Proof that your interpretation is the right one.

[kujo313]

“Wrong” would be an oversimplification. Unity is critical. There are bonds of unity, which are visible. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity “binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

 --- profession of one faith received from the Apostles

 --- common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments.

 --- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.**

And here’s part of what the Catechism states about the separated brethren:

838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity of communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, alhough imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

The Catechism has a lot more to say about this, of course, and even addresses the relationship of the Church to specific other religions.

This “gets my goat”. The Catholic church says that it’s THE church of Jesus Christ because the Catholic church said so. Funny, the JWs say that THEY are THE church because THEY said so… and so on and so on.

Jesus told Peter “On this rock I will build My Church.”

Let’s look at it for a moment.

Peter. After Jesus said that, he denied Jesus THREE times! Is THAT the “rock”?
Of course not. The true “rock” is Peter saying Jesus “is the Christ! The Son of the Most High God!”

Peter says that Jesus is the Cornerstone, the Rock that starts the whole Church. Anybody declaring Jesus IS part of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

Jesus was referring to Believers just like He did John in Revelation when He said “Come up hither”.

 

[Allweather]

This “gets my goat”. The Catholic church says that it’s THE church of Jesus Christ because the Catholic church said so. Funny, the JWs say that THEY are THE church because THEY said so… and so on and so on.

There’s quite a difference between the claims of the cults, and the truth of the Catholic Church… you’d have to investigate them in detail to sort them out. Once you do, you’ll be able to tell the difference.

Jesus told Peter “On this rock I will build My Church.”

Let’s look at it for a moment.

Peter. After Jesus said that, he denied Jesus THREE times! Is THAT the “rock”?
Of course not. The true “rock” is Peter saying Jesus “is the Christ! The Son of the Most High God!”

Let’s look at it for more than a moment! There’s a lot there to digest, and it deserves a long hard look. Peter wasn’t the only one to run away… they all did, save John, who was at the foot of the cross with Mary. In fact, they all pretty much hunkered down for six weeks waiting for Pentecost, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, who imbued them with power and courage thereafter. Peter never denied Jesus again. I think there is certainly an aspect of the confession of Peter being the rock, but there is also no question whatever that after Pentecost, the Apostles set about building a visible, structured, hierarchical, authoritative Church. There is no question from the NT record that Peter was in charge. There is also no question that the Apostles intended for the new Church to survive them, because they ordained successors, the bishops. And, as we know, the Church did in fact survive, and survives to this day, largely in the same form it was in then. So, the “true Rock” is both… the confession, and the visible, authoritative Church that was built and survives today.

Peter says that Jesus is the Cornerstone, the Rock that starts the whole Church. Anybody declaring Jesus IS part of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

In the broad sense, that is true. There are narrower senses, though. Jesus demands unity, that we would all be one, as He and the Father are one. Is there disagreement between Jesus and the Father? No. If we are to be one, as Jesus and the Father are one, then there should be unity within the Church. Anything that leads away from unity cannot be of God. And that doesn’t mean unity within a body of theology that sprang up a mere 500 years ago. There is a body of theology much, much older, that goes back to the very beginning. You may disagree with it, but that could just be hard-headedness on your part.

An awful lot of “disagreement” among Protestants with Catholic piety is because of indoctrination rather than true investigation. Few Protestants develop their own personal Scriptural interpretations. They get them from teachers. These teachers therefore are the Protestant popes, who claim to have superior interpretive powers. Why are they superior? What is it that makes the Protestant interpretations more correct than the Catholic interpretations? If the Protestant idea of every man his own interpreter is true, then the Catholic interpretations are AT LEAST as valid as the Protestant ones. No?

 

[Allweather]

No, it hasn’t had it all wrong. It hasn’t had it all right either.

In matters of doctrine, morals, faith, it has had it all right, all along. You stated that the Church was misinterpreting Scripture, and misapplying it. Maybe you could give an example or two of Catholic doctrine or moral teachings that it has developed based on these misinterpretations and misapplications.

And, though I know you think so, what it believedf in history really isn’t a part of this discussion; what we are debating is what you believe now.

