Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

[AmericanJosiah]

Let’s use another secular analogy if you want. Did the founders of this country, the USA, write a constitution and leave it for each and every citizen to interpret for themselves? No, that would have chaos. The founders of this country established a legislative body to interpret the constitution for everyone. Why do you think God would have done any less?

1. Then you are embracing that there should be a rule/canon to which all are accountable. Welcome to Protestantism! You just abandoned Catholicism. In Catholicism, the doctrines of itself are not accountable or subject to norming to ANY rule/canon because, it alone insists, they are infallible and thus simply to be accepted as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”
2. Yes, if there is a dispute, there will be arbitration. According to WHAT? Yes, according to the Rule of Law - there IS a common, knowable, written RULE here. And ALL are accountable to such in this arbitration. Imagine a policeman stopping you for running a stop sign. Your day in court comes. You (taking up the Catholic position here) look to all those present and boldly proclaim: "I don’t recognize any rule/canon - and thus no sign or the Rule of Law, because I’m infallible and incapable of wrong. And I am the sole authority here. I am the sole arbiter here. If there is to be any arbitration of whether I was right or wrong in that matter, I alone will determine that - but no need to waste that time, because I already told you: I alone am infallible and incapable of being wrong. Just accept whatever I did “with docility.” I wonder how that would go for you?
3. You seem to be following our brother here in taking the Protestant position. That teachers of doctrine are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach. That there needs to be some knowable rule that applies to all - above all, beyond all, knowable to all, unalterable by all. That arbitration may be needed, but the defendant is not the sole arbiter for himself - arbitration must be either exclusive of the defendant or at least not exclusive to the defendent. Do you see some wisdom in that? If so, you just left The Catholic Church. It’s one of the reasons I did.

You use this as an apparent attempt to avoid addressing the problems of multiple interpretations. With multiple interpretations, am I to assume, you feel there is no dangers in having multiple interpretations? Where in scriptures can we take it that those differences are not important? Where in scriptures does it tell us how to know which of the multiple interpretations is correct?

Oh, just the opposite! I’m the one embracing accountability!!! I’m the one rejecting that self should appoint self as the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreter (CCC 85, etc.). I think interpretations ARE accountable - those of me and you, those of Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, those of John Calvin and Jim Jones, those of St. Augustine and Joseph Smith, those of The Catholic Church and The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Yup. I think truth matters. I think what teachers say (especially as doctrine) matters. I think teachers are accountable for what they say. I disagree that a teacher should just exempt self from accountability and rather substitute that whatever self alone says is just to be accepted as true “with docility” cuz it just is cuz that teacher alone says it is. The first paragraph in the chapter, “The Authority of The Catholic Church” in the book, “The Handbook of The Catholic Faith” is thus: "When someone asks the Catholic where he finds the substance of his belief, the correct answer is this: From the Authority of The Catholic Church. This Authority consists of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. We thus have no need to investigate or reason to question, for Christ Himself said to The Catholic Church: “Whoever hears you, hears me’.” (Page 137). You are the one working here to defend this rubric, that the best way to determine if a teacher (“defendant” here) is correct is for that teacher to declare that that self is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from any norming according to any rule/canon, exempt from any arbitration except by self alone (moot since self CANNOT be wrong), and that whatever self alone says is just to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking (CCC 87, etc.). It’s PROTESTANTS who embrace accountability for positions, it’s PROTESTANTS embracing a rule/canon outside and above us all, it’s PROTESTANTS arguing that the arbitration is not simply by self of self exclusively.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Still not addressing the problems of multiple interpretations and how one is to discern correct from incorrect.

I provided the scriptures to show that Christ taught us how to have confidence in His Church to know all truths. Christ’s promise is ‘infallible’ is it not? Christ’s promises are Biblical and His believers do not doubt His truth.

You continue a cat and mouse game, without scriptures, because there are no scriptures to support multiple interpretations.

