Replies

You claim that the Bible is “written plainly for all men” and that there is no need for commentaries on it. If that is the case, why are there so many different Protestant denominations that argue over various interpretations? examples: rapture vs. no rapture, pre-millenium vs. post-millenium, necessity of baptism for salvation vs. baptism as a sign or seal, belief in the Trinity vs. no belief in the Trinity, etc. etc. There are over 33,000 different denominations today, usually started when a person or group disagrees with an interpretation of Scripture and leaves one church to start another. Jesus does not want this, as we can clearly see from these verses in the 17th Chapter of St. John where He prays 5 times “that they all may be one”:
“11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”

Your argument that Protestants can read the Bible and interpret it for themselves is laughable. 33,000 different interpretations of the same thing cannot all be correct. And yes, the interpretation of Scripture made by the Catholic Church is the correct one, having been the same for 2,000 years.

In addition, Protestants do not even believe certain passages of the Bible such as:

Matthew 16:17-19
John 6
I Corinthians 11: 23-29

When asked about the meaning or interpretation of these passages, Protestants will say that “Jesus didn’t really mean that” or “He was speaking figuratively” or “it doesn’t really mean what it says.” That sounds like “interpretation” to me! It is certainly not taking the words literally and at face value, but putting spin on it, and believing (or not believing) whatever you want it to mean. If you REALLY believe that Scripture is the revealed word of God, you would believe Jesus when He said: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51 and “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53-54 If you REALLY believed Jesus, you would believe that the wafer and wine at Holy Communion become Jesus’ body and blood, as the Catholic Church does, because Jesus said, “This is my body” Luke 22:19 and “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Luke 22:20. But you DON’T believe Holy Scripture. You don’t believe the words mean what they say and you want to put your own interpretation to them. And then you have the nerve to criticize the Catholic Church for taking Jesus’ words literally! What you are saying is “I don’t like those verses, and I don’t like the fact that the Catholic Church takes them literally, so I’ll just argue with the Catholic Church and that way I won’t have to believe what Scripture actually says.”

You also said: “I guess those false idols (er... statues of saints), the esteemed goddess (er... Mary), and the many assorted other items, practices, and superstitions were instituted by God.” How do you know they weren’t? Were you there when the Church was started 2,000 years ago? You might be interested to know that the tombs of the early Christians were decorated with pictures of the martyrs and that the martyrs’ bones were venerated as items of holiness. These facts can be confirmed by reading the writings of the early Christians - the Early Church fathers (”bishops” not “elders”).

As far as the commentaries that Origen read, even St. Peter made a commentary on what is now Scripture when he said: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16. The Early Fathers’ letters were commentaries on Scripture, either Old Testament, or what is now New Testament. Just because these writings had not been made a part of the Canon didn’t mean they weren’t out there and being read and commented on from the beginning.

And by the way, the word “pope” is derived from “papa.” How is that arrogant? The Pope is our Holy Father. He is our leader. It is not arrogant. Once again, you as a Protestant you do not believe Jesus or Holy Scripture: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19 Once again, the Catholic Church interprets this passage literally and Protestants say “Jesus doesn’t really mean it.”

Protestants make a lot of noise about believing “Scripture Alone” except they don’t even believe all of it. During the “reformation” Protestants even went so far as to take out books of the Bible because the books supported practices they wanted to suppress (i.e., praying for the dead as found in 2 Maccabees), and Luther added the word “alone” to his translation of Scripture because he thought it should be there. If he and other Protestants had truly believed that Scripture was the inspired Word of God, they would have never dared to add or subtract from it. This just proves the point that Protestants believe in “Scripture Alone” only when it serves their purposes and when it doesn’t, they change it.