OK, I can go with that. I’m not smart enough to have any original ideas. You may be, but I am not. I depend on the teaching of the Church to guide me in doctrine, faith, morals. That doesn’t mean I take orders from the Church in my field of work, because the Church doesn’t exercise any competence or authority in that area, but only in matters of faith, doctrine, morality. In those valid Church teaching areas, I have no personal opinions worth holding. In the past, I have certainly held my own opinions, and went for years living my life according to those, with the result being a trainwreck. I learned the hard way not to hold my own opinions above those of the learned men and women who’ve lived the faith for 2k years. I submit to them, and take my orders from them as best I can, and when I fail, I go to confession.

We don’t know what the Catholic Church believed in the first century. We only know what we believe it believed in the first century. And I happen to think that they thought differently in the first century than you have painted them as thinking.

I think we do know quite a lot about what the Church believed in the first century. Besides the New Testament, which was written DURING the first century, we have the writings of the men who followed the Apostles. Are you familiar with the Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers? In view of what we can read that was written by Christians of the first few centuries after Jesus, what is it that leads you to believe that “they thought differently… than I have painted them as thinking?”

The other funny thing is that between these last two of my posts, I happened to participate in an ecumenical community service. The local Catholic priest was a participant. His prayer went something like this:

And when the Baptist preacher got up he prayed something like this:

To me it sounds like the congregations of my community have it figured out. But I’m not sure that this board does.

Were these prayers written down? I mean, unless something that long were written down, I certainly wouldn’t be able to remember that much in reliable detail long enough to get home and put it into an email. But nevermind that. I’m not arguing against ecumenism. I think it is fine that we Christians get together in all ways possible. After all, we’re Christians, brothers and sisters in the faith. We share an awful lot, and should work together, always hoping for that day to come when the unfortunate religious arguments that sprang up in 1525 become old news. But, realistically, that probably isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes, or within the next thousand years, which probably means it isn’t going to happen before Jesus returns to fetch his bride to himself. The East-West schism is just now showing signs of ending, after a thousand years. It is true that Protestantism seems to be disintegrating, but I still wouldn’t be hopeful for a widespread reunion in this century, or the next. In the meantime, we should work together, and pray for unity.

 

[holy_wood]

Kewl, people are actually replying to my thread I feel special.

But it still isn’t clear to me from reading the post from the christians ( I use that term loosely) on this thread how one can reconcile differing doctrinal views and not see that this as SATAN.

Honestly, explain it to me if Christ said he would lead his church into all truth, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and that he would be with the Church for all time; then how does anyone who is honestly seeking Christ not ponder the luncay of 15,000 Christian denominations.

Does’nt it make since that the Church Jesus Christ founded would know it was the Church Jesus Christ founded, and thus claim to teach infallibly on issues relating to faith and morals as Jesus Christ would have taught them?

And would’nt the Church Jesus Christ founded have to be… I don’t know around 2,000 years old?

And would’nt the Church Jesus Christ founded be able to prove from History all of its claims?

Please, if anything I have stated is incorrect then please tell me so. But, its just that if the characteristics of Christ true Church that I listed above are not what Christ wanted then quite frankly either God was retarded and wanted us to fail in our quest to find the way, the truth and the light, or the simpler more heretical answer has to be true. That Christ was not God for he did not have the foresight to see the division that would arise without a legitimate line of authoritative succession in place.:crying:

 

[kujo313]

In the broad sense, that is true. There are narrower senses, though. Jesus demands unity, that we would all be one, as He and the Father are one. Is there disagreement between Jesus and the Father? No. If we are to be one, as Jesus and the Father are one, then there should be unity within the Church. Anything that leads away from unity cannot be of God. And that doesn’t mean unity within a body of theology that sprang up a mere 500 years ago. There is a body of theology much, much older, that goes back to the very beginning. You may disagree with it, but that could just be hard-headedness on your part.

An awful lot of “disagreement” among Protestants with Catholic piety is because of indoctrination rather than true investigation. Few Protestants develop their own personal Scriptural interpretations. They get them from teachers. These teachers therefore are the Protestant popes, who claim to have superior interpretive powers. Why are they superior? What is it that makes the Protestant interpretations more correct than the Catholic interpretations? If the Protestant idea of every man his own interpreter is true, then the Catholic interpretations are AT LEAST as valid as the Protestant ones. No?

I must admit that you had me until the last to paragraphs.
Sorry to say that when some crazy persons who claim to be Christian do something stupid, they’re associated with all Protestant religions combined.
I’m sure that the RCC had fun with Jimmy Swaggart when he “fell”, but did they accept his confession and request for forgiveness?
What’s the RCC’s opinion of Billy Graham?

