Scripture does not interpret itself

[AmericanJosiah]

.

I have provided scriptures, showing a conversation between Christ and ONLY

His Apostles, promising the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth would guide/teach them all things and that He would be with them always.

**

1. Then The Catholic Church cannot do/be what you have claimed.
2. To promise to guide is not a promise of infallible/unaccountable FOLLOWING. You seem to be confusing guiding with following. This is the fatal flaw in your entire premise. You are making an entirely illogical and unbiblical position that if God leads, ergo all must infallibly follow and God holds such as unaccountable for all that is said or done. I asked you if God lead Adam and Eve (yes, infallibly - in a perfect, sinless world even!) and if your premise holds that THEREFORE, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Adam and Eve to do wrong, they can do no other but to INFALLIBLE follow that lead, and in any case, God would not hold them accountable but they would be exempt from all norming. Perhaps you should read Genesis chapter 3 in light of this foundational premise of yours.
   Then you limit the power of Christ.
3. You seem to be confusing the roles of teacher and student. A perfect teacher does NOT mandate a PERFECT, INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE student. Again - refer to Genesis Chapter 3. Refer to the entire Old Testament has God taught His people - and yet where they PERFECT, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE students?**

.
Those of authority are not the students. The laity is the students.

YOUR point was The Catholic Church infallibly FOLLOW and LEARNS…

YOUR point was JESUS teaches IT and leads IT - and IT (particularly, specifically, exclusively) learns and follows, and does so INFALLIBLY with UNACCOUNTABILITY. Your whole premise has been that students and followers are infallible/unaccountable. And yet you’ve refused to ever provide any substantiation for that foundational argument of your position.

**You can type WHATEVER you want - it just doesn’t make it true. You can BELIEVE whatever you want - and that’s just fine. But it doesn’t make it true.

Yes, Jesus founded one church. The church is still here. The church is one, holy and catholic. It is the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. Christians have always been, still are and ever will be PEOPLE. Thus the communion of believers is PEOPLE. The assembly of Christians is PEOPLE. It has nothing to do with The Catholic Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or The Syrian Orthodox Church.**

.
See, where you err is, there was only one Church in the beginning, with one set of doctrines and teachings. Now, as you so aptly pointed out, there are many many Churches, with just as many doctrines, all differing from each other. That’s not what Christ started.

Where is your substantiation that He founded one denomination, and it was the specific, particular, exclusive one that today has the legal moniker: The Catholic Church, and that thus means that it and it exclusively is infallible and unaccountable for whatever it teaches?

Yes, we agree: Jesus founded the church - and thus was/is/ever will be one and holy and catholic, that thus was/is/ever will be the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. But that has NOTHING to do with Him founding The Catholic Church or The Syrian Orthodox Church or any other denomination. Or with any denomination being infallible and unaccountable for what it teaches as doctrine.

You rebuke those who designate self alone as the sole interpreter.
The you quote where The Catholic Church alone designates The Catholic Church alone as the sole interpreter.
You honestly don’t see how you are rebuking The Catholic Church?
I accept that you don’t intend to.

.

You honestly do not want an honest dialogue?

Yes, but such suggests engaging in the discussion. I ask questions, you ignore them.
I noted that you don’t intend to rebuke The Catholic Church when it designates itself alone as the sole, infallible interpreter of Scripture - only that you rebuke when one designates itself alone as the sole, infallible, interpreter of Scripture. For some reason, you are both supporting and rejecting the rubric - for reasons you’ve never explained. I don’t appoint me as the sole and infallible interpreter of Scripture , so your point is moot if directed to me. The Catholic Church DOES appoint itself as the sole and infallible interpreter of Scripture (you even quoted one of the places where it officially does so) and so your rebuke DOES apply there, doesn’t it? You didn’t quote ME to rebuke something I don’t do, you quoted The Catholic Church to rebuke what you showed that it does.

.

 

[wmscott]

.

Where is your substantiation that He founded one denomination, and it was the specific, particular, exclusive one that today has the legal moniker: The Catholic Church, and that thus means that it and it exclusively is infallible and unaccountable for whatever it teaches?