Would you care to give an example of an ‘incorrect’ interpretation from the Church? Of course to say the Church is wrong, because you have the correct interpretation is assuming an ‘infalliblity’, and again the problem comes up. Show us the scriptures that grant you the authority to determine correct and incorrect.

All the other ‘blah, blah. blah’ is no more than a smoke screen for not having scriptures to endorse the man made tradtion of it’s acceptable for every individual to interpret scriptures for themselves, even if there are thousands of interpretations.

It’s really that simple, show us that anyone can depend on their own interpretation of scriptures, from the scriptures.

Hey PS1… You hit the nail on the head:thumbsup:

Matt

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. Then you are embracing that there should be a rule/canon to which all are accountable. Welcome to Protestantism! You just abandoned Catholicism. In Catholicism, the doctrines of itself are not accountable or subject to norming to ANY rule/canon because, it alone insists, they are infallible and thus simply to be accepted as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

Twisting what I say in an attempt to sway me from Catholicism and even insinuating that’s what I’m saying is not funny and I take offense at it. If that’s the route you choose to take, I will not discuss anything directly with you any longer.

Let me clarify how God did not do any less than the founders of this country. He established a legislative body, the body of Christ, which is His Church. In discussions, exclusively with His Apostles, He promised to send the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, to teach them and guide them in ALL things. He promised to be with them until the consummation of the world. These were mortal men Christ knew would eventually die. He was promising to be with His Church, teach His Church and guide His Church in all things, unto the consummation of the world. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the place the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known.

All of that is Biblical, unlike the arguements you continue to make. If you want to see those scriptures, just ask I’ll provide them.

With Christ’s promises, I accept the authority of His Church. Afterall, Christ is infallible.

1. Yes, if there is a dispute, there will be arbitration. According to WHAT? Yes, according to the Rule of Law - there IS a common, knowable, written RULE here. And ALL are accountable to such in this arbitration. Imagine a policeman stopping you for running a stop sign. Your day in court comes. You (taking up the Catholic position here) look to all those present and boldly proclaim: "I don’t recognize any rule/canon - and thus no sign or the Rule of Law, because I’m infallible and incapable of wrong. And I am the sole authority here. I am the sole arbiter here. If there is to be any arbitration of whether I was right or wrong in that matter, I alone will determine that - but no need to waste that time, because I already told you: I alone am infallible and incapable of being wrong. Just accept whatever I did “with docility.” I wonder how that would go for you?
2. You seem to be following our brother here in taking the Protestant position. That teachers of doctrine are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach. That there needs to be some knowable rule that applies to all - above all, beyond all, knowable to all, unalterable by all. That arbitration may be needed, but the defendant is not the sole arbiter for himself - arbitration must be either exclusive of the defendant or at least not exclusive to the defendent. Do you see some wisdom in that? If so, you just left The Catholic Church. It’s one of the reasons I did.

Oh, just the opposite! I’m the one embracing accountability!!! I’m the one rejecting that self should appoint self as the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreter (CCC 85, etc.). I think interpretations ARE accountable - those of me and you, those of Martin Luther and Pope Benedict, those of John Calvin and Jim Jones, those of St. Augustine and Joseph Smith, those of The Catholic Church and The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Yup. I think truth matters. I think what teachers say (especially as doctrine) matters. I think teachers are accountable for what they say. I disagree that a teacher should just exempt self from accountability and rather substitute that whatever self alone says is just to be accepted as true “with docility” cuz it just is cuz that teacher alone says it is. The first paragraph in the chapter, “The Authority of The Catholic Church” in the book, “The Handbook of The Catholic Faith” is thus: "When someone asks the Catholic where he finds the substance of his belief, the correct answer is this: From the Authority of The Catholic Church. This Authority consists of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. We thus have no need to investigate or reason to question, for Christ Himself said to The Catholic Church: “Whoever hears you, hears me’.” (Page 137). You are the one working here to defend this rubric, that the best way to determine if a teacher (“defendant” here) is correct is for that teacher to declare that that self is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from any norming according to any rule/canon, exempt from any arbitration except by self alone (moot since self CANNOT be wrong), and that whatever self alone says is just to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking (CCC 87, etc.). It’s PROTESTANTS who embrace accountability for positions, it’s PROTESTANTS embracing a rule/canon outside and above us all, it’s PROTESTANTS arguing that the arbitration is not simply by self of self exclusively.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

You reject Catholicism based on your PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. As I said, I have no problem accepting the authority Christ established.

