You can't have it both ways.

[Dokimas]

Where’s the part about abolishing the priesthood?

Why do you ask?

 

[Dokimas]

The writers of these verses used the Septuagint, which has more books than yours.

They also use the term “we”, meaning those who are in communion with them, as Apostles.

When men left the Apostolic Succession, and rejected part of the Scriptures used by them, they also departed from these promises because they stopped being part of “we”.

Thanks for sharing your understanding.

 

[Dokimas]

I think this is a very dangerous place to go. If we concede that “spiritual” means the same as “intangible”, we will end up having to reject major principles of the gospel. Jesus glorified body was a spiritual body, yet it had tangible and material aspects. The burning bush was aflame, yet not consumed, The rending of the curtain in the temple at the death of Jesus was a spiritually caused event, yet had tangible results.

The Scripture is incarnational, just as Christ, and the Church. It has a material aspect, and a divine aspect. However, for those who read it from a carnal (wordly or fleshly) perspective, they find no life in it. It can be studied as literature, or archeology, and no Life be discerned in it’s pages.

The HS speaks through Scripture to the hearts of believers because their hearts have been quickened spiritually.

Agreed. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you ask?

Because unless you can provide a Scripture verse about the priesthood being abolished by Christ you’ve believed something that you’ve only heard from some fallible preacher.

 

[joe370]

Schaick, Dokmas and Rightlydivide - 2 Tim. 3:16 is used by sola scriptura advocates to prove that scripture is the inspired word of God. But how do we know that 2 Timothy 3.16 itself is inspired? This reasoning is circular.

2 Tim. 3:16 is inspired because 2 Tim. 3:16 tells me that 2 Tim. 3:16 is inspired.

Of course the same could be said about any church claiming to be the church founded by Jesus, if said church cannot prove it by using outside sources such as historical verification/proof. For example: I would not belong to the CC if the following reason was my only basis:

The CC is the church founded by God because the CC tells me that the CC is the church founded by God.

No protestant would either, and rightfully so! They would demand some sort of outside verification/proof that the CC was indeed founded by God. The CC simply making this claim is nothing more than speculation; relying on the testimony of those belonging to the CC, exclusively, would be circular, potentially biased and untrustworthy. Certainly the same stringent rules should apply to the bible as well!

The divine source that tells us that all scripture, including 2 Tim. 3:16, is inspired, lies within scripture itself. Relying on the testimony of the bible alone, exclusively, would be circular, potentially biased and untrustworthy. The bible, like the CC, simply making this claim is nothing more than speculation.

Here is how the conversation goes regarding both scenarios:

I believe the CC. OK, why is that? Because the CC says it is inspired. Why do you believe it is the inspired? Because the CC says that it is the inspired, and we believe the CC because…???

I believe the Bible. OK, why is that? Because it is inspired. Why do you believe it is the inspired word of God? Because 2 Tim. 3:16 says that the bible is the inspired word of God, and we believe 2 Tim. 3:16 because…???

I believe the CC. OK, how do you know the CC is inspired? Because the CC says it is inspired. Why do you believe it is the inspired? Because the CC says that it is the inspired, and we believe the CC because…???

OK, how do you know the Bible is the inspired word of God? Because 2 Tim. 3:16 says that the bible is the inspired word of God, and we believe 2 Tim. 3:16 because…???

If neither of these scenarios can be historically verified/proven by an outside source, then neither are to be believed. If the bible, according to SS advocates, is the only source of certainty, regarding the inspiration of the bible, then where does the bible list the books that are inspired, and how did that list get there, and why should I even trust this self-authenticating testimony if we cannot trust the self-authenticating testimony of the CC, which of course we cannot, without historical verification regarding the veracity of that statement,** of which there is plenty?** Without any outside historical verification or proof, this claim, as well as the claim that the CC is the church founded by God, is nothing more than speculation.