Yes, we agree: Jesus founded the church - and thus was/is/ever will be one and holy and catholic, that thus was/is/ever will be the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. But that has NOTHING to do with Him founding The Catholic Church or The Syrian Orthodox Church or any other denomination. Or with any denomination being infallible and unaccountable for what it teaches as doctrine.

.

From what I can find in history, the Christian Church that existed was the Catholic Church at least from A.D.110, I can only surmise that it was called “Catholic” even before this date. Facts are there was only one Christian religion, Catholics of varying Rites, until the Reformation where Protestantism was born.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper 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 also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

From what I can find in history, the Christian Church that existed was the Catholic Church at least from A.D.110, I can only surmise that it was called “Catholic” even before this date. Facts are there was only one Christian religion, Catholics of varying Rites, until the Reformation where Protestantism was born.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper 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 also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

The term Catholic comes from the Greek language used by the New Testament authors.

**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”.**

 

[wmscott]

The term Catholic comes from the Greek language used by the New Testament authors.

So, St Peter being the first Pope, then the Catholic Church has been in place from the beginning then. Regardless if a person uses a big “C” or a little “c”, the fact is that the Christian Church until the time of the reformation was the same that St Peter first presided over and is the same as it is today “Catholic”.

Then the question is since the “WORD” Catholic does not appear in Sacred Scriptures, is this the problem that the Protestants have in trying to identify what Church Christ established here on earth?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, St Peter being the first Pope, then the Catholic Church has been in place from the beginning then. Regardless if a person uses a big “C” or a little “c”, the fact is that the Christian Church until the time of the reformation was the same that St Peter first presided over and is the same as it is today “Catholic”.

Then the question is since the “WORD” Catholic does not appear in Sacred Scriptures, is this the problem that the Protestants have in trying to identify what Church Christ established here on earth?

In denying the Catholic Church’s history, Protestants deny a Church in existence for over a thousand years. None have presented any sources documenting a Church’s existence prior to, or during those first thousand years, at least none they are willing to affliate themselves with. It just seems to be important to deny the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther did not deny the Catholic Church. He found objections with some practices during his era, but he didn’t deny the Catholic Church. He even acredited the Catholic Church for the Bible, or as he put it, “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Modern day Protestants give themselves more authority in interpreting scriptures than the Church they received it from. Personally, I fail to understand the logic in that.

 

[wmscott]

In denying the Catholic Church’s history, Protestants deny a Church in existence for over a thousand years. None have presented any sources documenting a Church’s existence prior to, or during those first thousand years, at least none they are willing to affliate themselves with. It just seems to be important to deny the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther did not deny the Catholic Church. He found objections with some practices during his era, but he didn’t deny the Catholic Church. He even acredited the Catholic Church for the Bible, or as he put it, “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Modern day Protestants give themselves more authority in interpreting scriptures than the Church they received it from. Personally, I fail to understand the logic in that.

Thanks for the clarification and inforamtion

 

[AmericanJosiah]

From what I can find in history, the Christian Church that existed was the Catholic Church at least from A.D.110, I can only surmise that it was called “Catholic” even before this date.

Actually, it wasn’t. Not even in 110 AD. The adjective “catholic” was often used to describe the church, however. As was the adjective “orthodox.” It’s a grammatical mistake to capitolize adjectives. And while it is true that centuries later, the adjectives “catholic” and “orthodox” came to be developed into noun forms, and became proper names for denominations now known by those legal monikers, it’s absurd to argue that the adjectives use before were references to those denominations.

Again. Let’s say I refer to my car as “awesome.” In 2072, Toyota comes out with a new sports car with the moniker, “Awesome.” Do you find it a sound argument that I owned an Awesome in 2010? We need to be careful with grammar or ploys can mislead.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper 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 also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

I agree… THAT church still exists, and always will. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against such. It just has nothing to do with any denominations (yours, mine or any other).

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, it wasn’t. Not even in 110 AD. The adjective “catholic” was often used to describe the church, however. As was the adjective “orthodox.” It’s a grammatical mistake to capitolize adjectives. And while it is true that centuries later, the adjectives “catholic” and “orthodox” came to be developed into noun forms, and became proper names for denominations now known by those legal monikers, it’s absurd to argue that the adjectives use before were references to those denominations.

