Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[guanophore]

And here it is….your declaration of what is concrete. Here (I’ve posted something similar on another thread) is what assumptions go into your concrete:

If one infers that Jesus giving the keys to Peter and renaming him “rock” etc. established Peter as the supreme leader of the church, (which must be inferred as it is not expressly stated)

I am curious to know what you think it means to be the Rock, and for him to be commissioned to veed and care for ethe flock.

and after that, if one assumes that Peter was able to pass that office on to an appointee (an ability which is never expressed in scripture),

Actually, it is.

and after that, if one assumes that Peter passed that office onto a/the bishop at Rome (even though the growing historical opinion is that Rome did not possess a single overseer at the time Peter could have visited Rome),

How is Rome not having a bishop at all related to the commission Jesus gave to Peter before he came there? Paul was pretty clear in his letter that no Apostle had been yet to Rome.

and after that, if one assumes that the bishops of Rome were able to pass that office on to subsequent bishops (even though the historical record shows that there was no unanimous consensus that held that the bishop of Rome possessed such an office of supremacy),

Fortunately,the plan of God is not dependent upon human consensus.

All the Apostles and bishops’ offices were filled around the world, not just in Rome.

and after that, if one assumes, (despite the existence of rival popes at various times in history), that the bishops of Rome have legitimately passed that office on to subsequent bishops such that the bishop of Rome remains the head of the one true church

The presence of illegitmate bishops does not negate the real ones. Paul wrote about false Apostles. Their existence did not negate the true Apostles.

Jesus is the head of the Church. The Pope is His Vicar. The Vicar does not replace the head of the house.

and together with that, if one assumes that the office would not have been removed from the bishops of Rome due to gross misconduct (grossly sinful popes being not uncommon in the centuries leading up to the Reformation),

Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either it was a legitimate office, or not!

Fortunately the terrible behavior of certain people does not nullify the grace of God.

and if one infers that the phrase “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” means that hierarchy of the church could not fall into significant doctrinal error (even though the leader of the church can be absolutely unqualified to be an overseer in accordance with the requirements of 1 Timothy 3 and be teaching grave error by his conduct),

No, the Catholic Church has never taught that members of the heirarchy would not fall into significant doctrinal error. In fact, a study of the Arian heresy will reveal that 80% of the bishops fell into heresy. The Church never taugth this error, though, and the Popes have not, even those full of despicable behavior.

and if one assumes that the perpetual virginity of Mary actually has some significance in and of itself

Do you think that God does anything without significance? Have you considered that it would be much easier to give up this doctrine, rather than trying to defend it against the modern heresy of Sola Scriptura?

Significance lies in holding fast to the Truth, not matter what!

then one could (concretely) conclude that whatsoever the RCC has declared with respect to the perpetual virginity of Mary is absolutely true.

Do you really think that declaration of the Truth depends upon all these things? How come Jesus could proclaim Truth, when He did not meet any of these conditions?

Given all those assumptions one can only wonder whether you have confused the definitions of “sand” and “concrete”.

Personally, I don’t think it is possible to get very “concrete” about matters of faith. That does not mean, however, that they are based upon sand.

 

[guanophore]

And wouldn’t the NT references to brothers and sisters count as such a preservation…or would you require the apostles to be preemptive and say something like “by ‘brothers’ of course, as you all know, I mean full blood brothers and not something else”?

No. Since it has been the constant teaching if the Church that Mary had no other children, we know that this reference means something different than it does to Modern American Fundamentalists. In those days, anyone in the clan too close for marriage was considered brother/sister.

…or given that Jesus said, "“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” …it might be that the early church was actually faithful enough to Christ’s words to understand that faith in Christ was more important than a genetic link through Mary.

Yes I believe they did understand this. They also understood that Mary was honored for her obedience to God, more than her physical role to HIm.

As such, a believing brother, such as James got due recognition (for his faithfulness) in Acts and non-believing siblings were not particularly important.

His near kinsman did come to believe. They were in the upper room later (at Pentecost).

 

[guanophore]

I reject any authority that contradicts the Word of God. The CC believes it is the sole authority when it comes to the faith.

heis, please take a breath. Do you realize how silly it is for you to come to a Catholic Answers Forum and tell us what we believe? It is one thing to say “it seems like Catholics believe” or something, but to make such ignorant assertions really makes you look ridiculous.