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

The same would go for some of us “protestants” just as it did for Paul in Corinth. When all is said and done, that’s all that matters: Jesus Christ. Debating any thing after that is a waste of time.
You can ask this person what he thinks of Mary (virgin or not), John (did he represent the Church at the cross or not), Paul (if he’s not the pope, then why listent to his teaching) or any thing else and he’ll only want to talk about Christ.
That’s the “prize” that I push for:

Phillipians 3:12-21; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27

Any thing else takes you off of your focus.

Popes are fallable human beings.

 

[kujo313]

Kewl, people are actually replying to my thread I feel special.

But it still isn’t clear to me from reading the post from the christians ( I use that term loosely) on this thread how one can reconcile differing doctrinal views and not see that this as SATAN.

Honestly, explain it to me if Christ said he would lead his church into all truth, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and that he would be with the Church for all time; then how does anyone who is honestly seeking Christ not ponder the luncay of 15,000 Christian denominations.

Does’nt it make since that the Church Jesus Christ founded would know it was the Church Jesus Christ founded, and thus claim to teach infallibly on issues relating to faith and morals as Jesus Christ would have taught them?

And would’nt the Church Jesus Christ founded have to be… I don’t know around 2,000 years old?

And would’nt the Church Jesus Christ founded be able to prove from History all of its claims?

Please, if anything I have stated is incorrect then please tell me so. But, its just that if the characteristics of Christ true Church that I listed above are not what Christ wanted then quite frankly either God was retarded and wanted us to fail in our quest to find the way, the truth and the light, or the simpler more heretical answer has to be true. That Christ was not God for he did not have the foresight to see the division that would arise without a legitimate line of authoritative succession in place.:crying:

Some “protestants” look back at the FOUNDATION of our faith: God’s Word. First-hand witnesses’ accounts are in the Bible. It’s the Holy Spirit, not a fallable man, who can reveal the Scriptures to mankind just as Jesus revealed Himself in the Scriptures to His disciples. For it is true that Jesus IS the Truth just as He said He is. The Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, guides us into all Truth.
As far as leaders go:

Ephesians 4:11-16

11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Note that this was written after Jesus ascended into Heaven. THIS is the first century Church of Jesus Christ. Paul does not say that Peter is the head, but rather Christ.
We’re to listen to the teachers that God appoints, but we’re to worship the same God that they do.
As long as we keep Jesus in our “sights”, we’re not being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”
The RCC goes way, way outside the “sights” and “sight-sees” leaders and followers within its denomination while some “protestants” have “blinders” on and do not wish to veer off of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Maybe this site can open a thread of just that.

 

[Allweather]

You can ask this person what he thinks of Mary (virgin or not), John (did he represent the Church at the cross or not), Paul (if he’s not the pope, then why listent to his teaching) or any thing else and he’ll only want to talk about Christ.
That’s the “prize” that I push for:

Phillipians 3:12-21; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27

Any thing else takes you off of your focus.

Popes are fallable human beings.

We agree in every particular you bring up. I was still a Protestant when Swaggart happened, but I didn’t like his theology then, either, so I noted it with grim satisfaction. Hey, I’m a sinner.

The focus is, indeed, Jesus. But it is a good thing to focus on the things Jesus focuses on. He focused rather strongly on Mary and the Apostles, especially Peter. There is a reason he was born of a woman, and it wasn’t because he just needed an incubator. There is a reason he selected men and spent 3 years tutoring them in the things he wanted them to know so that they could carry the Church forward after Pentecost, and it wasn’t just an accident. God doesn’t do or not do things by accident.

Popes are fallible human beings. Of course they are. Have you heard a Catholic say otherwise? When a non-Catholic says something like this, he reveals a lack of knowledge about Papal fallibility. Peter was the first Pope, and he was pretty imperfect. We don’t expect Popes to be perfect, and there is nothing in the dogma of infallibility that suggests that Popes are perfect.

 

[kujo313]

We agree in every particular you bring up. I was still a Protestant when Swaggart happened, but I didn’t like his theology then, either, so I noted it with grim satisfaction. Hey, I’m a sinner.