Now, either produce scriptures to support your arguement, or you’re wasting time…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Still not addressing the problems of multiple interpretations and how one is to discern correct from incorrect.

Again, you seem to be taking the PROTESTANT position here that teachers are accountable. And an interpretation is not unaccountable because the one so interpreting designates self as infallible and incapable of error.

Yes, if you won’t do as The Catholic Church requires, if you sense Jesus may have been right when He warned us of false teachers, if you think Jesus may have been correct to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating them and for declaring them false, then yes - I could not agree more - we need to determine how to evaluate those teachings! You just left Catholicism and became a Protestant (at least in the matter of epistemology). Now, I’ll ask: Do you think some rule/canon is good here? Or is a teachers’ doctrine correct just cuz that teacher insists that it is? Or because self alone agrees with self alone? Do you embrace the value of a rule/canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties in the evaluation? Something knowable to all and alterable to none? Something regarded as reliable and authoritative to all in the arbitration? And do you think the most sound arbitration is for the defendant to appoint himself as the sole judge and jury for he himself, so that if he himself says he’s right,then he is? Or do you think that arbitration should be broader than that? These are all fundamental questions, and yes - they get to the heart of our “issue” here that Protestants and the RCC disagree on.

Christ’s promise is ‘infallible’ is it not? Christ’s promises are Biblical and His believers do not doubt His truth.

… as do I. But He promised NOTHING about The Catholic Church, He never so much as even MENTIONED it, even in passing. About anything, for anything, regarding anything, in any context, for any issue. I know that and so do you.

Yes, I think that Jesus infallibly leads His church. But where do you get the idea that if God infallibly leads/teaches, ERGO it is mandated and necessitated that all will constantly and perpetually and infallibly follow? Have you read the story of Adam and Eve? Or that NONE will - except ONE exclusively: the one self alone so designates?

Did you know that while Jesus NEVER said The Catholic Church is infallible incapble of error (in these matters), unaccountable, exempt from norming and all must just accept with docility whatever it and it itself alone says, He DID warns us - often and boldly - about false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. THAT seems to suggest teachers should NOT just be accepted with docility cuz that teacher so demands for self alone. See, I agree with you! Interpretations are not right cuz the one so saying so insists. I embrace accountability. I embrace the soundness of a rule/canon. I embrace arbitration. It’s one of the things that makes me Protestant. It’s ONE of the reasons I left The Catholic Church.

Would you care to give an example of an ‘incorrect’ interpretation from the Church?

You seem to think I’m the arbiter. But your question is one you are not to ask, you are to just accept whatever it says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” for it insists that it is infallible and incapable of being wrong. You are ignoring multiple interpretations, in fact, you may well be ignoring the text at all! As a Catholic, you are to remember the Scripture of any importance here (but NOT the rule here!!!) is the one written in the heart of itself (CCC 113) as interpreted by itself (CCC 85). It is infallible. It is right. Thus, God agrees - or God would be wrong. Thus His Scriptures must agree.

You have the correct interpretation is assuming an ‘infalliblity’, and again the problem comes up.

