The Rosary - What is Not Understood?

[GaryTaylor]

Tell me, how exactly can he make a decision when both ancient Church’s are giving conflicting statements on matters of interpretation?

I don’t know today, I don’t know who they use as Eastern Orthodox Bible scholars today?

 

[Steveabrous]

You can interpret scripture correctly. You can also interpret incorrectly. Again, the difference in perspective is that the RCC teaches that only a select few individuals from the RCC itself can interpret scripture correctly. You trust that. The protestant view doesn’t believe that. It’s a basic difference, one that we aren’t going to “solve” on a message-board.

Again, no. It doesn’t matter if they disagree with me, but they shouldn’t disagree with the Spirit. God is the authority behind the scripture, and He is the one that can interpret and teach you to apply. The “Vicar of Christ” is not the Pope, but rather the Spirit is the Vicar of Christ.

No matter how you spin it you are saying your interpretation is guided by the spirit and correct and if anyone disagrees then they are not listen it to the spirit. Therefore dubbing your interpretation as infallible. The problem is there are hundreds of people who think the same way but have come up with different interpretations. All I’m saying is someone is right and everyone else is wrong. And if we look at scripture we can see who that person is. And it’s not you:

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven**.”

Right. They also have fallible man interpreting and applying both scripture and tradition.

Really! Hmm. Well I have some question about some scripture passages I would like your opinion on.

Acts chapter 15:

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”

The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:

( in as nut shell you don’t have to get circumcised or obey Jewish dietary law)

Chapter 16:4 As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.

Here are my questions

1. Did everyone accept the decision made buy the council that we no longer required circumcision?

2)Why did the apostles have to deliver a letter with a decision for the church people to “obey” why didn’t the holy spirit just reveal to all christians the truth?

1. for that matter why would the church leaders need to come together, discuss it, and make a decision? Why didn’t the holy spirit just reveal it to everyone?
2. What gives the Apostles and the “church leaders” the authority to decide people don’t have to get circumcized anymore. Really? were talking about the law of Moses here. The promise given to Abraham. Who do these guys think they are?
3. but then if this is who the holy spirit works. Revealing truth to the church leadership through councils and not everyone individually, then dosen’t it stand to reason this is how it worked in the councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Trent, Vatican 1 ,Vatican 2, etc…?**

 

[sennincatholic]

I think that it’s important to dissect this assertion.

What is being proposed is that, independent of any outside authority, Kliska has studied all the NT documents **(AND, I must add, this means she has studied all of the other over 400 other ancient Christian texts) **and determined, of her own authority, that James, Hebrews, 3 John (which doesn’t even mention Jesus once, interestingly) are inspired, and the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, etc etc etc are NOT inspired.

This suggests an astonishing assertion: if the text critic decides* that, say, James is NOT inspired, she may then exclude it from the canon.

Wow.

If the text critic decides that the Epistle of Clement is inspired, then she may now quote from it as the inspired Word of God.

Wow.

See what a pandora’s box this paradigm will wreak?

Not only will there be, in addition to the obscenity of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one…

if the paradigm that is being espoused by Kliska is embraced, there will also be the obscenity of groups of Christians saying, “I declare that the Gospel of Thomas is the inspired Word of God!” “NO! The Book of Revelation is NOT inspired!”

Just what chaos and confusion hath been wrought by this very, very treacherous paradigm of declaring that we can read an ancient text and using “text crit” discern for ourselves what is inspired.

*Thus far, no criteria have even been mentioned by those espousing this view. “Text crit”–?? What, exactly, are the criteria?

Wao! Great post! Nothing to add.:clapping:

 

[Kliska]

No matter how you spin it you are saying your interpretation is guided by the spirit and correct and if anyone disagrees then they are not listen it to the spirit.

No, that’s what everyone else insists I’m saying.

Therefore dubbing your interpretation as infallible.

Hmmm… I say I’m fallible but the Spirit is infallible. Why does everyone have a problem with that?