Again. Let’s say I refer to my car as “awesome.” In 2072, Toyota comes out with a new sports car with the moniker, “Awesome.” Do you find it a sound argument that I owned an Awesome in 2010? We need to be careful with grammar or ploys can mislead.

I agree… THAT church still exists, and always will. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against such. It just has nothing to do with any denominations (yours, mine or any other).

.

When did Lutherans begin denying the Catholic Church was the Church that their founder came from?

If you visit the Protestant website, studylight.org, and read the writings of the early Church fathers, you’ll see the term Catholic is with a capital ‘c’.

Your modernized view of interpreting capitalizations shouldn’t be applied to the times which things were written. The doctrines written about by St. Ignatius were most certainly Catholic. Where did the Lutherans receive their doctrines, if not through the Catholic Church?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Is this the question you want me to answer? If so, I really don’t understand the question. Please expain or restate.

Please see post 24 and then tell me what you don’t understand so I can help explain better.

 

[Dokimas]

Prodigal Son1 in black; Dokimas in color.

I’m reposting a post to you that you may have missed earlier. Not sure.

On another thread, you and I discussed the verses in John 14 and 16. I explained to you at that time that the conversation took place between Christ and only the Apostles. You asked me to prove that conversation took place between Jesus and only His Apostles. I directed you to John 13 and asked that you read, starting from, verse 1 through until others appeared in the story. I don’t remember you commenting on what you found. I don’t remember is I read John 13 then. I think I suggested you concider Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. If we are to learn what Jesus told the disciples, why wouldn’t they be for us?

I do see you’re still making the assertion that Catholics beliefs are based upon what is taught by the Church. Can’t you see the point I was, and am, making, and how it applies to the teaching of the Catechism, #85? Refering to the catechism proves my point. I’m NOT saying much of what the CC is not right out ot the Bible. I know there is much you believe is in the Bible and I agree with you on these beliefs.

If we’re reading these chapters in the context of a discussion, instructions, between Jesus and only His Apostles, how does one ‘automatically’ apply the promises of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth, guiding and teaching, to themselves directly? Reading Paul, who speaks quite a bit about the Holy Spirit, helps me see that the Holy Spirit is for each and every true believer. Not all His gifts are given to all but His fruit is for all who will use them.

As you continue to assert Catholics only believe what the Church teaches us, as if the teaching is unfounded in scriptures, you need to show us where everything written in scriptures is to be applied to individually is found in the Bible. I believe I have provided a scriptural basis for your generalized assertion of Catholics only believe what the Church tells them to believe. Okay, please tell us of things the CC teaches that you disagree with.

 

[Dokimas]

Please see post 24 and then tell me what you don’t understand so I can help explain better.

From post #24

Doki said: Is there a difference saying ‘I believe it because I’ve studied the Bible and am convinced that’s what the Bible says. Let me show you the verses’ or saying ‘I believe it because my church teaches me that this is true’?​

**Dance responded: This is the same question I asked you. Given that the Church teaching covers Sacred Tradition, the Bible and the Magestrium, there’s some studying involved. Man is a rational animal, not a parrot whether he be a Protestant or Catholic. There’s gotta be something to satisfy the intellect to believe the teaching.

Care to answer my question? **​

Yes there is a huge difference IMO. One comes from 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

On one side: ‘I believe it because I’ve studied the Bible and am convinced that’s what the Bible says. Let me show you the verses’​

On the other side: ‘I believe it because my church teaches me that this is true’​

If a person believes just because their church tells them what to believe, that is easy believism, IMO.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1 in black; Dokimas in color.
On another thread, you and I discussed the verses in John 14 and 16. I explained to you at that time that the conversation took place between Christ and only the Apostles. You asked me to prove that conversation took place between Jesus and only His Apostles. I directed you to John 13 and asked that you read, starting from, verse 1 through until others appeared in the story. I don’t remember you commenting on what you found. I don’t remember is I read John 13 then. I think I suggested you concider Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. If we are to learn what Jesus told the disciples, why wouldn’t they be for us?

