t accept his opinions about the nature of the Church. Listen, even evil men can speak the word of God, as in Caiaphas. God will use all manner of men to speak his Truth. Wasn’t it Paul who wrote that the Gospel gets preached even by heretics (my paraphrase I can’t remember the verses just now). I think it was you earlier who made a comment about limiting God’s action. We don’t limit God’s action in any way shape manner or form. God is God, and we are not. You complain about the RCC elevating Mary, yet we say that it was God who elevated Mary. We simply observe this, and accept it as it is, without trying to explain it away according to the “traditions of men.”

And Luther: why did the RCC want to kill him for translating the Bible for the people?

Before we get into this, I’d ask you to give some meaty references for your claim that the “RCC want to kill (Luther)” or that their argument with Luther was for “translating the Bible for the people.” I’m not an expert, and stand ready to be informed by you regarding Luther. My understanding is that Luther altered the Bible by adding words, and removing books that he didn’t like. This isn’t translation, this is alteration, and if this is the nut of your argument, then I hope you could understand the Church’s chagrin at Luther for these things. However, by far, it was Luther’s teachings, starting with the 95 theses, that brought him into public conflict with Rome.

The only Divine Interpretator is God, Himself. He opens up the Scriptures just as Jesus did for His disciples. To say that one man or one religion has the only right or gift is blasphemous.

Yes, Jesus did a lot of interpreting of the OT. He is God, and therefore God has a divine right to interpret. Jesus then went on to establish His Church upon the 12 men he selected to lead it after his ascension. He gave them authority, the same authority that God gave to Jesus, to teach all that He had taught them, which of course includes the interpretations that Jesus gave them, only a few of which are directly recorded in Scripture. After Judas Iscariot died, the Apostles convened and selected his replacement according to a recorded scene in Acts in which the Apostolic qualifications are mentioned, as well as the selection technique between the two candidates, and the ceremony following. We know from this, and other Scriptures, that there was a succession of the Apostolic authority that continued beyond the lifetimes of the original 12, or 13, or 14 if you include Paul. These are the bishops and Popes, and they have the same authority to interpret Scripture as the original Apostles, and have the same Divine protection from teaching error, which was promised by Jesus, and has been borne out in the historical record.

 

[Allweather]

2 Peter 1:20-21

“no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Straight from your own “pope”, himself. You say that your denomination’s leaders interpret Scripture and my pastor doesn’t?

 

[kujo313]

kujo, don’t forget the three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. I quoted those three in a post recently above. Notice that these three criteria are necessary in order to interpret in accordance with the Spirit. For instance, take #113. If you take Scripture out of the Tradition of the Church which “carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word” then you can’t arrive at good interpretations. This is why the Protestant sects and cults which have taken themselves OUT of Sacred Tradition have arrived at so many hundreds of interpretations.

But what if the church’s “tradition” is not according to Scripture or is anti-Christ? The BEST “tradition” for interpreting Scripture is only through the Holy Spirit, Himself and not the church which is made up of fallible man.
The best Bible to follow is that which is written from the origional languages that the Gospel was written in.
Oral traditions cannot be relied on because it can be wrong after a few people.

This is a favorite among the pentecostals I used to hang with. What do you mean by it?
“All” comes from the origional Greek word meaning “all”. “All flesh” includes me and you. The Bible is a living Word. Through the Holy Spirit, you and I can receive interpretation of the Scriptures. That’s what makes the Bible so unique of all the books ever written.

He isn’t a bishop or a Pope, charged with responsibility to teach sound doctrine. He doesn’t make doctrine, he preaches the saving power of Jesus.
That’s according to your denomination’s rules. You can’t referee a baseball game based on football rules. Your denomination binds itself on it’s own traditions and rules outside the Bible.
Peter said that Scripture is not for private interpretation… it’s for ALL. Martin Luther simply translated the Bible from Latin to German. So the RCC could not have the Scriptures for their own private interpretations.
All believers are charged to preach the Gospel to every living creature. We’re ALL responsible to teach sound doctrine. That would be the Bible.

I don’t know a heckuva lot about BG, but because he is a Protestant, he has certain peculiar interpretations about Scripture, regarding the nature of the Church.
It’s the Church’s responsibility to carry on Jesus’ work. He did the works of God, we do His works.
Like a good CEO of a company who has assistants who represent him, WE represent Jesus. All of us. Not just one sitting on the other side of the world.