The problem is there are hundreds of people who think the same way but have come up with different interpretations. All I’m saying is someone is right and everyone else is wrong. And if we look at scripture we can see who that person is. And it’s not you:

You’re free to think that and seek out what interpretation you feel is correct. A large portion of Christendom doesn’t interpret that passage the same as you even when they rely on Tradition as well as Scripture.

23 With them they sent the following letter:

Here are my questions

1. Did everyone accept the decision made buy the council that we no longer required circumcision?

Everyone except the Judaizers that continued to teach that converts must follow the Old Covenant. There is nothing that contradicts scripture here, nor the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Old. Also note that it was put down in writing; why was it put down in writing?

2)Why did the apostles have to deliver a letter with a decision for the church people to “obey” why didn’t the holy spirit just reveal to all christians the truth?

Again you seem to imply that sola scriptura doesn’t support that; it does. The flock here was a young one. They wanted to clarify the position of the New Covenant and did so and we know about it because it is recorded in scripture.

1. for that matter why would the church leaders need to come together, discuss it, and make a decision? Why didn’t the holy spirit just reveal it to everyone?

Once more, there are positions within the church, and also certain teacher, preachers, evangelizers, etc… gifted by the Spirit. The people were turning to those that brought them the gospel to clarify for them. Nothing against sola scriptura there either.

1. What gives the Apostles and the “church leaders” the authority to decide people don’t have to get circumcized anymore. Really? were talking about the law of Moses here. The promise given to Abraham. Who do these guys think they are?

Jesus Christ Himself taught the Apostles. He’s the one that did it. Where do you think those like Paul learned from? Do you think sola scriptura denies the Apostles or their teachings? It doesn’t. You believe that there is Apostolic Succession in a way that isn’t there, which leads to:

1. but then if this is who the holy spirit works. Revealing truth to the church leadership through councils and not everyone individually, then dosen’t it stand to reason this is how it worked in the councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Trent, Vatican 1 ,Vatican 2, etc…?

No, because the test is if the teaching contradicts known scripture. If it contradicts, then it is not Apostolic nor correct. The RCC has not erred in everything it has produced, but obviously even those that also see tradition and authority the same way the RCC does ALSO interpret scripture and tradition differently.

And we are back to beating a dead horse.

 

[Nicea325]

No, that’s what everyone else insists I’m saying.

Hmmm… I say I’m fallible but the Spirit is infallible. Why does everyone have a problem with that?

You’re free to think that and seek out what interpretation you feel is correct. A large portion of Christendom doesn’t interpret that passage the same as you even when they rely on Tradition as well as Scripture.

Everyone except the Judaizers that continued to teach that converts must follow the Old Covenant. There is nothing that contradicts scripture here, nor the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Old. Also note that it was put down in writing; why was it put down in writing?

Again you seem to imply that sola scriptura doesn’t support that; it does. The flock here was a young one. They wanted to clarify the position of the New Covenant and did so and we know about it because it is recorded in scripture.

Once more, there are positions within the church, and also certain teacher, preachers, evangelizers, etc… gifted by the Spirit. The people were turning to those that brought them the gospel to clarify for them. Nothing against sola scriptura there either.

Jesus Christ Himself taught the Apostles. He’s the one that did it. Where do you think those like Paul learned from? Do you think sola scriptura denies the Apostles or their teachings? It doesn’t. You believe that there is Apostolic Succession in a way that isn’t there, which leads to:

No, because the test is if the teaching contradicts known scripture. If it contradicts, then it is not Apostolic nor correct. The RCC has not erred in everything it has produced, but obviously even those that also see tradition and authority the same way the RCC does ALSO interpret scripture and tradition differently.

And we are back to beating a dead horse.

Councils not defend and define doctrines soley based on Scripture. Indeed beating a dead horse that the Bible is the final authority on all matters.

 

[Kliska]

Councils not defend and define doctrines soley based on Scripture. Indeed beating a dead horse that the Bible is the final authority on all matters.

No, they also relied on tradition and their opinion. Some agreed with all their conclusions in all the councils, some did not.