Please disregard the table of contents, for that was put there by the CC, which, according to SS advocates, teaches erroneously, and therefore is not to be trusted. If in fact, it cannot be proven that the CC (or any of the PC’s) - is the historical church founded by God, forever guided by the Holy spirit, then we cannot rely on that church (or any PC’s) - as a reliable source to verify and prove that the bible is the inspired word of God!

Also, keeping in mind the obvious: since infallible truth and the interpretation of said truth, according to SS advocates, can be found only in the inspired bible, all outside sources, proving that the bible is the inspired word of God, are to be ignored as nothing more than fallible tradition, leaving us with the bible alone to prove that the bible alone is the infallible inspired word of God, which, again, cannot be proven by any outside source, due to the hard and fast rule of sola scriptura, and even if sola scriptura allowed for this outside source, the only trustworthy outside source is the CC, for no other churches existed until the 16th century and therefore are not trustworthy eyewitnesses, which again, according to most SS advocates, teaches erroneously and can not be trusted anyway, as an outside source.

Your thoughts…

 

[joe370]

Schaick, you said:

You can not interprete Scripture away from what it’s original intention is meant to be.

Who has the authority to decide what it’s original intention was/is meant to be, when people disagree?

Yes we are all baptized into one faith -one body that has many parts. One interpretation with many applications.

Do you believe that there is one interpretation of the teaching of the Eucharist?

Those people have not followed the simple basic rules of how to interprete a writing.

Says who? They disagree with you based on the same authority to which you defer - the bible, so, to them, you are the one not following “the simple basic rules of how to interpret a writing.” Who or what has the authority to settle this dispute, a dispute that the bible cannot settle?

But there is flow we can always see that there was GOD’s Word avaiable to man. The gap you believe exists doesn’t because GOD’s Word was there the whole time- first orally, short time later the writings were there separately, not combined together. Then a bit later and then even after that when people were trying to add false Gospels were the first writngs made official.

So you do admit that oral tradition was the means by which the word was promulgated, for a period of time?

How would sola scriptura (the bible alone) - have worked during this period and during the period when those writings were not yet combined together as one volume?

Also, is it your contention that no one ever questioned the canonicity of one of the books of John, or Peter, or the book of Hebrews, James or Revelation, from the close of the apostolic age to the codification of the NT?

 

[schaick]

LOL!

You know that you have about a 15 minute window after posting in which you can delete posts.

Thanks! No I didn’t know.

 

[schaick]

Schaick, Dokmas and Rightlydivide - 2 Tim. 3:16 is used by sola scriptura advocates to prove that scripture is the inspired word of God. But how do we know that 2 Timothy 3.16 itself is inspired? This reasoning is circular.

2 Tim. 3:16 is inspired because 2 Tim. 3:16 tells me that 2 Tim. 3:16 is inspired.

Of course the same could be said about any church claiming to be the church founded by Jesus, if said church cannot prove it by using outside sources such as historical verification/proof. For example: I would not belong to the CC if the following reason was my only basis:

The CC is the church founded by God because the CC tells me that the CC is the church founded by God.

No protestant would either, and rightfully so! They would demand some sort of outside verification/proof that the CC was indeed founded by God. The CC simply making this claim is nothing more than speculation; relying on the testimony of those belonging to the CC, exclusively, would be circular, potentially biased and untrustworthy. Certainly the same stringent rules should apply to the bible as well!

The divine source that tells us that all scripture, including 2 Tim. 3:16, is inspired, lies within scripture itself. Relying on the testimony of the bible alone, exclusively, would be circular, potentially biased and untrustworthy. The bible, like the CC, simply making this claim is nothing more than speculation.

Here is how the conversation goes regarding both scenarios:

I believe the CC. OK, why is that? Because the CC says it is inspired. Why do you believe it is the inspired? Because the CC says that it is the inspired, and we believe the CC because…???

I believe the Bible. OK, why is that? Because it is inspired. Why do you believe it is the inspired word of God? Because 2 Tim. 3:16 says that the bible is the inspired word of God, and we believe 2 Tim. 3:16 because…???

