Posted on 05/07/2012 2:39:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
RE: Why is your interpretation of the Bible more believable than the Vatican’s? Did God speak to you directly and tell you that you have been chosen to “educate” others and that you are more knowledgable?
________________________
Roman Catholicism claims to be the only true church, and that it is the repository of God’s word and tradition. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church claims to tells us what the Bible really means and its members are not allowed to interpret scripture in a manner contrary to what the church says.
Non-Catholic Christians decry such a claim and point to Scripture alone (sola scriptura) as the final rule for everything it addresses. Roman Catholicism responds by saying it has dipped into the well of Sacred Tradition and drawn out truths that have been passed down from the apostles through the corridors of time in its halls, and since it is the “True Church” descended through Apostolic succession, it possess the authority to guide Christianity into the fullness of the faith. That is the claim. Is it biblical? No, it isn’t. But the problem is that the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura and appeals to its own authority and tradition, Sacred Tradition that is.
So, it is the Roman Catholic church alone that tells the Catholic what the Bible “really” means, and no one is allowed to interpret it apart from its eccliastical guidance. But, let’s look at Romans 14:1-12 for a bit.
“Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” 12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God,” (Rom. 14:1-12).
Notice the above verses.
God tells us that people are allowed to have differences of opinion on debatable issues.
What are those debatable issues? They are dietary and worship days, two highly significant topics.
If Paul tells us that each person should be convinced in his own mind, then how can it also be true that the Vatican has to tell you what to believe?
There is a problem here. If Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, really understood that the Church was to tell people what to believe, why did he write that each person should be convinced in his own mind — on debatable issues? The answer is simple.
The Roman Catholic’s claim to be the only true church, that has the only right to interpret scripture, and reveals “new” doctrines via its Sacred Tradition, is nothing more than a fabrication not based in scripture. It is not biblical. In fact, it is against Scripture.
RE: There, fixed it for you.
Is that a fix or is that your own interpretation?
The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Christ Himself. They not only claim it to be so, it is. Sorry you don’t belong. You’re missing out on a great experience. I’ll pray the Rosary for you.
the fact that both of you decided to go nasty and go “behind my back” so to speak to mock me tells me that neither of you have the moral authority to quote any scripture. A true Christian tries to pattern his/her life after Jesus. Jesus did not mock others. Therefore, you are not acting like a true Christian. It’s too bad the Catholic Church intimidates you so much. That is your problem.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
RE: the fact that both of you decided to go nasty and go “behind my back” so to speak to mock me tells me that neither of you have the moral authority to quote any scripture
___________________
I just responded to you on Post #141 above. How is that going behind your back?
RE: The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Christ Himself.
Excuse me? Christ founded HIS CHURCH. This includes EVERYONE who truly believes in Him and Obey His words. Why are you limiting it ONLY to your church?
If Paul had stated the position that one must look only to himself for interpretation or truth then your position might have some merit, but that is not what Paul stated. As a Catholic I look to the teaching authority of my Church for clarification and meaning, within the context of the Gospels, Scripture and Tradition for Truth. That is my decision to do so and that is not debatable.
See posts 136 and 137.
Seems like I’ve hit a nerve. I didn’t draw the lines in the sand of me vs. you. You did. My Church is Catholic. If you choose to knock the Catholic Church, then you are not a member. How much more simple can it be?
Everytime I respond to a post about a Catholic religious discussion I get attacked by members of other denominations, and in this case was mocked. I am merely defending my faith.
RE: Seems like I’ve hit a nerve.
Nope, you’ve hit something that is opposed to scripture. Therefore the assumption has to be questioned.
RE: I didn’t draw the lines in the sand of me vs. you.
I never made it an issue between you and me, I’ve asked you to defend your stance based on what the Bible tells us.
RE: My Church is Catholic.
Yes, I gather that is the term you use. But catholic in what sense?
My church is catholic too — which means it is UNIVERSAL. Universal in the sense that its members adhere to the doctrines of the apostles, whose beliefs were handed down by Christ Himself, as written down in His Word.
I am not going to let you own the term “catholic”. You can use the term “Roman” if you like. But catholic is not a term that one exclusively uses for his own.
RE: If you choose to knock the Catholic Church,
Excuse me? when did I knock the Catholic Church? Show me in my post on this thread.
I am simply questioning your assumptions. That is not knocking anyone.
RE: See posts 136 and 137.
Yes, I saw them and post 141 is my response to these.
RE: Everytime I respond to a post about a Catholic religious discussion I get attacked by members of other denominations,
Dear Mr. Moderator, I would request that you please review this thread and see if murron is being personally attacked or not ( at least by me ). I believe I have not done that at all.