Quote me the verse where the word “infallible” appears. Then we can discuss our interpretation of the word. Obviously, it’s impossible to interpret a word that doesn’t exist, so quote the verse where the word is. Then we can begin to discuss possible interpretations of it. And see if the words, “The Catholic Church” are the object of it.

it’s acceptable for every individual to interpret scriptures for themselves

Friend, there is only ONE Christian teacher on the planet and in all of the history of Christianity that does what you are (rightly) rebuking: Self appointing self as the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. It’s in YOUR Catechism (AND NO OTHER): Paragraph # 85. The Catholic Church alone not only designates itself alone as the sole authoritative interpreter, but insists that you just accept which ever interpretation it alone has “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Again, you seem to be taking the PROTESTANT position here that teachers are accountable. And an interpretation is not unaccountable because the one so interpreting designates self as infallible and incapable of error.

Yes, if you won’t do as The Catholic Church requires, if you sense Jesus may have been right when He warned us of false teachers, if you think Jesus may have been correct to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating them and for declaring them false, then yes - I could not agree more - we need to determine how to evaluate those teachings! You just left Catholicism and became a Protestant (at least in the matter of epistemology). Now, I’ll ask: Do you think some rule/canon is good here? Or is a teachers’ doctrine correct just cuz that teacher insists that it is? Or because self alone agrees with self alone? Do you embrace the value of a rule/canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties in the evaluation? Something knowable to all and alterable to none? Something regarded as reliable and authoritative to all in the arbitration? And do you think the most sound arbitration is for the defendant to appoint himself as the sole judge and jury for he himself, so that if he himself says he’s right,then he is? Or do you think that arbitration should be broader than that? These are all fundamental questions, and yes - they get to the heart of our “issue” here that Protestants and the RCC disagree on.

… as do I. But He promised NOTHING about The Catholic Church, He never so much as even MENTIONED it, even in passing. About anything, for anything, regarding anything, in any context, for any issue. I know that and so do you.

Yes, I think that Jesus infallibly leads His church. But where do you get the idea that if God infallibly leads/teaches, ERGO it is mandated and necessitated that all will constantly and perpetually and infallibly follow? Have you read the story of Adam and Eve? Or that NONE will - except ONE exclusively: the one self alone so designates?

Did you know that while Jesus NEVER said The Catholic Church is infallible incapble of error (in these matters), unaccountable, exempt from norming and all must just accept with docility whatever it and it itself alone says, He DID warns us - often and boldly - about false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. THAT seems to suggest teachers should NOT just be accepted with docility cuz that teacher so demands for self alone. See, I agree with you! Interpretations are not right cuz the one so saying so insists. I embrace accountability. I embrace the soundness of a rule/canon. I embrace arbitration. It’s one of the things that makes me Protestant. It’s ONE of the reasons I left The Catholic Church.

You seem to think I’m the arbiter. But your question is one you are not to ask, you are to just accept whatever it says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” for it insists that it is infallible and incapable of being wrong. You are ignoring multiple interpretations, in fact, you may well be ignoring the text at all! As a Catholic, you are to remember the Scripture of any importance here (but NOT the rule here!!!) is the one written in the heart of itself (CCC 113) as interpreted by itself (CCC 85). It is infallible. It is right. Thus, God agrees - or God would be wrong. Thus His Scriptures must agree.

Quote me the verse where the word “infallible” appears. Then we can discuss our interpretation of the word. Obviously, it’s impossible to interpret a word that doesn’t exist, so quote the verse where the word is. Then we can begin to discuss possible interpretations of it. And see if the words, “The Catholic Church” are the object of it.

Friend, there is only ONE Christian teacher on the planet and in all of the history of Christianity that does what you are (rightly) rebuking: Self appointing self as the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. It’s in YOUR Catechism (AND NO OTHER): Paragraph # 85. The Catholic Church alone not only designates itself alone as the sole authoritative interpreter, but insists that you just accept which ever interpretation it alone has “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

.

Again, carnal arguments only and no scriptures…

The Church is justified from Christ’s promises. You don’t agree, because of your private interpretations. Last time around the circle for me…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Let me clarify how God did not do any less than the founders of this country. He established a legislative body, the body of Christ, which is His Church.