 

[Steveabrous]

No, because the test is if the teaching contradicts known scripture. If it contradicts, then it is not Apostolic nor correct. The RCC has not erred in everything it has produced, but obviously even those that also see tradition and authority the same way the RCC does ALSO interpret scripture and tradition differently.

And we are back to beating a dead horse.

There are no councils that contradict scripture. They may contradict your interpretation of scripture. But then we are back to who has the infallible interpretation of scripture.-The Catholic church who has been around since the beginning or you?

I would also submit that at the time of the council of Jerusalem the decision made most definately contradicted the scripture at the time, Since all they had was the old testament.

You also did not answer my main question. Why did the Holy spirit reveal the truth to the church leaders in a council and not reveal it to every individual christian as you is the way the holy spirit reveals truth?

 

[sennincatholic]

…and Kliska hasn’t explained yet why she considers the NT as inspired, even though the canon of the NT as we know it today, and which is the same in all Christian bibles, is a product of the catholic church…

 

[Nicea325]

No, they also relied on tradition and their opinion. Some agreed with all their conclusions in all the councils, some did not.

Precisely. Opinion? The criteria for doctrinal development does not incorporate opinions. If it were then all doctrines would be open for discussion. The chuch, tradition and scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit all play a big part.

 

[Kliska]

There are no councils that contradict scripture. They may contradict your interpretation of scripture. But then we are back to who has the infallible interpretation of scripture.-The Catholic church who has been around since the beginning or you?

But it isn’t just me, is it? No, it isn’t. So, we are left with several possibilities including the one where the Roman Catholic Church is in the wrong, and protestants are in the right. I don’t expect you to agree with that, but it is a possibility. It’s also a possibility that all protestants and the Orthodox branch of Christendom are all also wrong, and the RCC is right. You believe one thing and I believe another.

BTW, most of protestants also profess the Apostle’s creed including the bit about the catholic church, we just don’t believe it is the Roman Catholic Church in institutional form.

I would also submit that at the time of the council of Jerusalem the decision made most definately contradicted the scripture at the time, Since all they had was the old testament.

It didn’t if you could show where the Old Covenant was fulfilled, which is what Jesus did, which was what the gospel is all about. That’s what Paul regularly showed by arguing from the OT and preaching Christ and Him crucified.

You also did not answer my main question. Why did the Holy spirit reveal the truth to the church leaders in a council and not reveal it to every individual christian as you is the way the holy spirit reveals truth?

I most certainly did. We don’t deny the Apostles teaching of the gospel, nor do we deny teaching positions within the church body aided by gifts of the Spirit. We don’t deny that the fledgling churches asked for help from those that had brought them the gospel in the face of others coming to verbally talk to them about circumcision, and it did NOT stop all from teaching their legalistic ideas. Now, you didn’t answer my question; why a letter? And, in the future if the question came up again, don’t you think that letter would also make an appearance? Once more, you are trying to say that sola scriptura is something it is not.

The written word functions as a benchmark, and we know about these happenings because of scripture itself.

 

[Nicea325]

There are no councils that contradict scripture. They may contradict your interpretation of scripture. But then we are back to who has the infallible interpretation of scripture.-The Catholic church who has been around since the beginning or you?

I would also submit that at the time of the council of Jerusalem the decision made most definately contradicted the scripture at the time, Since all they had was the old testament.

You also did not answer my main question. Why did the Holy spirit reveal the truth to the church leaders in a council and not reveal it to every individual christian as you is the way the holy spirit reveals truth?

And the same has continued throughtout history. God chooses His bishops to define doctrines for us…not the masses.

 

[adf417]

But it isn’t just me, is it? No, it isn’t. So, we are left with several possibilities including the one where the Roman Catholic Church is in the wrong, and protestants are in the right. I don’t expect you to agree with that, but it is a possibility. It’s also a possibility that all protestants and the Orthodox branch of Christendom are all also wrong, and the RCC is right. You believe one thing and I believe another.

As I have said before Kliska, I am willing to submit to this one possibility if you can show me which protestant [is]are right and how you would know this.