The Word of God is not confined to the Scripture.

The Catholic Church teaches that God is the sole authority when it comes to matters of faith. God has revealed His will to the Church orally,and in writing. These revelations are called Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition.

Yet, how do you suppose Jesus would respond to the CC if he was on this earth today.

Much like He does in the letters to the Churches in Revelation. He would commend the faithful, and upbraid the lax. How do you think He would?

Do you believe he would say well done, thou good and faithful servant, or do you think he would be satisfied. LOL. Don’t answer that, I already know your answer.

Do you not think there are some lazy servants that willl be thrown out, along with some hard working humble ones?

I look at it this way, John 3 is the very basis of the faith. The CC interpret it incorrectly. If they cannot get the building block of the faith correct, how much farther from the truth has she moved?

Well, heis, since the CC wrote that chapter, I think it is clear that she beleives what she wrote.

If you are willing to learn about the history of the faith, you will find that it is modern fundamentalism that has drifted from the Truth.

 

[Radical]

Do you really understand what JRKH said?

I am pretty sure I understood JRKH…and his analogy is bad. To have a discussion one must find a common approach. We can’t expect an atheist to accept the NT as inspired and so we can’t say to him that he must believe that Jesus existed and rose from the dead b/c the NT says so. All we can do is attempt to use a mutually recognized approach (such as the discipline of history) to try and provide satisfactory evidence of an occurence. In that regard we can refer to the books of the NT as historical evidence, but we can’t refer to them as the inspired inerrant Word of God b/c they are not recognized as such by the atheist. We can only build our case within the confines of the mutually approved approach.

As between Protestants(Ps) and Roman Catholics (RCs), in addition to the mutually approved approach of historical studies, we also have an agreement that the OT and the NT are the inspired inerrant Word of God. As such, we can attempt to prove things based upon historical evidence and upon scriptural evidence. In this regard the RC can refer to tradition as historical evidence, but can’t refer to tradition as an inspired inerrant thing (equal with scripture) b/c tradition is not recognized as such by the P.

Now, JRKH would be correct to claim an inconsistency if, (a) when talking with the atheist, the P insisted that the atheist must accept the Bible as inerrant, but then (b) when talking to the RC the P refused to accept RC tradition as inerrant. JRKH needs to hunt down those Ps and complain to them and realize that his complaint doesn’t apply to the rest of us.

 

[MDK]

I am pretty sure I understood JRKH…and his analogy is bad. To have a discussion one must find a common approach. We can’t expect an atheist to accept the NT as inspired and so we can’t say to him that he must believe that Jesus existed and rose from the dead b/c the NT says so. All we can do is attempt to use a mutually recognized approach (such as the discipline of history) to try and provide satisfactory evidence of an occurence. In that regard we can refer to the books of the NT as historical evidence, but we can’t refer to them as the inspired inerrant Word of God b/c they are not recognized as such by the atheist. We can only build our case within the confines of the mutually approved approach.

As between Protestants(Ps) and Roman Catholics (RCs), in addition to the mutually approved approach of historical studies, we also have an agreement that the OT and the NT are the inspired inerrant Word of God. As such, we can attempt to prove things based upon historical evidence and upon scriptural evidence. In this regard the RC can refer to tradition as historical evidence, but can’t refer to tradition as an inspired inerrant thing (equal with scripture) b/c tradition is not recognized as such by the P.

Now, JRKH would be correct to claim an inconsistency if, (a) when talking with the atheist, the P insisted that the atheist must accept the Bible as inerrant, but then (b) when talking to the RC the P refused to accept RC tradition as inerrant. JRKH needs to hunt down those Ps and complain to them and realize that his complaint doesn’t apply to the rest of us.

No, you really didn’t, and your understanding of this issue is regrettably poor. The discussion of Protestant hypocrisy was right on. One must understand more to get this… Protestantism is not some valid alternative to Catholicism, such that there is equal footing. Any truth you have is due to the Catholic Church. The distortions are all your own. Why? The Catholic Church is the authoritative Church built by Christ, which also authored the Bible. The Protestant ecclesial communities are made not from Scripture, but from errant understandings of our Bible. To seek the truth without reservation is to eventually give up being Protestant. To go deep into history is to cease being Protestant. God built His Church, and it is not Protestant in nature.