You asked me to prove that Christ only spoke to His Apostles, in John 14 and 16, about the Holy Spirit and Spirit of Truth guiding and teaching them ALL things, because of a discussion where some used those scriptures to support them interpreting scriptures for themselves. I pointed out that those verses was from a discussion between Christ and ONLY His Apostles. Then you made the request to PROVE the discussion was between Christ and only His Apostles. The proof is in the reading, starting at John 13, verse 1, and reading through until other people appear. That happens in John 18, and those who appeared came to arrest Christ in the garden.

We learn from scriptures, through what the men who were appointed/ordain were instructed to teach us. We are not appointed, nor ordained. The scriptures some use to support their ‘self teaching’ is instructions to the authority appointed/ordained by Christ to teach us. It’s not a license to interpret, or teach, ourselves.

Now, you take and further prove my point with a passage from Matthew 28. He spoke those words to the 11 disciples/Apostles.

**Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

Now, once again, we are called to a royal priesthood, that is to share the good news with others, but we do not have authority to teach/preach/make ecumenical decisions/perfom sacraments, etc. etc.

I do see you’re still making the assertion that Catholics beliefs are based upon what is taught by the Church. Can’t you see the point I was, and am, making, and how it applies to the teaching of the Catechism, #85? Refering to the catechism proves my point. I’m NOT saying much of what the CC is not right out ot the Bible. I know there is much you believe is in the Bible and I agree with you on these beliefs.

The biggest difference is, I offer scriptures to show you where the teaching comes from. Just as in my answer above, we know what the men of the Church were instructed to teach us from scriptures.

PS, I changed your color to make it easier to read…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

When did Lutherans begin denying the Catholic Church was the Church that their founder came from?

None do, as far as I know. Luther was excommunicated from The Catholic Church. Now, what does that have to do with your historic proof that Jesus founded, specifically, particularly, exclusively, The Catholic Church?

The doctrines written about by St. Ignatius were most certainly Catholic.

Retroactively, probably. But that has nothing to do with his affirming that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, exclusively as known today was “founded” by Jesus in 31 AD. He was using an ADJECTIVE, and as such, I agree with what he said.

Where is your confirmation that Jesus - specifically, particularly and exclusively - founded The Catholic Church? That His promises and authorizations were not to Christians but to that specific, singular geopolitical institution?

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If we’re reading these chapters in the context of a discussion, instructions, between Jesus and only His Apostles, how does one ‘automatically’ apply the promises of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth, guiding and teaching, to themselves directly? Reading Paul, who speaks quite a bit about the Holy Spirit, helps me see that the Holy Spirit is for each and every true believer. Not all His gifts are given to all but His fruit is for all who will use them.

See, you try and split hairs. The Holy Spirit is for ALL of us, but we were not all appointed/ordained to a position of authority, from Christ or through the Apostolic succession as taught in scriptures.

**1Co 12:25 That there might be no schism in the body: but the members might be mutually careful one for another.
1Co 12:26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.
1Co 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and members of member.
1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?
1Co 12:30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
1Co 12:31 But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way. **

Looks like Paul said GOD had set some in the Church and lists them in order of the hierarchy. Then he asks if all were Apostles, prophets, doctors, etc. Be zealous for the better gifts, but it does not say, appoint/ordain yourself.

As you continue to assert Catholics only believe what the Church teaches us, as if the teaching is unfounded in scriptures, you need to show us where everything written in scriptures is to be applied to individually is found in the Bible. I believe I have provided a scriptural basis for your generalized assertion of Catholics only believe what the Church tells them to believe. Okay, please tell us of things the CC teaches that you disagree with.

Again, you ignore a request and demand more information. I asked, that you show us where in the Bible that everything written in scriptures is to be applied individually to each and every reader? Where is the first example, in scriptures, of anyone assuming a position of authority within the Church Christ built?

On doctrines, I agree with everything the Church teaches. I have researched the answers through scriptures and Tradition as recorded by the early Church fathers. After the research, I made a faith decision to accept Church teachings. I was not forced to believe anything against my will.

PS, I changed your color to make it easier to read…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

None do, as far as I know. Luther was excommunicated from The Catholic Church. Now, what does that have to do with your historic proof that Jesus founded, specifically, particularly, exclusively, The Catholic Church?

Luther was offered choices that could have prevented him being excommunicated.

Luther never denied the Church built by Christ was the Catholic Church. That’s a new objection from someone who desires to deny the Catholic Church for their own biases.