The focus is, indeed, Jesus. But it is a good thing to focus on the things Jesus focuses on. He focused rather strongly on Mary and the Apostles, especially Peter. There is a reason he was born of a woman, and it wasn’t because he just needed an incubator. There is a reason he selected men and spent 3 years tutoring them in the things he wanted them to know so that they could carry the Church forward after Pentecost, and it wasn’t just an accident. God doesn’t do or not do things by accident.

QUOTE]

Actually, Jesus focused rather strongly on the Kingdom of Heaven (where God wants us) and on Hell (where people are headed).
Jesus’ disciples included Mary, who followed Jesus like the apostles did. When it came to putting more emphisys on Mary, Jesus replied with “Rather, blessed are those who hear the Word of God and obey it” and “Who are my brothers and who is my mother? Those who do the Will of God are my brothers and my mother.”
It’s the RCC, not Jesus, who puts more on Mary that is necessary. If that’s what you want to do, please don’t tell me that I’m wrong because I choose to do what Jesus says to do.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

An awful lot of “disagreement” among Protestants with Catholic piety is because of indoctrination rather than true investigation.

Whether 2000 years of indoctrination or 20 seconds of subjective inspiration, they both can hide the truth from you.

 

[Allweather]

Actually, Jesus focused rather strongly on the Kingdom of Heaven (where God wants us) and on Hell (where people are headed).
Jesus’ disciples included Mary, who followed Jesus like the apostles did. When it came to putting more emphisys on Mary, Jesus replied with “Rather, blessed are those who hear the Word of God and obey it” and “Who are my brothers and who is my mother? Those who do the Will of God are my brothers and my mother.”
It’s the RCC, not Jesus, who puts more on Mary that is necessary. If that’s what you want to do, please don’t tell me that I’m wrong because I choose to do what Jesus says to do.

I’m not saying you’re “wrong,” after all I don’t know what your Marian focus is. Even if you go whole hog into the Protestant theories that Mary was nothing but an incubator and caretaker for Jesus, you might still have the essence of the Gospel truth in your beliefs, and therefore might still be Christian. But, without Mary, it is more likely that you’re tied into certain heretical beliefs about Jesus. Not certain, but more likely. At the very least, you will probably have an incomplete notion of Jesus, the God-Man.

As for whether the Catholic Church “puts more on Mary than is necessary,” well, that is according to your personal, fallible, interpretations of Scripture, which cannot be taken as authoritative. We look back over the span of 2 millenia and inquire what have Christians believed about Mary all along? We try to believe what they believed. Christianity wasn’t born in 1525, you know. The peculiar notions about Mary that characterize much of Protestant beliefs, covering as they do a wide expanse of theories, are relatively new… only about 500 years old. By the time of Luther, the Church was already 1500 years old. And, BTW, it is interesting to read Luther’s writings regarding true veneration of Mary, and placement of her in the Church. It seems that the Protestants who followed Luther had much more severe ideas about Mary than he did.

 

[Allweather]

Whether 2000 years of indoctrination or 20 seconds of subjective inspiration, they both can hide the truth from you.

I’m not following you here. The indoctrination I was referring to was the Protestant indoctrinations that accrue to people who are either born into, or convert into, those various Protestant sects. Therefore, there wouldn’t be 2000 years of indoctrination, but rather more like 300, or maybe 400, given that the original reformers of the 16th century had very Catholic ideas about Mary. There has been a development of Protestant theologies over the 500 years since Luther. Based on things I’ve read, Luther might be horrified to see what has become of Protestantism today, especially in terms of Mariology.