 

[PRmerger]

Now, JRKH would be correct to claim an inconsistency if, (a) when talking with the atheist, the P insisted that the atheist must accept the Bible as inerrant, but then (b) when talking to the RC the P refused to accept RC tradition as inerrant. JRKH needs to hunt down those Ps and complain to them and realize that his complaint doesn’t apply to the rest of us.

No, Radical. The argument should have been presented as follows: JRKH is correct in claiming an inconsistency because (a) when talking with an atheist who demands CONCRETE proof of Jesus’ resurrection, the P cannot offer CONCRETE proof. (In this case, substitute “scientific” for “concrete” for that is what the atheist demands.) but then (b) when talking with a Catholic this P then demands CONCRETE proof of certain doctrinal teachings. (In this case substitute “scriptural” for “concrete”.)

In the above argument, the P is demanding concrete proof from a RC, but cannot offer concrete proof to an atheist.

 

[christian1]

Our Blessed Mother had an elder sister, Mariam (daughter of Heli). Our Lady’s mother wasn’t barren before she conceived Mary.

How do you know the sister mentioned wasn’t her cousin?

 

[Radical]

No, you really didn’t, and your understanding of this issue is regrettably poor. The discussion of Protestant hypocrisy was right on. One must understand more to get this… Protestantism is not some valid alternative to Catholicism, such that there is equal footing. Any truth you have is due to the Catholic Church. The distortions are all your own. Why? The Catholic Church is the authoritative Church built by Christ, which also authored the Bible. The Protestant ecclesial communities are made not from Scripture, but from errant understandings of our Bible. To seek the truth without reservation is to eventually give up being Protestant. To go deep into history is to cease being Protestant. God built His Church, and it is not Protestant in nature.

Unfortunately, this is exactly why Protestants want a concrete scriptural proof or a solid historical proof…it is b/c w/o any such proof all that one is offered is blusterous opinion

 

[Radical]

No, Radical. The argument should have been presented as follows: JRKH is correct in claiming an inconsistency because (a) when talking with an atheist who demands CONCRETE proof of Jesus’ resurrection, the P cannot offer CONCRETE proof. (In this case, substitute “scientific” for “concrete” for that is what the atheist demands.) but then (b) when talking with a Catholic this P then demands CONCRETE proof of certain doctrinal teachings. (In this case substitute “scriptural” for “concrete”.)

so then we are agreed, JRKH’s analogy is also flawed b/c he is saying (according to you) that b/c the P can not provide scientific proof to an atheist, he shouldn’t require scriptural proof from a RC. Would be kinda like arguing that b/c the history professor can’t provide scientific proof that Alexander was the son of Philip, he shouldn’t require any proof from historical evidence that Napolean actually won the battle of Waterloo…he must simply accept the assertion.

 

[Radical]

No. Since it has been the constant teaching if the Church that Mary had no other children, …

Constant? Doesn’t this teaching first appear in the historical record in the “Gospel of James” which was written around 150 AD? The first 100 years is missing from your “constant” and on top of that, the first evidence is from a work that falsely claims to have been written by James at the occasion of the commotion caused by Herod’s death. Credibility has to be in question.

…we know that this reference means something different than it does to Modern American Fundamentalists.

Know? Only if one assumes that it was taught from the outset by the faithful and not adopted from a forger.

His near kinsman did come to believe. They were in the upper room later (at Pentecost).

well, at least his brothers are mentioned…I don’t know about his near kinsmen…brothers could mean something other than full brothers, but it is definitely a “could possibly mean” and not a “must mean”.

 

[Good_Fella]

Our Blessed Mother had an elder sister, Mariam (daughter of Heli). Our Lady’s mother wasn’t barren before she conceived Mary.

How do you know the sister mentioned wasn’t her cousin?