I believe the CC. OK, how do you know the CC is inspired? Because the CC says it is inspired. Why do you believe it is the inspired? Because the CC says that it is the inspired, and we believe the CC because…???

OK, how do you know the Bible is the inspired word of God? Because 2 Tim. 3:16 says that the bible is the inspired word of God, and we believe 2 Tim. 3:16 because…???

If neither of these scenarios can be historically verified/proven by an outside source, then neither are to be believed. If the bible, according to SS advocates, is the only source of certainty, regarding the inspiration of the bible, then where does the bible list the books that are inspired, and how did that list get there, and why should I even trust this self-authenticating testimony if we cannot trust the self-authenticating testimony of the CC, which of course we cannot, without historical verification regarding the veracity of that statement,** of which there is plenty?** Without any outside historical verification or proof, this claim, as well as the claim that the CC is the church founded by God, is nothing more than speculation.

Please disregard the table of contents, for that was put there by the CC, which, according to SS advocates, teaches erroneously, and therefore is not to be trusted. If in fact, it cannot be proven that the CC (or any of the PC’s) - is the historical church founded by God, forever guided by the Holy spirit, then we cannot rely on that church (or any PC’s) - as a reliable source to verify and prove that the bible is the inspired word of God!

Also, keeping in mind the obvious: since infallible truth and the interpretation of said truth, according to SS advocates, can be found only in the inspired bible, all outside sources, proving that the bible is the inspired word of God, are to be ignored as nothing more than fallible tradition, leaving us with the bible alone to prove that the bible alone is the infallible inspired word of God, which, again, cannot be proven by any outside source, due to the hard and fast rule of sola scriptura, and even if sola scriptura allowed for this outside source, the only trustworthy outside source is the CC, for no other churches existed until the 16th century and therefore are not trustworthy eyewitnesses, which again, according to most SS advocates, teaches erroneously and can not be trusted anyway, as an outside source.

Your thoughts…

The Gospels we know absolutely are GOD’s Words because as I have mentioned before of the prophecies fufilled.

The letters are written by those we know were eyewitness followers or students of the eyewitness followers of that GOD’s Word and WORD, written to explain use of the Gospel by the various Churches. With Revelations not yet proven absolutely.

History, archeological digs are helping to prove the accuracy of Scripture-doesn’t prove it is from GOD though.

*“are to be ignored as nothing more than fallible tradition”/I]

Only if it is preaching a different Gospel and demanding us to do or believe something different is required for our salvation.

Show me the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences, etc.*

 

[StTommyMore]

We know this because God has revealed it through Sacred Tradition. We are going about this the wrong way on this thread, from both sides. The Protestants are viewing Scripture as the only source of revelation. The Catholics are putting forth that both Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition are sources of revelation. Both are incorrect. God is the source of all revelation, and Scripture and Tradition are the channels of this revelation. One we can agree that Scripture is NOT a SOURCE, but a channel, then and only then can we move forward.

 

[joe370]

The Gospels we know absolutely are GOD’s Words because as I have mentioned before of the prophecies fufilled.

The letters are written by those we know were eyewitness followers or students of the eyewitness followers of that GOD’s Word and WORD, written to explain use of the Gospel by the various Churches. With Revelations not yet proven absolutely.

History, archeological digs are helping to prove the accuracy of Scripture-doesn’t prove it is from GOD though.

*“are to be ignored as nothing more than fallible tradition”/I]

Only if it is preaching a different Gospel and demanding us to do or believe something different is required for our salvation.

Show me the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences, etc.*

You responded with something that does not answer my question. Stick to the facts, and my questions, please, unless of course you do not want to answer them.

 

[schaick]

Schaick, you said:

Who has the authority to decide what it’s original intention was/is meant to be, when people disagree?

Ask your self why would GOD leave us a writting? The Old Testament being the history of man. It shows us that we need a Saviour.