You skipped over a couple of steps…

1. Then you accept accountability. All are accountable to what they say and do. There would not NEED to be any laws or any courts if it is impossible for there to be error. Your whole premise here assumes accountability. For all. But that’s where you don’t seem to realize you just assumed the Protestant position. The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church CANNOT ERR (in these matters), that it and it alone is INFALLIBLE in these matters, that whatever it alone says is just right. There’s no accountablity because there’s no possibility of error - it itself alone insists for it itself alone. It needs no rule or canon because it is the authority, it says what’s right - and whatever it says, is.
2. If accountability for the defendant is accepted (and as a Catholic, you are not so permitted to regard The Catholic Church as accountable), then YES - there needs to be some arbitration. But what court do you know of does what The Catholic Church alone insists is best: The defendant appoints himself as the sole court for the correctness of himself - so that if self determines that self is correct, then self is? In fact, do you even know of a court where the defendant is even a member of the jury, even just ONE of the arbiters?
3. The US Constitution specifically created The Supreme Court. But I wonder if, in your readings of the NT, that God never so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church as the arbiter? In fact, of course, He never mentioned it for ANYTHING at all. It is simply a teacher who is doing what you seem to be rebuking: exempting self from any rule and from any arbitation. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. I don’t need no norming by any rule/canon cuz I’m right. I don’t need no arbitration by any but me cuz I alone am right. I alone will determine if I’m right, but before I so bother, I CANNOT be wrong.”

He promised to send the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, to teach them and guide them in ALL things.

1. He never promised The Catholic Church anything. He never so much a even MENTIONED it. I know that. You know that. Come on, my friend.
2. Where did you get the idea that if God teaches and guides, therefore the objects of such MUST infallibly and perpetuall follow and that God regards such as unaccountable for what they do/say? Have you read the account of Adam and Eve? It’s in Genesis chapter 3. And surely you remember all those years in Sunday School learning about the Jewish Kingdom, how God established it, directly appointed some of the kings, guided and taught and lead it. Did that mean that ERGO the Kingdom was infallible, never held accountable by God for what it and the kings did? I wonder where you ever got the idea that to lead or teach perfectly means that ergo, the object of such MUST - by fiat mandate - constantly, perpetually and infallibly follow, and they are not to be held as accountable for whatever the object says or does? I can’t for the life of me imagine where you got that idea from. Certainly not from Scripture.

If you want to see those scriptures, just ask I’ll provide them.

Yes. Here are the ones I request:

1. Jesus states that The Catholic Church - particularly, exclusively and perpetually - is infallible (in these matters), incapble of being wrong, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and we are all to accept “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” whatever IT says.
2. Where it says that if God teachers or leads, ergo it is impossible for the objects of such to not infallibly follow, and that God does not hold them accountable for what they say or do.

You reject Catholicism based on your PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

No. It’s one of the things I disagree with in Catholicism. It is the only Christian teacher on the planet and in all of the history of Christianity that designates self exclusively as the sole, authoritative, infallible interpreter. I agree with you: that’s not a sound rubric; it’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church.

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No. It’s one of the things I disagree with in Catholicism. It is the only Christian teacher on the planet and in all of the history of Christianity that designates self exclusively as the sole, authoritative, infallible interpreter. I agree with you: that’s not a sound rubric; it’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church…

Even though I said it was my last trip around the circle with you on this subject, I’m giving you one more chance to show where you get your authority of infallibilty to reject the Church’s, much less another person’s, interpretation of scriptures, because yours and only yours is right?

The Church designates itself with the support of scriptures, as I’ve provided. When you have the promises of Christ, it’s ok to assert your authority to the laity, as long as it can be backed up.

Again, you accuse me falsely. I find it most sound.

Another irony in our discussion. The views I presented are exactly why I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism. I was not evangelized by other than the Holy Spirit.

