Posted on 03/22/2014 5:42:31 AM PDT by Gamecock
One of the statements that Catholic e-pologists like to throw around against Protestantism is the relativism and disunity of private interpretation. While Protestants look to the scriptures for authority on faith-based issues, Catholics look to the authority of their visible church organization.
“"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC 85
Based on these claims by Catholics you would assume that a church-approved commentary of the Bible would exist to lead Catholic laypeople, especially Catholic apologists, to the correct interpretation of each biblical passage. Yet nothing even close to such a thing exists. In fact, very few biblical passages have been officially defined by the RCC.
“The Church has no official commentary on Scripture. The pope could write one if he wanted, but he hasn’t. And with good reason: Scripture study is an ongoing, developing field. To create an official commentary on Scripture would impede the development of this field.” Catholic Answers
I guess 2000 years (if you believe the RCC’s claim to history) is not quite long enough to figure out the truth. While some Protestants have written commentaries on the entire Bible in their own lifetime, the “infallible” RCC has been unable to even attempt the same in 2000 years.
“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent…” Catholic Answers
Off the top of my head, I do not no how many verses there are in the bible, but seven is certainly a very, very small percentage. Catholics keep telling me that the RCC has the “fullness of truth” - I think it would be more honest to say “a very slow development of truth”.
Where does that leave the Catholic apologist (e-pologist)?
“The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” Catholic Answers
Seems to me that much liberty could lead to chaos, and it does. Anyone who has interacted with more than one Catholic e-pologist knows that before long they begin to contradict each other.
But more to the point, how can the interpretation of a biblical passage by any Catholic apologist even be entertained? If their own infallible authority has only been able to define 7 passages of scripture over 2000 years, the apologist/e-pologist cannot have the integrity or the authority to even attempt to interpret scripture on their own. If they do, they fall into their own “private interpretation” trap so carefully, but foolishly, set for the Protestants.
Share some of your story. You are just brushing the surface. I didn’t miss your message; it was that your message contained no real examples.
BTW, are you aware of the origins of Amazing Grace? I won’t sing it because the theology of the song is not Catholic.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-amazing-grace-anti-catholic-hymn.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_a_Lapide
Odd, that's the same link and I tried it several ways. I must have screwed up embedding it.
Regards
Better first to believe in Jesus, then repent.
The holy Church carefully teaches us her children with what attention and confidence we should unceasingly have recourse to this loving protectress; and for this purpose commands a worship peculiar to Mary.
"We often obtain more promptly what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus.
Her Son is lord and judge of all, and discerns the merits of each one; and therefore if he does not immediately grant the prayers of all, he is just. When, however, the Mother's name is invoked, though the merits of the suppliant are not such as to deserve that his prayer should be granted, those of the Mother supply that he may receive."
"Many things," says Nicephorus, "are asked from God, and are not granted: they are asked from Mary, and are obtained." And how is this? It is "because God has thus decreed to honor his Mother"
This is what that wretched religion really teaches...Who but Satan would lead people away from praying to God, to pray to and worship a female goddess they call Mary...
AMEN! Time to end the bashing of Catholics or Protestants in the faith threads.
Those words and the warning I offered earlier regarding the phrase chosen and the spirit that it was/is perhaps used, regardless of how you might have perceived it, were all from the heart, a heart that is ever so slowly becoming flesh again instead of stone.
I offered that passage as a mirror, a mirror I must force my "self" to look into frequently, lest my hands, my feet, my will and especially my mouth condemn me, as has so often been the case.
I find Christian faith and belief is for me, and perhaps for many others, a process challenged continually by our Lord's enemy. As such, we each have our struggles finding, let alone walking, in His bloody footsteps.
So much easier to see the path in front of us with our light instead of His, especially in these interfaith arguments.