You said so yourself, that Anna wasn’t barren, which is true, and our Blessed Mother had an elder sister, Mariam (daughter of Heli). According to Matthew, Joesph was the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16). Luke tells us that he was the “son” of Heli (Lk 3:23) meaning son-in-law by marriage to the Virgin Mary. Thus Mariam would have to be Mary’s sister, not her cousin. Their father was Heli (Joachim in the Apocrypha). The Jewish Talmud [Haggigah: 77,4] reveals that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. In semitic usage the word sister (achoth) can be used interchangeably meaning either sibling or female cousin. With regard to Mariam, it means the former.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[1beleevr]

JRKH: Perhaps I mixed you up with someone else, who had issue with people dressing informally for church service, mass, or otherwise! They said something like,“well if you don’t want to bring your best to meet your Saviour…”! I used to dress up for church, when I was younger, but then gradually began “dressing down” to a more casual attire. Someone once said to me, “You should show more respect to God!” I said, “We’re talking about someone who has seen me in my birthday suit!” Besides,man looks at the outside, God looks at the heart. And it is of no significance to me, why the pope wears one robe or the other; it’s what he says, and what is in his heart:thumbsup:

 

[guanophore]

Unfortunately, this is exactly why Protestants want a concrete scriptural proof or a solid historical proof…it is b/c w/o any such proof all that one is offered is blusterous opinion

This makes sense to me.

Basically, what you are saying is that Jesus cannot be trusted to keep His Word. He did not really promise to lead the Church into all Truth, or He was too weak to keep His promise. He was perhaps unconcerned, and unable to preserve His Word from error, because the falliblility of man is too much for Him.

 

[Louie1983]

JRKH: Perhaps I mixed you up with someone else, who had issue with people dressing informally for church service, mass, or otherwise! They said something like,“well if you don’t want to bring your best to meet your Saviour…”! I used to dress up for church, when I was younger, but then gradually began “dressing down” to a more casual attire. Someone once said to me, “You should show more respect to God!” I said, “We’re talking about someone who has seen me in my birthday suit!” Besides,man looks at the outside, God looks at the heart. And it is of no significance to me, why the pope wears one robe or the other; it’s what he says, and what is in his heart:thumbsup:

True, but this about reverence. Entering a church (especially a Catholic one) is a holy place therefore we must dress accordingly. God knowing our desires and needs is one thing, but ensuring we respect God in everything that we say and DO (including dressing appropriately) is also important.

 

[1beleevr]

Interpretation, is something that nearly all human beings do; regardless if it’s a movie, text, or as in this thread, the Holy Bible! I can’t remember having been accused of twisting, and or sculpting scripture, to fit my own agenda, by more people than I have in the last 3 months If I were going to interpret all scripture to fit what I believe, then, I might as well write my own Bible! I for instance, do not see how anyone can read James 5:16, and believe it is the basis for confessing your sins to a priestThat should be an option, not a mandate! And I still have not found any Spiritual directive to call any “mortal” man Holy Father(no one will be completely holy until we stand before our King, clothed in righteousness).I don’t understand confirmation, completely! I think this is where a catholic accepts Christ as their personal Saviour, right? And does it say in Acts 15, that,1)not to drink blood(this must be why I don’t eat my steak rare), and 2) that we Gentiles(non-catholics have been grafted in. Heck, even popeJohnPaul II told us non-catholics, that we could be saved:thumbsup:And I read in Psalms, about the Lord’s people celebrating, banging the cymbal, playing the lyre, etc, shouting to the Lord; and yet the preferred style of music in catholic churches, is somber and sullen. I grew up, singing and listening to hymns like,“The Old Rugged Cross,” etc, but now also enjoy contemporary Christian music as well! I also believe that when Jesus talks about sending an Advocate, or Comforter, He is talking to me also(and other Christians, who believe that one can have a personal relationship with Him). Thanks to the peace of Christ, I am able to navigate this thread, indeed this forum, the barbs, deflected, the more genteel coments appreciated! So, 2 Samuel 14:14, could be interpreted as a reference to the Saviour, correct?

 

[Louie1983]

Interpretation, is something that nearly all human beings do; regardless if it’s a movie, text, or as in this thread, the Holy Bible! I can’t remember having been accused of twisting, and or sculpting scripture, to fit my own agenda, by more people than I have in the last 3 months If I were going to interpret all scripture to fit what I believe, then, I might as well write my own Bible! I for instance, do not see how anyone can read James 5:16, and believe it is the basis for confessing your sins to a priestThat should be an option, not a mandate!