We don’t limit God’s action in any way shape manner or form. God is God, and we are not. You complain about the RCC elevating Mary, yet we say that it was God who elevated Mary. We simply observe this, and accept it as it is, without trying to explain it away according to the “traditions of men.”
God elevated Mary by making her the fulfillment of the prophecy that a virgin shall give birth. It’s the “traditions of men” who make statues and paintings of her. Wearing scapulars because “she” said so is demonic for it gives another way into Heaven (through wearing of the scapular)
It was now that these confraternities developed into scapular confraternities in the modern sense. On account of the scapulars the faithful resorted ever more to these confraternities, especially after they had heard of the wonderful graces which members had received through the scapulars, and above all when the story of the apparition of the Blessed Virgin and of her promise to all who wore the Scapular of Mount Carmel faithfully until death became known.
According to a pious tradition the Blessed Virgin appeared to St. Simon Stock at Cambridge, England, on Sunday, 16 July, 1251. In answer to his appeal for help for his oppressed order, she appeared to him with a scapular in her hand and said: “Take, beloved son this scapular of thy order as a badge of my confraternity and for thee and all Carmelites a special sign of grace; whoever dies in this garment, will not suffer everlasting fire. It is the sign of salvation, a safeguard in dangers, a pledge of peace and of the covenant”.

Up until then, Salvation was bought by the Blood of Jesus. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, whoever wears the “The Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel” when they die shall not see Hell.

You can explain that one to me for it sounds demonic.

 

[holy_wood]

According to a pious tradition the Blessed Virgin appeared to St. Simon Stock at Cambridge, England, on Sunday, 16 July, 1251. In answer to his appeal for help for his oppressed order, she appeared to him with a scapular in her hand and said: “Take, beloved son this scapular of thy order as a badge of my confraternity and for thee and all Carmelites a special sign of grace; whoever dies in this garment, will not suffer everlasting fire. It is the sign of salvation, a safeguard in dangers, a pledge of peace and of the covenant”.

Up until then, Salvation was bought by the Blood of Jesus. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, whoever wears the “The Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel” when they die shall not see Hell.

You can explain that one to me for it sounds demonic.

Friend even though this is the first time I have ever heard of this particular saint and that quote I promise you the saying is not against Christ

My interpretation of the saying is that anyone in “the Order will” be saved

Mainly because being a religious “Order” they would obviously pray alot (worshipping God and interceding for others) as well as help the poor and live a life of solitude and poverty. A life dedicated to the spreading of Gods word and a life which forsakes the wordly. ** There works will stand as proof of there faith.**

Also notice that the scapular is a sign of salvation not the way of attainig salvation. It is a sighn of submission to God. To wear it is to adorn oneself in humbling attire and say to God that I like your Queen Mary (The first Christian) I am willing to give everything over to you (even my child on a cross).

Peter said that Scripture is not for private interpretation… it’s for ALL. Martin Luther simply translated the Bible from Latin to German. So the RCC could not have the Scriptures for their own private interpretations.
All believers are charged to preach the Gospel to every living creature. We’re ALL responsible to teach sound doctrine. That would be the Bible.

First off. The only reason you have scripture is because of Sacred Tradition and if you honesty believe no earthly authority can be infallible then you have to believe that the books of the Bible are possibly erroneous. Because if the Church that infallibly said that the books in the Bible are the only works that are God-Breathed then that means they were wrong and that many if not all books are possibly false and that there may be other books out there that are also the word of God.

Christ condenmed the Pharisees ethics but he never questioned there authority. He even told the Jews to follow it.

How much more so are we to follow the Apostles and there successors

 

[holy_wood]

I. Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Num 16:28 - the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority.

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 - The father’s authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.

John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated.

John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority.

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ’s ministry and authority.

Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10 - the shepherds must shepherd the sheep, or they will be held accountable by God.

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word “foundation” proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.

Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - the words “household,” “Bride of the Lamb,” the “new Jerusalem” are all metaphors for the Church whose foundation is

 

[holy_wood]

II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Exodus 18:25-26 - Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.

Exodus 40:15 - the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.

Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”

Numbers 16:40 - shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.

Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

Sirach 45:15 - Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.

 

[holy_wood]

III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority

Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.

Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering.”

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan”).

2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.