I relate this about Mary to my own conversion. I moved towards the Catholic Church after seeing big disagreements among my non-denom brothers and sisters over questions about baptism, and a few other things, things actually that had been hashed out centuries before, but which still burn within these non-denom groups, and cause divisions. So I moved Catholic because I felt that there MUST be an authoritative, visible, teaching Church on Earth, rather than this collection of squabbling sects. However, I realized, oh, yeah, there’s this whole Mary thing. It caused me a lot of discomfort, for quite awhile, maybe two or three years. At first, I was completely allergic to Mary. I’m one who believes that dealing with fear is best done by facing directly up to it, so I dove in and started reading, and praying the Rosary. In those days I was a daily 5 mile runner, and spent that hour every day in Rosary meditations. In time, I realized that my problems with Mary had nothing to do with Scripture, or true interpretations of Scripture, but with the accumulated anti-Catholic indoctrinations I had received during my years as a Protestant. And no, it wasn’t 2,000 years as a Protestant, it was more like 8 years of listening to and reading the fundamentalist teachers, most of whom are distinctly anti-Catholic and pepper their talks and writings with anti-Catholicism. Unfortunately, Mary has become emblematic of the divide between Protestants and Catholics, but this shouldn’t be surprising. The Protestants needed to diminish the Church in order to build their own. What better way to do that than to diminish the Mother of the Church? Via spurious Biblical interpretations, many Protestants attack the most important things about the Church in order to minimize it. They end up with no visible, authoritative Church at all, but rather a sola scriptura theory that isn’t supported by the Bible itself, and an ocean of private, fallible interpretations, which lead to divisions, sects, and cults with no ecclesiastical authority to ride herd on them.

 

[Allweather]

Paul does not say that Peter is the head, but rather Christ.

Christ IS the head of the Church. Peter, and his successor Popes, are not the heads, but rather the institutional leaders of the Church on Earth. Later, I’ll get my catechism out so I can give you chapter and verse as to Catholic teachings in this area. I think you are badly misinformed.

We’re to listen to the teachers that God appoints, but we’re to worship the same God that they do.
As long as we keep Jesus in our “sights”, we’re not being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”

Sounds good. Now, you take a hard look at Protestantism in the world, with the hundreds of sects and denominations, multiplying daily. Each of these has unique doctrines and theologies, many of which are regurgitated heresies from the earliest centuries of Christianity. Now, after this hard appraisal of Protestantism, go back and re-read that Scripture about being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine. If you’re called to listen to the teachers that God appoints then you’re also called to obey them. Obedience demands and attitude of humility and submission to authority, an attitude of acknowledgement that YOU are not the Pope, YOU are not the God-appointed leader, YOU are not St. Augustine, or any other great theologian qualified to hold opinions which deviate from orthodoxy. It behooves us to listen to these God-appointed leaders, the Pope and the bishops, and obey them.

the RCC goes way, way outside the “sights” and “sight-sees” leaders and followers within its denomination while some “protestants” have “blinders” on and do not wish to veer off of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Maybe this site can open a thread of just that.

The thread is open, and you’re in it. We’re discussing your interpretations. Back to my original question, which no Protestant has yet answered: What makes YOUR interpretations more valid than mine? If every man is his own interpreter of Scripture, why are not MY interpretations at least as valid as yours?

Since you, as a Protestant, do not possess a teaching institution with infallible authority to interpret and implement Scripture into a useable piety, it must therefore be that YOU are your own Pope. If this isn’t true, then tell me who IS your Pope. Who is teaching you, interpreting Scripture for you, telling you what is correct doctrine, so that you are not whipped around willy-nilly by every wind of doctrine.

I know who my Pope is. I’m wondering who yours is.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I’m not following you here. The indoctrination I was referring to was the Protestant indoctrinations that accrue to people who are either born into, or convert into, those various Protestant sects.

If you think that only Protestant indoctrinate people you need to open your eyes. ALL religious bodies indoctrinate people. I believe there is even have a name for it in the Catholic Church, it is called catechism. Now don’t take offense, I’m not attacking catechism. Of course the Catholic Church offers it. It offers it so that it can teach the faith to its adherents. It would be silly to try to continue the Church without such teaching. But just because it is reasonable to do so, does not keep it from being indoctrination.

So I moved Catholic because I felt that there MUST be an authoritative, visible, teaching Church on Earth, rather than this collection of squabbling sects.

That is what you felt, and you found someone who agreed with you. That doesn’t make it true. It could be true or not true, but your feeling of it and their agreement does not make it so.

In time, I realized that my problems with Mary had nothing to do with Scripture, or true interpretations of Scripture, but with the accumulated anti-Catholic indoctrinations I had received during my years as a Protestant.

I imagine that this was indeed your experience. In fact, I imagine that this is the experience of many people in many protestant churches. It is a shame that so many people are “anti-”: anti-catholic, anti-Mary, or for that matter anti-protestant. That last one is a shame too, for there is nothing wrong with the protestant churches once they quit being “anti-” and got on to being the church God called them to be.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The Protestants needed to diminish the Church in order to build their own. What better way to do that than to diminish the Mother of the Church?