I have never attacked him personally. I DO question his assumptions, and do not mind his responding to me in kind.
I believe this is allowed in the Religion threads.
Thanks.
If Post 136 wasn’t a knock, then I don’t know what is. And you didn’t even direct it to me, but to another poster about me. My faith is very precious to me, and I have been subjected to those who are not Catholic insulting my religion at every turn. I don’t ask that you agree with me, but I do ask that you respect my freedom to worship as I please. I have crucifixes, statues of Jesus and Mary, and Holy pictures throughout my house, as well as a beautiful collection of rosaries. I’m sure that must drive some on this forum up a wall, but I will not apologize or make excuses to those who think this is sinful or blasphemous. I answer only to God.
Why should Post 136 be a knock on you? It was directed at him and HIS POST.
Here it is again for your edification:
You gotta understand, for people like murron, scripture has to be interpreted ACCORDING TO HOW THE VATICAN TELLS THEM TO.
Now, where in the above post am I being inaccurate? If I am wrong, maybe you can correct me. Are you qualified according to the Vatican to interpret scripture for yourself?
If the answer is ‘Yes’, then I apologize for any inaccuracy.
As for respecting your freedom to worship as you please — GO AHEAD. I am not stopping you. if you feel that you need to subordinate your faith to the authority of the Vatican, you have the FREEDOM to do so.
Heck, I will even defend your freedom to do so when someone tries to take it away from you.
For that reason, "open" Religion Forum threads are often contentious and require thick skin.
Those who are offended by that style of debate should IGNORE the "open" RF threads altogether and instead read and post to threads labeled "caucus" "ecumenical" "prayer" or "devotional."
For example, only Catholics are allowed to post to RF threads labeled "Catholic Caucus." And antagonism is not tolerated on RF threads labeled "ecumenical."
If all religious debate bothers a poster, then he should IGNORE the Religion Forum altogether. by NOT using the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When he logs back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so he must be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
SeekAndFind, your post 136 was within the RF guidelines on such things but could and did redirect the discussion to murron, personally. By making a post "about" another Freeper personally, the thread can be pulled away from discussing the issues and lead to a flamewar. That is why the main guideline here is to "discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal." Also, if you mention another Freeper in a post, ping him to avoid offense.
That’s not what you meant and you know it. But I will say this. Who told you how to interpret Scripture? Why should I follow someone who is not of my religion? You can argue Scripture all day long, but I have heard three people take the same passage from the Bible and interpret it in three different ways. I used to listen to Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker, and they would take passages out of the Bible and interpret them to tell their listeners and viewers to send them money. This is why I take Scriptural interpretations by others with a grain of salt.
I understand the rules on open threads. I made an innocent remark regarding the topic of this thread, and when someone asked me about scriptural interpretation of my remarks, I responded in my own way. I wasn’t offended at that point. It was when a personal remark was made about me, not to me, that I became offended.
On this you are wrong.
First let us understand the meaning of the word church. It is not the definition as is proposed by most Protestant apologists which is an invisible church. The linguistic and theological context was the Jewish Qahal. The Qahal was a rigid and formal theocratic organizational structure in ancient Israelite society, aligned to the Masoretic Text of the Bible. The Greek equivalent was the ekklesia. It's meaning is more correctly translated as a convocation; a group called together for a specific purpose or function, and not some voluntary assemblage or membership. It has a deep tradition in Greek culture dating nearly 500 years before the time of Christ. Literally meaning the called or called out, it was a governing assembly of Greek city state. Its membership was very narrowly restricted to males over the age of 18 who had served at least two years in military service to the city. The Ekklesia had a very structured organization and was empowered to make the most important decisions for the city, that of declaring war, suing for peace, judging all capitol cases and the hiring, firing and trying of any public officials. It was in these traditions that Jesus formed His Church.
Matthew 16 tells us the how, why and context that Jesus established His Church. Jesus took the Apostles and some Disciples to Caesarea Philippi and before the rock and the gates of Hell asked them who the people said He was. He was demonstrating His rejection of a democratic, self interpreting Church. The response to the question was varied. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, some said one of the prophets. All were wrong.
He then asked the Apostles collectively who they thought He was and there was silence and He rejected an oligarchical or elite governance. Then, without consulting the other Apostles, Peter stepped forward and declared that Jesus was indeed the Son of the Living God, which was the correct answer. Jesus acknowledged this and declared that Peter could only have learned this from God, designating that like the He had through out the history of His people God had chosen one person to be the spiritual leader to carry on after Jesus. And there, before the rock that stood between the ancient temple city of Caesarea Philippi and the cave grotto that was known to the people on the region as the gates or jaws of hell declared, it was upon Peter that he would found his Church, His Ekklesia, His Qahal.
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.