2 Cor. 3:6 – Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination.

2 Cor. 5:20 - Paul says we are “ambassadors” for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ’s mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

2 Cor. 10:6 – in reference to the ordained, Paul says that they are ready to punish every disobedience. The Church has the authority excommunicate those who disobey her.

2 Cor. 10:8 - Paul acknowledges his authority over God’s people which the Lord gave to build up the Church.

1 Thess. 5:12-13 - Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.

2 Thess. 3:14 - Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him.

1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.

Titus 2:15 - Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority, which he received by the laying on of hands.

Heb. 12:9 – in the context of spiritual discipline, the author says we have had earthly fathers (referring to the ordained leaders) to discipline us and we respected them.

Heb. 13:7,17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

1 Peter 2:18 - Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters whether kind and gentle or overbearing.

1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 - Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be subject to their elders.

2 Peter 2:10 - Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ.

3 John 9 - John points out that Diotrephes does not acknowledge John’s apostolic authority and declares that this is evil.

Deut. 17:10-13 - the Lord commands His faithful Israel to obey the priests that He puts in charge, and do to all that they direct and instruct. The Lord warns that those who do not obey His priests shall die.

Num. 16:1-35 - Korah incited a “protestant” rebellion against God’s chosen Moses in an effort to confuse the distinction between the ministerial and universal offices of priesthood, and Korah and his followers perished. (This effort to blind the distinctions between the priests and the laity is still pursued by dissidents today.)

Sirach 7:29-30 - with all your soul fear the Lord and honor His priests, love your Maker and do not forsake His ministers. God is not threatened by the authority He gives His children! God, as our Loving Father, invites us to participate in His plan of salvation with His Son Jesus. Without authority in the Church, there is error, chaos and confusion.

 

[Allweather]

But what if the church’s “tradition” is not according to Scripture or is anti-Christ? The BEST “tradition” for interpreting Scripture is only through the Holy Spirit, Himself and not the church which is made up of fallible man.

That’s a big “what if.” Unfortunately for your hypothetical, Jesus chose fallible men to teach what HE taught them to teach. Jesus didn’t do it all himself. For His own perfect reasons, he chose 12 men to tutor. He tutored them, ordained them, and sent them out to build the Church, and he gave them His own authority in order to carry this out. It seems to me that you’d rather Jesus worked a different way than He did. You ask “what if” questions that have no bearing on “what is.”

The best Bible to follow is that which is written from the origional languages that the Gospel was written in.

OK, sounds good. What language was the Gospel written in?

Can you read Greek and Aramaic? Hebrew?

Oral traditions cannot be relied on because it can be wrong after a few people.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but the better part of the New Testament was oral in the beginning. The NT itself testifies to the oral nature of it prior to it being written down. Not only that, but the written record of the New Testament isn’t everything that Jesus taught or said, and this is also spoken of in the New Testament itself (I’ll gather Scripture citations for you if you’re unaware of these, just let me know). Therefore, the Bible itself comes from oral tradition. Sacred Tradition came first, the Bible came much, much later. Besides, Jesus didn’t establish a Bible, he established a Church upon Apostolic authority, authority that He Himself granted to those Apostles who he personally selected and taught. It is the Church, not the Bible, that is the “pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy 3:15.

“All” comes from the origional Greek word meaning “all”. “All flesh” includes me and you. The Bible is a living Word. Through the Holy Spirit, you and I can receive interpretation of the Scriptures. That’s what makes the Bible so unique of all the books ever written.

I won’t deny that all men can receive interpretations of the Scriptures, but these must line up with Church teachings, or they cannot be considered authoritative. For instance, Joseph Smith the Mormon inventor, came up with some really interesting interpretations of Bible. He even started his own translation, and was busy working on it when he was shot to death. He also wrote another set of materials that he called authoritative and equal to or even superior to, the Bible. He claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and claimed to receive many revelations from God. He even claimed to have seen Jesus and God in person. And some 12 million people alive today actually believe that stuff. I imagine you don’t, and neither do I. But it does bring up the issue of how do we judge revelation and interpretation. Private revelation and private interpretation is of no consequence to the doctrine of the faith.

That’s according to your denomination’s rules. You can’t referee a baseball game based on football rules. Your denomination binds itself on it’s own traditions and rules outside the Bible.