Protestantism, particularly the multiple interpretations, just didn’t make sense to me, so I began digging deep, researching, reading scriptures, writings of the early Church fathers and praying. I’m glad I did.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

You skipped over a couple of steps…

1. Then you accept accountability. All are accountable to what they say and do. There would not NEED to be any laws or any courts if it is impossible for there to be error. Your whole premise here assumes accountability. For all. But that’s where you don’t seem to realize you just assumed the Protestant position. The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church CANNOT ERR (in these matters), that it and it alone is INFALLIBLE in these matters, that whatever it alone says is just right. There’s no accountablity because there’s no possibility of error - it itself alone insists for it itself alone. It needs no rule or canon because it is the authority, it says what’s right - and whatever it says, is.
2. If accountability for the defendant is accepted (and as a Catholic, you are not so permitted to regard The Catholic Church as accountable), then YES - there needs to be some arbitration. But what court do you know of does what The Catholic Church alone insists is best: The defendant appoints himself as the sole court for the correctness of himself - so that if self determines that self is correct, then self is? In fact, do you even know of a court where the defendant is even a member of the jury, even just ONE of the arbiters?
3. The US Constitution specifically created The Supreme Court. But I wonder if, in your readings of the NT, that God never so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church as the arbiter? In fact, of course, He never mentioned it for ANYTHING at all. It is simply a teacher who is doing what you seem to be rebuking: exempting self from any rule and from any arbitation. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. I don’t need no norming by any rule/canon cuz I’m right. I don’t need no arbitration by any but me cuz I alone am right. I alone will determine if I’m right, but before I so bother, I CANNOT be wrong.”
4. He never promised The Catholic Church anything. He never so much a even MENTIONED it. I know that. You know that. Come on, my friend.
5. Where did you get the idea that if God teaches and guides, therefore the objects of such MUST infallibly and perpetuall follow and that God regards such as unaccountable for what they do/say? Have you read the account of Adam and Eve? It’s in Genesis chapter 3. And surely you remember all those years in Sunday School learning about the Jewish Kingdom, how God established it, directly appointed some of the kings, guided and taught and lead it. Did that mean that ERGO the Kingdom was infallible, never held accountable by God for what it and the kings did? I wonder where you ever got the idea that to lead or teach perfectly means that ergo, the object of such MUST - by fiat mandate - constantly, perpetually and infallibly follow, and they are not to be held as accountable for whatever the object says or does? I can’t for the life of me imagine where you got that idea from. Certainly not from Scripture.

Yes. Here are the ones I request:

1. Jesus states that The Catholic Church - particularly, exclusively and perpetually - is infallible (in these matters), incapble of being wrong, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and we are all to accept “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” whatever IT says.
2. Where it says that if God teachers or leads, ergo it is impossible for the objects of such to not infallibly follow, and that God does not hold them accountable for what they say or do.

No. It’s one of the things I disagree with in Catholicism. It is the only Christian teacher on the planet and in all of the history of Christianity that designates self exclusively as the sole, authoritative, infallible interpreter. I agree with you: that’s not a sound rubric; it’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church.

.

American… Please explain 2Peter1:20-21 to me. I may me missing something here

Matt

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I’m giving you one more chance to show where you get your authority of infallibilty to reject the Church’s, much less another person’s, interpretation of scriptures, because yours and only yours is right?

1. You evidently want to switch apologetics here. The position you are defending is that The Catholic Church - specifically, particulary and exclusively - is the infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture, and whatever the interpretation of it and it itself alone on thus is simply to be accepted with docility. Friend, it’s YOUR position. It’s not mine to prove or disprove, it’s yours. You keep saying it’s true - offering nothing to support it other than you believe it’s true.
2. I never said I alone am right. You keep inverting the positions here. It’s The Catholic Church that itself alone insists that itself alone is right. You are the Catholic apologist here, not me. Don’t ask me to defend why it’s a good rubric and an infallible way to determine if a teacher is correct to have the self-same teacher just proclaim the self same to be right - and require all to just accept that “with docility” “as God speaking.”

The Church designates itself with the support of scriptures, as I’ve provided.