Some have indeed done this. Of course, it hasn’t been all one sided. It certainly appears here that many Catholic have a need to reject the protestant churches as a way of making their Catholic Church the one true Church. See, this is the basic fallacy of Catholicism. Catholicism is NOT about 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. Up until that time the entire church was one, indeed because it was universal it was indeed catholic for those terms are synonyms when used as adjectives and not monikers. 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. [Note the way I am usiing capitalization to indicate emphasis.] Now the Catholic church was not alone in this sin of schism, and that is what it was. At the same time we had the orthodox Church, for the whole Church of God was endeavoring to practice right thnking and teaching. 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.

For the Catholic church is no longer the catholic Church simply because it is no longer the universal Church. And the Orthodox church no longer the orthodox Church because it is no more right than any other part of the Church. We are all THE Church of Jesus Christ, and when any one part refuses the recognize the rightness of the other parts, or the universality of the whole of all the parts being one with another under Christ, then they give up their right to call themselves either catholic or orthodox, even though they may use the titles of Catholic and Orthodox. The truth is in their behaviors and not their names.

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, the body of Christ in the world, then certainly they are more catholic and more orthodox than those who would deny them that status. You see, you are wrong in suggestin that protestant history only goes back to Luther. 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.

The Catholic church may not recognize the validity of that string, but I don’t need them to. I know that the string exists; it has been researched and documented. But my authority to preach the word does not come from recogniztion by the vicar of Christ; it comes from the call of the Holy Spirit which has been confirmed by the body of Christ.

Via spurious Biblical interpretations, many Protestants attack the most important things about the Church in order to minimize it.

Spurious interpretations are in the eye of the beholder. I do not think that protestants attack the Church at all. We love the Church. 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.

They end up with no visible, authoritative Church at all, but rather a sola scriptura theory that isn’t supported by the Bible itself, and an ocean of private, fallible interpretations, which lead to divisions, sects, and cults with no ecclesiastical authority to ride herd on them.

I believe these are “your personal, fallible, interpretations of Scripture,”

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Back to my original question, which no Protestant has yet answered: What makes YOUR interpretations more valid than mine? If every man is his own interpreter of Scripture, why are not MY interpretations at least as valid as yours?

I’ll admit that they MAY be. But I don’t think you can have any more certainty of it than anyone else can. I reject the idea that they are right because the Catholic church said they are. I submit to you that the Catholic church IS a fallible institution. Thus, they may have an interpretation that they have held to for 2000 years (in your estimation, not mine), but if so they could also have been wrong that whole time.

It is only God who can tell us if we have the correct interpretation. You admit that no Pope, nor any of the leaders of the Catholic church, can make that claim for himself. The best we can do is depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is present to guide all Christians, for no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. And protestants do indeed say, “Jesus is Lord.” Thus we have the same Spirit to guide us that is available to the Pope himself.

So, you have no more certainty than someone outside the Church. Perhaps we have not been listening or interperting well. Perhaps Catholics haven’t. I don’t think we will ever be able to answer that question on this earth.

Since you, as a Protestant, do not possess a teaching institution with infallible authority to interpret and implement Scripture into a useable piety, it must therefore be that YOU are your own Pope. If this isn’t true, then tell me who IS your Pope. Who is teaching you, interpreting Scripture for you, telling you what is correct doctrine, so that you are not whipped around willy-nilly by every wind of doctrine.

I know who my Pope is. I’m wondering who yours is.

We don’t need a fallible institution such as you described. We are quite capable of being wrong on our own, without having to parrot the mistakes passed on to us by the Pope.

 

[Allweather]

If you think that only Protestant indoctrinate people you need to open your eyes. ALL religious bodies indoctrinate people.

Absolutely. Indoctrination isn’t bad, but bad indoctrination is. Some Protestant indoctrination (certainly not all) is plain bad. Some cult indoctrination is horrible. I’d think we’d agree on this. You might feel that some Catholic indoctrination is bad, and we could surely explore those items in great detail, and if you want to, let’s do it.

That is what you felt, and you found someone who agreed with you. That doesn’t make it true. It could be true or not true, but your feeling of it and their agreement does not make it so.

Absolutely agree. I don’t base my beliefs on feelings or a paucity of “proof” or evidence. Truth is objective, and can be truly seen by honest men who are looking to find it.