Are you saying that Billy Graham makes doctrine on his own? What doctrines has Billy Graham made? Who follows them? Doesn’t he belong to a denomination? Doesn’t he follow the teachings of that denomination?

Continued…

 

[Allweather]

Continued from above…

Peter said that Scripture is not for private interpretation… it’s for ALL.

That means that ALL are involved in interpretation. ALL Christians who’ve ever lived, down through the 20 centuries, are involved. When we want to test our interpretations, we must look back through the centuries to make sure what we think has been revealed to us actually lines up with Sacred Tradition, and the interpretations of all Christians, everywhere, in all ages. This is one of the problems with the Mormons. They tend to get brand new things revealed to them through their prophets, and it doesn’t matter a whit to them that it might be something totally unique and new. All we need to know has been revealed by Jesus. There will be no new revelations before Jesus comes back for His bride, the Church. All we do is squeeze the tasty juice out of the fruit, we don’t get new fruit.

Martin Luther simply translated the Bible from Latin to German. So the RCC could not have the Scriptures for their own private interpretations.

Didn’t he modify some of the New Testament to make it say what he wanted it to say? Didn’t he remove several OT books from the Bible because they contradicted some of his teachings? That’s a lot more than mere translation into German.

All believers are charged to preach the Gospel to every living creature. We’re ALL responsible to teach sound doctrine. That would be the Bible.

Then we should have uniform doctrine in all Protestant churches, who teach Bible Alone. But we don’t. We have a mish-mash of wildly different doctrines. If you want uniform doctrine, you need to go Catholic to find it. In Protestantism, there is no uniformity whatever, so there goes your theory about sound doctrine coming from the Bible alone. Besides, where in the Bible does the Bible say that it alone is the norm of faith and doctrine? The Bible doesn’t even tell us what books belong in the Bible. We need the Church to decide that.

It’s the Church’s responsibility to carry on Jesus’ work. He did the works of God, we do His works.
Like a good CEO of a company who has assistants who represent him, WE represent Jesus. All of us. Not just one sitting on the other side of the world.

We Catholics agree with you in this. However, we’d like for you to join us in our uniform and coherent doctrine, and presentation of the Gospel. The world is laughing at us because of the divisions caused mainly by Protestants, all arguing with each other, and with us Catholics. We waste a lot of time. No other body of Christians has the witness of Jesus that the Catholic Church has, and can present to the world. The doctrinal uniformity, the historical continuity, the authority, the universality… we’ve got it all.

God elevated Mary by making her the fulfillment of the prophecy that a virgin shall give birth. It’s the “traditions of men” who make statues and paintings of her. Wearing scapulars because “she” said so is demonic for it gives another way into Heaven (through wearing of the scapular)

You’re pretty obsessed with this scapular thing. Frankly, I don’t know that much about the scapular or its history, but what I do know is it is NOT demonic. I believe you’re badly informed on this subject, and would invite you to take off your fundamentalist lenses, if you can, so that you can see things more clearly. Fundamentalism is very much like alcoholism or drug addiction. People actually get addicted to strange religion, did you know that? That’s what the cults deal in, in part… religious addiction. I’m not saying you’re addicted to strange religion, but it is something to think about.

 

[Allweather]

Catholicism is NOT bout agreement with an earthly authority and all being under one authoritative umbrella. And as I read the New Testament and the works of the early church fathers, none of them every viewed it that way. That idea was a later invention of the Church about the time that the bishops in the east began to disagree with the bishop in Rome.

Seems to me you’re mischaracterizing the Catholic view of authority. But what catches my eye here is that you’re saying that you don’t find ANYthing in the NT or in the Fathers that describes an authoritative, hierarchical, visible, monarchical Church? I’ve got here in front of me William Jurgens’ 3 volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, and I’ve gotta tell ya, there’s a lot in there that seems to contradict what you’ve stated above. Not only that, but the NT itself shows a hierarchical, authoritative, visible Church being built up and growing, and dealing authoritatively with problems facing the early Church. Can you show me some NT references that would refute this?

But when the Church in Rome said the to Church in the east “I am catholic and you are not”, then it quit being the catholic Church and became less than it was before nowing being only the Catholic church.