You’ve provided NOTHING that so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church or infallibility or unaccountability. NOTHING about the divine imparative that everyone is just to accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says “with docility.” NOTHING that says that if God leads, one - The Catholic Church - thus WILL constantly, perpetually and infallibly - will follow.

as long as it can be backed up.

Ah, then you think teachers of doctrine ARE accountable for what they teach as such! Does that include The Catholic Church (better read your Catechism # 87 before you answer that - in fact, you should have done that before you posted what you did). Back it up - with WHAT? Who then arbitrates if the teaching has been normed by that WHAT? Oh, you sometimes sound so very Protestant. Maybe you want to retract what you posted?

Protestantism, particularly the multiple interpretations, just didn’t make sense to me

… and so you have this mysterious contradiction:

• Interpreters are accountable for what they teach/ The Catholic Church is incapable of error and whatever it says is just to be accepted with docility.
• It’s wrong for self to designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture/ The Catholic Church is right in designating itself as the sole authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture.
• Self agreeing with self has nothing to do with self being correct/ The Catholic Church is correct in its interpretation because it agrees with itself.
• Self having an interpretation - perhaps one of many - has zero relevance to that one being correct/ When The Catholic Church has an interpretation - perhaps among many - it’s interpretation is thus correct.
• There needs to be a rule/canon OUTSIDE of the view under review and an arbitration BEYOND the one holding to the view/ The Catholic Church alone needs no rule/canon and it is the sole arbiter for whether its views are correct.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.
.

 

[joe370]

Lets clarify. Are you saying that Protestants cannot get any use out of the Bible?

Are you also saying that we do not have the Holy Spirit with/in us?

Brian, forget about the CC for the moment; help me find the Protestant church (interpreter) - in the world today, that is guided into truth, by the holy spirit? John 16:13 I think that is an excellent starting point, from a protestant perspective .

 

[joe370]

How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

please don’t say “we have the Holy Spirit with us”
because there is no way there can be morethan 30,000 Holy Spirit

and hence the word “Holy Spirit” it is not Plural

For me, as a former protestant, it came down to finding the historical church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circ AD 33, which is the church of Matthew 16:18…, John 14:16, John 16:13, Acts1:8 and 2:1, and Matthew 28:20. Not one Protestant church met the criteria.It came down to the EOC and the CC, for me, for both churches can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostles, as opposed to the protestant reformation. However, the EOC failed to meet the criteria of Matthew 16, in my humble opinion. It seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. You evidently want to switch apologetics here. The position you are defending is that The Catholic Church - specifically, particulary and exclusively - is the infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture, and whatever the interpretation of it and it itself alone on thus is simply to be accepted with docility. Friend, it’s YOUR position. It’s not mine to prove or disprove, it’s yours. You keep saying it’s true - offering nothing to support it other than you believe it’s true.

(Deleted to make a proper response)
Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

I have provided scripture after scripture, or God’s WORD, which is His speech. I have asked you to provide scriptures to support your view. You have not. You have only presented your opinion and ‘rants’.

The term ‘Catholic’ came about later in the Church’s history, but much quicker than the canon of the New Testament was defined, and very much sooner than the Protestant reformation.

Where did the term Catholic originate?

**Acts 9:31

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.**

St. Ignatius wrote about the Catholic Church about the same time St. John was writing Revelations. He didn’t introduce the term, he used it as if it were already in use.

Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution(55) of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(56) Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(57)

Martin Luther never denied that the Catholic Church was not the Church in the Bible. His objections were with the selling of indulgences, or a Church that he believed had become corrupted through the actions of sinful men. Yours is a ‘new’ arguement to make.

One more time, I remind you that you’re not using scriptures to make your argument, which is ironic in consderation of the topic we’re discussing…

 

[Carlan]

Brian, forget about the CC for the moment; help me find the Protestant church (interpreter) - in the world today, that is guided into truth, by the holy spirit? John 16:13 I think that is an excellent starting point, from a protestant perspective .