That last one is a shame too, for there is nothing wrong with the protestant churches once they quit being “anti-” and got on to being the church God called them to be.

I’ll add a qualifier to your statement, by saying that there is nothing MUCH wrong with MOST Protestant churches. There is a LOT wrong with SOME of them. Each has to be taken individually and examined, because there is little uniformity among them. That doesn’t mean they aren’t populated by good-willed people. Mormons and JWs tend to be mighty fine people. Very moral. But morality alone is not the point, as I’m sure you’d agree. Doctrine is important. UNITY is critical. Jesus demands unity, this is clear from Scripture. If these churches are in rebellion against unity with the God-ordained visible, authoritative Church on Earth with the successors of Peter in governance, then they are disobeying Jesus.

 

[Allweather]

I believe these are “your personal, fallible, interpretations of Scripture,”

All of my own personal interpretations of Scripture are fallible. That’s why I tend not to have them. I look to the authoritative teaching Church to find out what is correct.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

UNITY is critical. Jesus demands unity, this is clear from Scripture. If these churches are in rebellion against unity with the God-ordained visible, authoritative Church on Earth with the successors of Peter in governance, then they are disobeying Jesus.

Yes, UNITY is important. Our unity is in Christ and the body of Christ – i.e. all Christians are the Church, not just one particular religious body that calls itself the Catholic church. I don’t think that there exists in this world the God-ordained visible, authoritative Church on Earth that you describe. There is only the body of Christ, an invisible but very real Church. We are all part of it, even Catholics.

 

[Allweather]

Yes, UNITY is important. Our unity is in Christ and the body of Christ – i.e. all Christians are the Church, not just one particular religious body that calls itself the Catholic church. **I don’t think that there exists in this world the God-ordained visible, authoritative Church on Earth that you describe. ** There is only the body of Christ, an invisible but very real Church. We are all part of it, even Catholics.

Unity isn’t just important, it is essential. John 17, the Last Supper, Jesus says an extended oral prayer that is very descriptive of this demand for unity. Verses 20, 21: “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Now, you say there is not visible, authoritative Church on Earth. There is only the invisible body of Christ. We Catholics say that there is, indeed, the invisible Body of Christ, but there is also a visible, tangible, authoritative Church. We see this throughout the NT, but just take the two verses I cite above for now… “that the world may believe that you sent me…” How would the world be expected to know that Jesus sent the Apostles unless there were a visible entity called Church? How could the Church apply itself in a visible, tangible, physical world unless it had a visible, tangible, physical presence?

As for unity, how is the world to believe in the Church if it is just a mass of nattering nabobs, arguing about the Pope and Mary? The cults, the Mormons, the JWs, the Moonies, Jonestown, Waco, on and on? All of these fractures are the work of DISunity, and therefore represent a disobedience of Jesus as written specifically in the NT, that we may all be one, as Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus and the Father don’t have a single disagreement over doctrine. They are united in every possible way, and that is the level of unity Jesus expects of His Church. That it be united doctrinally, in faith and morality, not broken up into hundreds of cults and sects all competing with each other for converts.

Jesus always appealed to the physical. The incarnation, his growth into manhood, his sufferings, his death, his resurrection, were all physical manifestations that, among many things, showed God and God’s love to mankind. When Thomas doubted, Jesus allowed him to probe the wounds. The very gathering of the 12 Apostles in itself demonstrates the physicality and concreteness of the Church. Jesus chose 12 men, and spent 3 long, hard years tutoring them. Before his crucifixion, at the Last Supper, he ordained them. After his resurrection, he gave them marching orders, to go into all the world, teaching all the Jesus had taught them. After Pentecost, they were empowered to build the Church, and so they did. If God only needed an invisible Body, then he wouldn’t have needed to teach the 12, or send them on their missions. He wouldn’t even have needed to be incarnated, to suffer, die, be buried, and physically resurrected. Everything could have been done invisibly, spiritually. But this isn’t how God chose to do it.

 

[Allweather]

We don’t need a fallible institution such as you described. We are quite capable of being wrong on our own, without having to parrot the mistakes passed on to us by the Pope.

I agree that we are capable of being wrong on our own, with or without the Pope. But why don’t you share one or two of these “mistakes” that you feel have been passed down to us by the Pope, so that we can address them itemizedly, and in some detail.