The intent GOD is for us to have a better relationship with GOD- receive salvation, walk towards righteousness.

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Do you believe that there is one interpretation of the teaching of the Eucharist?

I Havve answered this yes, with different applications.

Says who? They disagree with you based on the same authority to which you defer - the bible, so, to them, you are the one not following “the simple basic rules of how to interpret a writing.” Who or what has the authority to settle this dispute, a dispute that the bible cannot settle?

Have you ever once thought that maybe just maybe there is no need to settle? Among Trinitarian Christins if not spelled out specifically does it need to be settled.

So you do admit that oral tradition was the means by which the word was promulgated, for a period of time?

It is still GOD’s Word. Orally transmitted within one generation would not have the great chance of being distorted as if transmitted through hundreds of years.

How would sola scriptura (the bible alone) - have worked during this period and during the period when those writings were not yet combined together as one volume?

Also, is it your contention that no one ever questioned the canonicity of one of the books of John, or Peter, or the book of Hebrews, James or Revelation, from the close of the apostolic age to the codification of the NT?

No one ever questioned the Gospel message- The writting would have to mesh with the Gospel.

**Show me the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences, etc. **

 

[StTommyMore]

**Show me the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences, etc. **

Pope: Matthew 16:13-20, Acts 15.
Infallibility: see above
Eucharist: John 6, reaffirmed by the Early Fathers
Purgatory: your view is an incorrect view of Catholic teaching
Mary: It is called “Development of Doctrine” and no Marian Dogma is contrary to Scripture.

 

[schaick]

You responded with something that does not answer my question. Stick to the facts, and my questions, please, unless of course you do not want to answer them.

I believe I did. Can you ask a different way?

PRmerger said:
Because unless you can provide a Scripture verse about the priesthood being abolished by Christ you’ve believed something that you’ve only heard from some fallible preacher.

I understand what Dokimas is saying in that the priesthood was abolished- the old priesthood.

The Levitical priesthood and the order in the order of Aaron has been **changed **and we have a new High Priest in Christ who is forever the one and only High Priest.
**Hebrews 7 **

1 Peter 2
5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
…
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Revelation 1
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Revelation 5
10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."

 

[schaick]

Pope: Matthew 16:13-20, Acts 15.
Infallibility: see above
Eucharist: John 6, reaffirmed by the Early Fathers
Purgatory: your view is an incorrect view of Catholic teaching
Mary: It is called “Development of Doctrine” and no Marian Dogma is contrary to Scripture.

There is no question the Real presence in the Eucharist is Biblical. Worshipping the Eucharist is not mentioned.

Matthew does not support the tradition of the Catholic hierarchy and Pope as it stands today whether you believe that Church was built on Peter, his faith or the statement that he made about Jesus.

The example given in Acts 15 is an easy issue. They are questioning a requirement other then what GOD/ Jesus require/mention in the Gospel message for our salvation.

Is believeing the developed doctrines essential to our salvation, a requirement? If yes then it is as the yoke mentioned in Acts 15.

**
Show me the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences, etc. and that these are required for our salvation.**

 

[StTommyMore]

I believe I did. Can you ask a different way?

PRmerger said:
Because unless you can provide a Scripture verse about the priesthood being abolished by Christ you’ve believed something that you’ve only heard from some fallible preacher.

I understand what Dokimas is saying in that the priesthood was abolished- the old priesthood.

The Levitical priesthood and the order in the order of Aaron has been **changed **and we have a new High Priest in Christ who is forever the one and only High Priest.
**Hebrews 7 **

1 Peter 2
5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
…
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Revelation 1
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Revelation 5
10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."

Answer this: what is the purpose of a priest?

 

[StTommyMore]

There is no question the Real presence in the Eucharist is Biblical. Worshipping the Eucharist is not mentioned.

Matthew does not support the tradition of the Catholic hierarchy and Pope as it stands today whether you believe that Church was built on Peter, his faith or the statement that he made about Jesus.