An option? By saying that’s an option you are saying that God wants us to live how we want to, not how he wants us to live. This is dangerous as this could lead to many different interpretations (this is evident with all protestants).

And I still have not found any Spiritual directive to call any “mortal” man Holy Father(no one will be completely holy until we stand before our King, clothed in righteousness).

A typical protestant argument here, you are basing your argument on the false premise that “it has to be in the bibel to be true”. When the bible clearly states that it doesn’t. Oral traditions/teachings play a role here also.

I don’t understand confirmation, completely! I think this is where a catholic accepts Christ as their personal Saviour, right? And does it say in Acts 15, that,1)not to drink blood(this must be why I don’t eat my steak rare), and 2) that we Gentiles(non-catholics have been grafted in. Heck, even popeJohnPaul II told us non-catholics, that we could be saved:thumbsup:And I read in Psalms, about the Lord’s people celebrating, banging the cymbal, playing the lyre, etc, shouting to the Lord; and yet the preferred style of music in catholic churches, is somber and sullen. I grew up, singing and listening to hymns like,“The Old Rugged Cross,” etc, but now also enjoy contemporary Christian music as well! I also believe that when Jesus talks about sending an Advocate, or Comforter, He is talking to me also(and other Christians, who believe that one can have a personal relationship with Him). Thanks to the peace of Christ, I am able to navigate this thread, indeed this forum, the barbs, deflected, the more genteel coments appreciated! So, 2 Samuel 14:14, could be interpreted as a reference to the Saviour, correct?

 

[1beleevr]

Louie1983:Sorry, bud, but I must respectfully disagree with you on the issue of dressing for church,especially after watching men enter a catholic church wearing Levi’s and a casual shirt, just ten(10) days ago! Why do so many people busy themselves with the outside of the cup? When you come to Christ, is it necessary to wear a tuxedo, or a $2000 suit? You never know where you are gong to be, when the Holy Spirit leads you to the Saviour! And what is a bibel? Anything like a Bible, which your church claims to have written? Jesus Himself, told me not to call any man on this earth Father; and no matter how you call him, the pope is not holy, and he is NOT my Father! The only Holy Father I recognize, is the Almighty, Living God! And tone down the condemnation a bit

 

[JRKH]

….and that is bad b/c you want the power to decide for him regarding what is and what is not concrete evidence?

This is the difference between us my frined -
It is not “I” for I am nothing. It is Christ in His Church who does this for it is Christ’s Authority within His Church which does this.
Even if I have difficulties with some doctrines, I accept them because I am under Christ’s Authority and Obedient to Him.

And here it is….your declaration of what is concrete. Here (I’ve posted something similar on another thread) is what assumptions go into your concrete:

If one infers that Jesus giving the keys to Peter and renaming him “rock” etc. established Peter as the supreme leader of the church, (which must be inferred as it is not expressly stated)

and after that, if one assumes that Peter was able to pass that office on to an appointee (an ability which is never expressed in scripture),

and after that, if one assumes that Peter passed that office onto a/the bishop at Rome (even though the growing historical opinion is that Rome did not possess a single overseer at the time Peter could have visited Rome),

and after that, if one assumes that the bishops of Rome were able to pass that office on to subsequent bishops (even though the historical record shows that there was no unanimous consensus that held that the bishop of Rome possessed such an office of supremacy),

and after that, if one assumes, (despite the existence of rival popes at various times in history), that the bishops of Rome have legitimately passed that office on to subsequent bishops such that the bishop of Rome remains the head of the one true church

and together with that, if one assumes that the office would not have been removed from the bishops of Rome due to gross misconduct (grossly sinful popes being not uncommon in the centuries leading up to the Reformation),

and if one infers that the phrase “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” means that hierarchy of the church could not fall into significant doctrinal error (even though the leader of the church can be absolutely unqualified to be an overseer in accordance with the requirements of 1 Timothy 3 and be teaching grave error by his conduct), and

if one assumes that the perpetual virginity of Mary actually has some significance in and of itself

then one could (concretely) conclude that whatsoever the RCC has declared with respect to the perpetual virginity of Mary is absolutely true.