This whole characterization you give of the conflict between east and west seems terribly oversimplified to me. I’m not an historian, obviously, but I have taken a course and done a little reading, and the way you describe the east-west argument just doesn’t add up according to my own studies. Maybe mine are wrong, I’ll allow for that. My understanding is that there were, and are, cultural issues at work, and not just religious issues, between the two parts of the Empire. Undoubtedly it was true then and has always been true, especially in view of various heresies, that there have been tensions among bishops. So what? BTW according to your understanding, approximately what century did the Catholic Church “invent the notion” of Papal primacy?

But when the orthodox Church in the east said to the Church in Rome, “We are right and you are wrong,” then they quit being the orthodox Church and became something less. They became the Orthodox church.

I read accounts in the NT of Apostles contending earnestly for the faith, which I take to mean the doctrines they laid out to be believed by the faithful. There is correct doctrine, and then there is all the incorrect doctrine.

Now, certainly this could be applied to protestant churches as well. When they protested and said the the Catholic church is not a part of the true Church, then they were not being very catholic either. All they were was protestant. Nothing glorious in being protestant. But when protestant churches quit protesting and went back to simply being the Church

Woah… when did THAT happen? When did Protestants quit protesting? Why didn’t they come back home?

Protestatnt history goes back to Peter as well. Indeed, I can trace my own oridnation in a United Methodist Church via the laying on of hands back through an unbroken string of bishops all the way to Peter.

I’ve heard of some other Protestant churches saying they trace their existence back to the Apostles, and I suppose that is true in the sense that most Protestants do share in the Catholic faith in certain ways. Could you lay out that unbroken string of bishops of Methodism? Seems I read somewhere that Methodists came out of the Church of England.

do not think that protestants attack the Church at all. We love the Church.

Maybe Methodists don’t, but others do. Heck, just poke around here in this thread and you’ll find some pretty heavy attacking going on.

I think that via spurious Biblical interpretations many Catholics inflate the least important things in tradition to see any reference to the Church as if it referred to the Catholic church, thereby creating an establishment of the Catholic church in their own eyes, when what Christ was establishing was the Church. There does exist a difference between the Church and the Catholic church. And only 1500 years of indoctrination would argue otherwise.

Or, more likely, these things in Scripture and Tradition actually DO refer to the Catholic Church, which I would expect a Methodist minister would naturally find scary, since it would threaten his very livelihood. Bear in mind I mean no disrespect. I greatly admire all ministers of all denominations. But I really do think that one has to stretch the imagination quite a lot to deny that the NT and the Early Fathers are not describing the same Catholic Church we have in the world today.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Well, why don’t you give me the Methodist position on this Scripture? I don’t know anything at all about Methodism, so here is your chance to inform me, and the rest who may be reading in silence. You said you wanted to share information for purposes of understanding. I want to know about Methodist understandings of Church, please teach me.

Certainly.

The United Methodist view with regard to Scripture we assert that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, and that they are sufficient it as well. Thus, while there is much to be learned with respect to the Church that may not be found incorporated into the corpus of scripture, those things that cannot be read therein,or that cannot be proved thereby (belief in the hypostatic union of Christ would be an example of something that is not explicity stated in the scriptures but that can be shown using it), is not to be required as an article of faith.

You may find out more of United Methodist views with regard to scripture here in our Book of Discipline. One paragraph I would like to lift out for you, for it contradicts what others often assert is true of all protestants:

While we acknowledge the primacy of Scripture in theological reflection, our attempts to grasp its meaning always involve tradition, experience, and reason. Like Scripture, these may become creative vehicles of the Holy Spirit as they function within the Church. They quicken our faith, open our eyes to the wonder of God’s love, and clarify our understanding.

United Methodists at least are NOT sola scriptura.

 

[Allweather]

Certainly.

The United Methodist view with regard to Scripture we assert that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, and that they are sufficient it as well. Thus, while there is much to be learned with respect to the Church that may not be found incorporated into the corpus of scripture, those things that cannot be read therein,or that cannot be proved thereby (belief in the hypostatic union of Christ would be an example of something that is not explicity stated in the scriptures but that can be shown using it), is not to be required as an article of faith.

You may find out more of United Methodist views with regard to scripture here in our Book of Discipline. One paragraph I would like to lift out for you, for it contradicts what others often assert is true of all protestants:

United Methodists at least are NOT sola scriptura.

Thanks, Grace Seeker, I will do some reading at your site.

BTW do you know if the Book of Discipline is anywhere online? The link is to an excerpt. I can’t find a link anywhere on that site that has the entire book available.