Ever been someplace really poor? The people are illiterate, most people in Mexico are poor
Fine point? God is God. Mary is not. That’s not a fine point. That’s a huge gulf. “Does the sale of patron saint statues and the rest of the saint commerce also translate as easily to the wretched poor around the world, as easily as it does to educated American Catholics?” Yes, in fact, in some ways, more so.
Which is why it goes on, the concentration of the everyday guy M-S is some saint or Mary. Jesus shows on Sunday, but if you need Him any other time call His ma. Great catechesis!
HaHa...Born again Christians know exactly what you are talking about and no examples are needed...
The same one that has the namesake burning the liver of the demon Asmodeus to drive him off?
guess that’s your loss.
Yep, just going to have to miss all the 'fake demon driving out' machinations. Just a total loss.
HaHa...Born again Christians know exactly what you are talking about and no examples are needed...
That's the verse that throws Catholics off...They don't buy into the idea that they are wretches...
Catholics don't follow Luther's tradition of "the Bible ALONE" as the sole rule of faith, because it is a human tradition.
There is no record of Luther's teaching in Scripture, Tradition, Church Teaching, or Church history, prior to Luther.
OTOH, Jesus established a Church which the "gates of hell" would not prevail against, instructing us to "listen to the church," and that those who fail to listen to the church should be treated "like a pagan or tax collector."
You're free to follow Luther's tradition, but don't expect Catholics to.
Thanks for the link.
We are aware of our sinful human nature, and that we are saved by "grace alone."
"Amazing Grace" is a beautiful but doctrinally flawed song, and is not inspired Scripture.
The term "wretch" suggests Calvin's doctrine of "total depravity," which is contrary to Church Teaching.
We believe:
CCC 405. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin — an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
And Jesus said to 'call no man father' so we can be sure it is not your religion that is being referred to when Jesus mentions 'church'...
What part of these lyrics is anti-Catholic?
http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/newton/amazingrace.htm
Even the author of your blog article makes a decent argument there’s nothing about Amazing Grace that should be viewed as specifically anti-Catholic.
But as for me, I prefer not to discuss my previous sins in a public forum. God has by grace cast them into the sea of His forgetfulness and I am happy to leave them there.
But I will tell you this. The transformation was immediate and miraculous. At the moment I found faith in Christ, my inner life became radically different. And so did my outer life, things over which I had no control. Influences, jobs, etc that were facilitating my problems were suddenly removed, all at once. I have at times said I felt like I was swept into God’s “witness protection program.”
And through it all, there was the unceasing gentle pull of the Savior’s love, appealing to me no matter where I turned to hide from it. Like CS Lewis, I could not escape the Hound of Heaven. And in a moment, in a hotel room in LA, I awoke, like the Prodigal Son suddenly coming to his senses in the middle of the pig pen of his life. And He was there for me, unsightly mess that I was. His grace is sufficient for me. 2 Cor. 12:9.
The scriptures disagree with your religion...
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom_5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
The fact that people sin automatically disqualifies them from a spot in heaven...ONe sin...That's all it takes...A person in that state is surely wretched...
If that was not true, we would have no need for a Savior...
What do you call fathers?
Have you ever called anyone "teacher?"
Have you ever moved a mountain?
Have you plucked out your right eye and thrown it away? (We are all subject to "lust of the eyes." [1 John 2:16])
Jesus often used hyperbole to make a point.
In this case, Jesus was criticizing Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). He used hyperbole to remind them that God is their Authority.
_____________________________________________
Additionally, the Apostles use the term "teacher" and spiritual "father."
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2). He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22). Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
“Ever been someplace really poor? The people are illiterate, most people in Mexico are poor.”
Mexico’s literacy rate is 93%.
It's amazing how many times your religion does what it can to justify its sin...
Other than the rich man in hell who was addressing what was a type of God, no one ever addressed another person as father, except to God...
You may be seen as the 'father' of your flock, but no one is to call you father...Scripture is clear on that...You can not come up with a legitimate excuse to call a priest father...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.