Peace!!!

 

[pablope]

You can also interpret incorrectly.

 

[Kliska]

As I have said before Kliska, I am willing to submit to this one possibility if you can show me which protestant [is]are right and how you would know this.

Peace!!!

I have a perspective on who is right, but I would seriously doubt you’d really be willing to agree, as looking into teachers, preacher, pastors and denominations would have to include you willing to interpret scripture differently than the RCC tells you to.

Grace and Peace to you.

Yes…if you go on your own and claim it is the truth…as protestants do, isn’t it/

That would be your perspective, yes.

But it was the RCC that collected the writings now known as the Bible…and it intended these to be used for its Liturgy.

There is no one canon agreed upon by all Christendom, nor was that the only use of the manuscripts for the OT nor NT.

So…can you explain how the RCC can interpret the Scripture wrongly?

This seems like a rhetorical question, but again, Orthodox and Protestants don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church has some type of infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture.

Okay…who in the protestant view can interpet the Scripture correctly?

Any believer that is sealed and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It does take, as recorded in scripture, prayer, and diligent study and searching. A teacher blessed with the gift of teaching doesn’t hurt either. The Gospel is all about Jesus and what He has done, fulfilling the OT and establishing the NT.

Okay…can you then demonstrate how the HS would tell one person if they disagree with the HS? How would the individual know?

Have you ever felt led to something by the Holy Spirit?

And how about the individual who disagrees with your interpretation of a Scripture passage…who would you say has the correct interpretation?

It would depend on the passage, the interpretation, and the discussion and whether or not it is something I had studied, prayed over and searched out. Tithing is a good example. Many pastors teach the tithe, I thoroughly studied it, prayed about it, searched scripture, esp. the OT and then the NT idea of giving. I’ve concluded that the the tithe is not mandatory for us, but supporting our churches and teachers of those churches is called for. So, if I talk with someone that says the tithe is mandatory for NT believers, I’d say they are wrong.

How would I approach that? Through discussion and scripture.

And who did God use to give us the Scripture? Did the a piece of paper come down from heaven all of a sudden?

The lists of authors is readily available via “Google.”

Again…how does God provide us the correct interpretation?

Same answer; the Holy Spirit.

 

[adf417]

I have a perspective on who is right, but I would seriously doubt you’d really be willing to agree, as looking into teachers, preacher, pastors and denominations would have to include you willing to interpret scripture differently than the RCC tells you to.

And many other protestant denominations too, right?

Peace!!!

 

[dronald]

Other then Papal infallibility Show me the difference.

Alrighty…

They believe in the real presence

Not in the exact same way.

The have and believe in apostalic succession

How’d that work out?

They believe in the sacrements

To them, yours don’t count.

They even acknowledge the bishop of Rome was always the prime Patriarch.

Again… How’d that go? How can either be trusted as the One True with a simple mind like mine?

There is really not much of a difference. And honestly RCC recognizes EO as valid. So?

But not always vice versa.

 

[Kliska]

And many other protestant denominations too, right?

Peace!!!

Yep, there is that.

Grace and Peace!

 

[adf417]

Yep, there is that.

Grace and Peace!

And you’re not willing to tell us which protestants are right and which ones are wrong, correct?

Peace!!!

 

[Kliska]

And you’re not willing to tell us which protestants are right and which ones are wrong, correct?

Peace!!!

It would be quite a feat for even me to do that… there’s a lot of us. The idea is that we are personally accountable to God for what we believe if we are mentally able. When I share here, I choose to share what I believe. No one protestant speaks for the rest, not even Luther.

Grace and Peace!

 

[Steveabrous]

Alrighty…

Not in the exact same way.

How’d that work out?

To them, yours don’t count.

Again… How’d that go? How can either be trusted as the One True with a simple mind like mine?

But not always vice versa.

The point is The way to salvation is the same. through the church and the sacrements.

Not all EO deny aor sacrements

the differences between us are more political then theological.

You say they don’t believe in the real presence as we do. Yet we accept theirs as valid and not others . Hmm