Joe, may I say the revelation of Jesus was revealed to the Apostles and passed on through his Church from the beginning, it began at Pentecost, there is nothing new for the PC to interpret,The Holy spirit continues to make only Christ’s message relevant for all generations, It began at Pentecost.Right?Peace, Carlan

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Brian, forget about the CC for the moment; help me find the Protestant church (interpreter) - in the world today, that is guided into truth, by the holy spirit? John 16:13 I think that is an excellent starting point, from a protestant perspective .

The problem is reading in context of who was being spoken too. Start at John 13:1 and see who Christ was speaking too about the Spirit of Truth and Holy Spirit. You have to read through to John 18 before any other people are present, and they arrested Jesus.

 

[joe370]

Joe, may I say the revelation of Jesus was revealed to the Apostles and passed on through his Church from the beginning, it began at Pentecost, there is nothing new for the PC to interpret,The Holy spirit continues to make only Christ’s message relevant for all generations, It began at Pentecost.Right?Peace, Carlan

Carlan, I didn’t realize you were a Christian belonging to the CC. I was attempting to answer the question from a protestant perspective. Of course all of the leaders belonging to the CC are fallible sinners, but it’s the Infallible Holy spirit Who guides these fallible leaders to infallibly interpret sacred scripture, just as it was the Infallible HS Who guided the CC leaders to include the correct books and exclude the incorrect books of the holy bible.

As a former Lutheran, it occurred to me: If the HS is guiding each and every PC into all truth, then there must be more than one truth regarding each doctrine, which certainly can’t be the case. Logically speaking, only the church of Matthew 16 (the CC in my opinion, now) - is being guided into all truth (John 16:13 and John 14:16) - regarding all that Jesus revealed.

 

[BrianH]

Brian, forget about the CC for the moment; help me find the Protestant church (interpreter) - in the world today, that is guided into truth, by the holy spirit? John 16:13 I think that is an excellent starting point, from a protestant perspective .

I appreciate your response. I cant force myself to believe what you guys believe. I try and try and I cannot get around the history of it all. Thanks for your response though. I am…and appear to be destined to remain a hopeless liberal.

 

[joe370]

The problem is reading in context of who was being spoken too. Start at John 13:1 and see who Christ was speaking too about the Spirit of Truth and Holy Spirit. You have to read through to John 18 before any other people are present, and they arrested Jesus.

**Just the apostolic church, which adopted the name catholic by the end of the 1st century for good reason. The church of Matthew 16 is the CC. That is why I am no longer a Lutheran. **

 

[Dokimas]

You have preconceived notions you prefer to believe.

I’d say the shoe fits all of us.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

I have provided scripture after scripture, or God’s WORD, which is His speech. I have asked you to provide scriptures to support your view. You have not. You have only presented your opinion and ‘rants’.

The term ‘Catholic’ came about later in the Church’s history, but much quicker than the canon of the New Testament was defined, and very much sooner than the Protestant reformation.

Where did the term Catholic originate?

**Acts 9:31

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.**

St. Ignatius wrote about the Catholic Church about the same time St. John was writing Revelations. He didn’t introduce the term, he used it as if it were already in use.

Martin Luther never denied that the Catholic Church was not the Church in the Bible. His objections were with the selling of indulgences, or a Church that he believed had become corrupted through the actions of sinful men. Yours is a ‘new’ arguement to make.

One more time, I remind you that you’re not using scriptures to make your argument, which is ironic in consderation of the topic we’re discussing…

He also had a big problem with authority. The bible alone is where it’s at.
I enjoy reading your posts prodigal.

May the holy spirit always keep us on track through christ church.

Matthew

 

[Dokimas]

There are a lot of Protestants that believe that, of course one has to remove the context of who it was spoken too, to do that.

You continue disputing teachings of the Church, and scriptures themselves, so that you may assume an authority for yourself. But, you will not explain the problem of different interpretations, leading the body of Christ in every direction except together.

Jesus gave ‘communion’ to His disciples. Where did He tell them to open up communion to all?