The example given in Acts 15 is an easy issue. They are questioning a requirement other then what GOD/ Jesus require/mention in the Gospel message for our salvation.

Is believeing the developed doctrines essential to our salvation, a requirement? If yes then it is as the yoke mentioned in Acts 15.

**
Show me the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences, etc**. and that these are required for our salvation.

If the Eucharist is the very Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is not only worthy of worship, but if it is not worshiped you commit sacrilege.

 

[guanophore]

You misunderstand my statement and it is incomplete when separated from the following statement and what tht statement was addressing. An good example of how misintepretation happens- verses taken out of context with surrounding vereses, the Book and the whole Bible. just the way the Bible.

I agree. It is appalling how people will build an entire doctrine on a fragment, or a handful of fragments, while ignoring the rest of the Bible completely. I was amazed to be told recently here on CAF by a Reformed Christian that Jesus’ teachings did not apply to Christians (except for His teaching on the cross and faith in Himself). The moral teaching was just for the Jews.

 My Christian Church supports the teachings from the Apostles - the Nicene Creed, the Trinity.

To the extent that you know them, I am sure this is true. Some of the Teachings of the Apostles were never received by modern Christian Bible Churches, so they think such doctrines were “added by Catholics”.

In what way does saying GOD’s Word is final authority does that nullify GOD’s Word? We see the role Scripture takes when Jesus refers to it over a tradition.

It is your act of confining His Word to the Sacred Scripture, and trying to force Scripture into the role of authority, which it cannot fulfill. Jesus commissioned His Apostles, and gave them authority.Scripture is profitable in their exercise of authority. It cannot replace those God has appointed.

You still do not seem to make a distinction between Sacred Tradtition (the Word of God in the Church) and human traditions. Now that you have been made aware that there is a difference, you will be held accountable for your hardness of heart.

You can not interprete Scripture away from what it’s original intention is meant to be.

Right.

The original meaning is Catholic, because it was written by, for, and about Catholics.

 Yes we are all baptized into one faith -one body that has many parts.  One interpretation with many applications.

You can cling to this justification for creating new and different doctrines if it makes you feel righteous before God. It will change nothing. Sola Scriptura is a departure from the ONE FAITH of the Apostles.

Those people have not followed the simple basic rules of how to interprete a writing. A single verse MIGHT support on of their ideas but does the next verse? the Chapter, Book nd whole Bible, NO!

I am glad you can see this. Someday you will see that you are caught up in it, too.

 

[guanophore]

Can you show me concrete evidence that the Disciples worshipped the Eucharist? And that the Bread and fruot of the Vine became Real Presence and is not in under and with?

I don’t think so, schaick. I think if you cannot accept what is written in the Scriptures, the Early Fathers, and the unbroken faith of the Church in this, then there is no other more convincing evidence I could give you.

It is probably more useful to ask “can you show concrete evidence that the disciples did not believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord”? We do have some early evidence of this, and they are called “heretics”, meaning that their believe to the contrary of what the Apostles taught was a significant departure from the ONE FAITH that was handed down.

 

[guanophore]

But there is flow we can always see that there was GOD’s Word avaiable to man. The gap you believe exists doesn’t because GOD’s Word was there the whole time- first orally, short time later the writings were there separately, not combined together.

I wonder what need in you is met by fostering this fantasy? What purpose does it serve you to believe that God was not able to preserve His Word in the Church, where He placed it?

What evidence do you have, in Scripture, or out of it, that the Word of God delivered once for all to the saints was EVER separated from the written form produced by it?

Then a bit later and then even after that when people were trying to add false Gospels were the first writngs made official.

Well, false gospels were in existence already before the majority of the NT was written. However, it is true that the writings were canonized through the Sacred Tradition in order to fight heresies.

What all this boils down to for me-

I want to see evidence You misunderstand my statement and it is incomplete when separated from the following statement and what tht statement was addressing. An good example of how misintepretation happens- verses taken out of context with surrounding vereses, the Book and the whole Bible. just the way the Bible.