Given all those assumptions one can only wonder whether you have confused the definitions of “sand” and “concrete”.

And so long as one insists on looking at the Bible outside of it’s historical context one will have difficulty seeing.
So long as one insists on removing the Bible - a Catholic Church Book - From the Historical Church one will always have only a segment of the fullness of understanding.

When one looks at the variety of various NCC beliefs, all based upon the Bible, it woulda appear that the entire Book is built upon sand. Yet we know that this is NOT true.
Thou Art ROCK and upon this ROCK I will build MY CHURCH. Immediately after saying this Jesus Give Peter the Promise of the Keys - AND the authority to Bind and loose “Whatever”. This authority has been passed through the Bishops from that time to this.
There IS the Rock - and that is concrete.

You know, I think this would be a fair demand if I am talking to an atheist or non-Christian…after all, the rising from the dead claim is rather extraordinary. Let me ask you this, would you ask a Mormon to provide “concrete evidence” or would you simply adopt all of his assumptions and let him and his apostles determine for you what constitutes concrete evidence? Now I am not saying that you are a Mormon, but I suspect that you would be closer to a Mormon than I would be to an atheist.

This is a perfect example of how things can get distorted.
I was not calling anyone an athiest. I was only referencing that this is the kind of demand we might expect from an athiest. To demand “Concrete Evidence” for something that is ultimately based on “Faith” seemed a bit odd to me.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hey JRKH, hopefully you don’t think I’m picking on you…it is just that you have been a pleasure to talk to…And wouldn’t the NT references to brothers and sisters count as such a preservation…or would you require the apostles to be preemptive and say something like “by ‘brothers’ of course, as you all know, I mean full blood brothers and not something else”?

I would not require the apostles to be “preemptive” in the way that you suggest because,

1. The authors assumed they were being clear enough when they wrote the words in the original language and time,
2. The Truths of the meanings were passed down via apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition and thus have always been contained in the Fullness of Revelation within the Church.

No I don’t think you are picking on me - I enjoy talking to you too.
Sorry I can’t be on line as steadily as I would like. I learn so much here.

…or given that Jesus said, "“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” …it might be that the early church was actually faithful enough to Christ’s words to understand that faith in Christ was more important than a genetic link through Mary. As such, a believing brother, such as James got due recognition (for his faithfulness) in Acts and non-believing siblings were not particularly important.

Peace

Some of what you say here is true and very possible, and yet, it James WAS Jesus biological Brother, why would He and others be arguing about who was the greatest in the Kingdom?
Also, it would simply be human nature, for those in the Church to preserve the historical line of Jesus. Look at how much trouble Matthew went to to show Jesus geneology thus connecting Him to David? Brothers of The King of Kings would certainly warrant some honor and status within the Church in those times.

Ultimately though, I accept these things because I trust Christ. I trust that He has kept His promise to protect His Church. I also trust that those persons in the Church who investigated and decided on these matters did so with prayer and dilligence.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

JRKH: Perhaps I mixed you up with someone else, who had issue with people dressing informally for church service, mass, or otherwise! They said something like,“well if you don’t want to bring your best to meet your Saviour…”! I used to dress up for church, when I was younger, but then gradually began “dressing down” to a more casual attire. Someone once said to me, “You should show more respect to God!” I said, “We’re talking about someone who has seen me in my birthday suit!” Besides,man looks at the outside, God looks at the heart. And it is of no significance to me, why the pope wears one robe or the other; it’s what he says, and what is in his heart:thumbsup:

I don’t know - I do know that, if I cannot dress up for Church on Sunday I feel badly because I feel I am not showing my best to Our Lord.
When I go to Mass, particularly on Sunday, I am entering into “The Throne Room” for Christ is Truely and Substantially present in the Tabernacle and on the Altar. I have come to worship Him and to receive Him into my body thus uniting myself with Him.
So I wish to present myself before my King in as presentable a manner as possible both inside AND out.

So - If one is entering “The Throne Room of the King of Kings”, how should one dress?
First go to confession if possible, or make a good examination of conscience and act of contrition, to assure the inside is clean.
Then take a bath and put on your best Clothes to show your love and respect for your Lord and King.

Maybe it isn’t a big thing - But it is my thing.

Peace
James