Retroactively, probably. But that has nothing to do with his affirming that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, exclusively as known today was “founded” by Jesus in 31 AD. He was using an ADJECTIVE, and as such, I agree with what he said. BTW, it’s a violation of English grammar to capitolize adjectives.

Retroactively? Are you trying to insinuate it was changed? Before answering, remember who preserved the Bible for you to have this day. The same Church that preserved the writings of the early Church fathers. Another new twist in an apparent attempt to fit one’s beliefs…

You close a blind eye to anything that might support the Church being what it was, even before scriptures were written. St. Ignatius was a student of St. Johns and it’s believed he was appointed by St. Peter.

As for your violation of English grammar, maybe someone should have told those Greek speaking/writing early Church fathers that one day their writings would be translated into a language they had never even heard of.

It was capitalized on the Protestant website I provided, that provided the English translation. Maybe you should get them to correct it to align more with your belief.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If we’re reading these chapters in the context of a discussion, instructions, between Jesus and only His Apostles, how does one ‘automatically’ apply the promises of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth, guiding and teaching, to themselves directly?

Well, The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints both do, in spite of the reality that Jesus never so much as even mentioned either one of them.

IMHO, Jesus DID promise some things to BELIEVERS. You can - textually - argue that He promised and authorized those things ONLY to THOSE specific individuals. But then we may not teach (making both you and I in violation of His authorization since we’re both teaching), we may not Baptize or evangelize, and we should not pray the Lord’s Prayer. The much, much bigger “problem” is to deny that He promised these things to BELIEVERS (who ARE mentioned) and instead promised them solely, exclusively and particularly to some entity such as The Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (which, of course, are NOT mentioned).

See, you try and split hairs. The Holy Spirit is for ALL of us, but we were not all appointed/ordained to a position of authority

I agree, but then how does that substantiate that The Holy Spirit only guides The Catholic Church or that The Catholic Church is infallible and unaccountable follower? Or that The Holy Spirit only teaches The Catholic Church and that The Catholic Church exclusively is always and perpetually an infallible student? And where does it state that teachers are infallible/unaccountable? Did you know that Jesus often warns us to beware of false teachers? Did you know that Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church forbids, considering teachers as accountable, testing/norming them, and finding them false?

1Co 12:25 That there might be no schism in the body: but the members might be mutually careful one for another.
1Co 12:26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.
1Co 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and members of member.
1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?
1Co 12:30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
1Co 12:31 But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way.

Wonderful, true and important words! And it says NOTHING about The Catholic Church being infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming. Or that we are to just accept whatever a teacher says with docility, as God speaking.

I have researched the answers through scriptures and Tradition as recorded by the early Church fathers. After the research, I made a faith decision to accept Church teachings.

Then you are violating what The Catholic Church requires (CCC 87 for example) and you are what my Deacon so loudly denounced as a “Protestant hiding in the Church” and what he felt is the greatest danger ever faced by the Church.

And, I’m curious, if you believe the doctrines of The Catholic Church are normed by Scripture and Tradition (and I agree with you 95% of the time there), then why are you fighting so very, very hard that The Catholic Church be exempted from norming and that whatever it alone says rather just be accepted with docility? I’m now curious if you are one of those “Protestants hiding in the Church” I was so warned about in my Catholic days. But, I doubt you mean what you said - that you’ve concluded that all 2,875 points of my Catechism are normed by Scripture and Tradition as any Protestant would “read” your post. I suspect what you mean is that you accept The Catholic Church’s arbitration of itself based on the Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church (CCC 113, 85) and especially according to the norm of the Tradition of The Catholic Church as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church so that The Catholic Chuch determined that The Catholic Church agrees with the interpretation of The Catholic Church of the Scriptures in the heart of The Catholic Chruch and the Tradition as chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church, ie that it itself agrees with it itself. But that’s a norming rejected by The Catholic Church so I don’t think you would be defending it.

In any case, you are to accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” The Handbook of The Catholic Faith begins the chapter on authority with this very revealing sentence, “When someone asks the Catholic where he finds substance for what he is taught, the answer is: from the teaching authority of The Catholic Church. This authority consists of the Pope and the bishops associated with him. For the Catholic, there is no need to investigate these issues, for he lives in quiet assurance in what he is taught, for Christ himself said, ‘Whoever hears you, hears me’.” (page 137) Read your official Catechism # 87.