I agree - it is preposterous that people take small fragments of scripture, and create doctrines out of them. Doctrine is to be RECEIVED from those to whom it was authorized to be HANDED DOWN, not created 2000 years after the fact from taking verses out of context.

. There has been a failure of the Catholic denomination to show that chain of transmission where Sacred Tradition is considered in the following areas:

the teachings from the Apostles - the Nicene Creed, the Trinity.

First, you will have to show that Catholicism is denominated. Prove that the Catholic Church is not the one written about in the NT.

In the meantime, please be aware that all denominations have taken their names and identity from which part of the Catholic faith they have rejected. This is what it means to denominate.

Second, are you saying that the Nicean Creed and the Trinity cannot be traced through Sacred Tradition?

Don’t you see the difference?

No. To me, Paul is saying that God’s Word to them is to be preserved whether it is in writing, or by word of mouth.

Yes I understand that GOD's Word orally and written contains the concept that was later called the Trinity.

And others, reading the same scriptures, but not receiving the Apostolic doctrine, see something opposite contained.

Show us the chain of transmission and proof that the universal Church that Jesus built had a Pope instead of local Overseers/Bishops, an infallible Pope, worshipped the Eucharist, followed the Mary Dogmas, that we are requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences,

, etc.

It seems that your hostility toward Catholicism will make it impossible for you to see the Apostolic Succession, and the Catholic perspective on the faith.

Peter was in no way “instead” of the rest of the foundation stones Jesus used to build His Church. His gift of infallibility is also not separated from the rest of the Church. It seems this custom of separating and dividing is germaine to your spiritual inheritance.

The Apostles, their disciples, and all who believed upon their word worshipped Jesus. Jesus is present in Eucharist.

Some of the Marian Dogmas were not yet defined.

There is not, and has never been “requird to pay for our way out of pergutory or sins through indulgences”. I think your spelling errors and the bringing up of such a strawman is a demonstration of your frustration. Human beings are redeemed by the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross to pay for our sins. His blood is the only thing that can pay for sins. If you are not here to correct your misperceptions of the Catholic faith, though, this information will not help you either.

Show us that Paul and the Disciples believed all of those things mentioned and that they were required to be followed for our salvation.

Since you don’t believe that the traditions taught by Paul and the other Apostles come from God, then how could anyone show you this? If you can’t trust an infallible source, do you think I am prideful enough to think I can come up with a better one? I am not.

 

[guanophore]

The morphing occurred by man's attempt to add tradition/something that was not based on GOD's Word.

Such a “morph” (Sola Scriptura being a good example) does not equate to the Church founded by Christ as “morphed”. On the contrary, those that do such things depart from the One Church founded by Christ. The more of it that is done, the further the departure.

 The indulgences- man binding and loosing something Jesus never meant to be considered.  The authority figure because of his pride or greed binding and loosing in excommunicating Luther.

I agree with you. However, the abuses that took place through the hands of corrupt clerics were not then, never were, and are still not, part of the Teaching of the Church. Many things have been legislated in the name of God that were never meant to be, such as killing others who don’t believe as we do. This occurs on both sides of the Reformation.

Luther was not excommunicated because of pride and greed, though there were certainly those who were prideful and greedy. He excommunicated himself when he rejected the teachings of the Church. At the end of his life, he regretted what he had done. I hope those who refused to take his complaints seriously did also.

Just imagine how different Jesus' universal Church would look if all the later traditions had not been added.

This is a good example of the backward nature of thinking of which many Bible Christians are afflicted. They think that the Sacred Tradtitions were added, when in fact, they were subtracted at the Reformation, and since then.

Yes, I mean as far as an authority figure placed by GOD.  They are to bind and loose what GOD has already bound and loosed

Yes. Some clerics acted like wolves among sheep, though, misleading the flock to believe that they could donate money to expiate their sufferings.