.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

From post #24

Doki said: Is there a difference saying ‘I believe it because I’ve studied the Bible and am convinced that’s what the Bible says. Let me show you the verses’ or saying ‘I believe it because my church teaches me that this is true’?​

**Dance responded: This is the same question I asked you. Given that the Church teaching covers Sacred Tradition, the Bible and the Magestrium, there’s some studying involved. Man is a rational animal, not a parrot whether he be a Protestant or Catholic. There’s gotta be something to satisfy the intellect to believe the teaching.

Care to answer my question? **​

Yes there is a huge difference IMO. One comes from 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

On one side: ‘I believe it because I’ve studied the Bible and am convinced that’s what the Bible says. Let me show you the verses’​

On the other side: ‘I believe it because my church teaches me that this is true’​

If a person believes just because their church tells them what to believe, that is easy believism, IMO.

No, the other side is: ‘Because I’ve studied church history, read the ECFs, seen the witness of the Saints, read the Bible, examined the Catechism and Council teachings and as consequence, I now believe that the CC was founded and preserved by Jesus Christ and His teachings were passed on to the Apostle both in word and letter to the Church. Thus, I believe what my church teaches is true.’

It’s not as if one becomes a Catholic that he loses in his intellect. Not to mention, you’d be hard pressed to prove St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine are anti-intellectuals by any means. When one puts on the mind of Christ, his intellect is strengthened. IMO, the difference here is a matter of authority, not intellect.

Okay, please tell us of things the CC teaches that you disagree with.

If dissent is the proof of intellect, then please dissent from your Christian denomination and believe in the Immaculate Conception or put the Gospel of Thomas in your Bible and prove to us your intellectual worth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints both do, in spite of the reality that Jesus never so much as even mentioned either one of them.

The Catholic Church received it’s authority from Christ, as written in scriptures and being discussed right now.

IMHO, Jesus DID promise some things to BELIEVERS. You can - textually - argue that He promised and authorized those things ONLY to THOSE specific individuals. But then we may not teach (making both you and I in violation of His authorization since we’re both teaching), we may not Baptize or evangelize, and we should not pray the Lord’s Prayer. The much, much bigger “problem” is to deny that He promised these things to BELIEVERS (who ARE mentioned) and instead promised them solely, exclusively and particularly to some entity such as The Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (which, of course, are NOT mentioned).

Does your opinion have authority? Where in scriptures did your opinion receive authority?

We’re both teaching? I think not. I am sharing a teaching with you and recommend you go to the Catholic Church for the source that I use.

You entirely miss my point, and I believe purposely so you can maintain your ‘grudge’ against the Church. We can read scriptures, specifically instructions to the Apostles; instructions on what they are to teach the laity.

You apparently have taken to including the LDS into the discussion for the purposes of inflamming. I don’t need to address their problems and believe your decision to ‘mix’ them into the discussion represents itself for what it is.

Now, if you want to play that game, you can believe the word Lutheran is not in the Bible. In fact the term Lutheran doesn’t come from the Greek language, or anything near written in scriptures, which is unlike the term Catholic.

**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”.**

I’ve deleted the rest of your post. Even though you have no qualms about repeating the same arguments, without discussing responses, I have qualms about how many times I will repeat a response that is only ignored.

 

[Dokimas]

Matthew 28: Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.​

If Jesus commanded the disciples things and then told them to teach us to observe the same things, seems they are to us as well. If they aren’t for us then why tell the disciples to teach us to observe the same things Jesus commanded them? See my dilema?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Matthew 28: Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.​

If Jesus commanded the disciples things and then told them to teach us to observe the same things, seems they are to us as well. If they aren’t for us then why tell the disciples to teach us to observe the same things Jesus commanded them? See my dilema?

Truth must be for all or else, it’s mere opinion. In the CC, both the clergy and the laity follow the same teaching. This verse points that these truths are taught by the Apostles, not oneself and a Bible. I’m not quite sure I see your dilemma but perhaps you can explain it better to me.