Featured The Mark is coming

I dare say an extra Biblical interpertation.

 

Interpertation. Biblical base - Scripture references. The extra Biblical is what ever is not found in Scripture. And it might even be true. If there is a problem, it is with what is not true.

 

@Cathode I notice that you still refuse to deal with the glaring errors that are present in your theology [see post # 79]. Why is that? You keep trying to deflect the conversation, why? Could it be because you do not have biblical support for the traditions that your Popes have brought into your church?

 

First, we "study to show ourselves approved." We read God's Word (a RC needs never read the Bible nor even hear the Mass in English. Just go mindlessly through the motions and trust in your wafer and wine to save you.) We observe, ask questions on our observation, interpret our questions, look at the interpretation of others (this can include RCC interpretation), and then apply what we learned. It's not done in isolation, without checking interpretation against the history of the saints who went before us. Like the Berean Church who questioned and tested the Apostle Paul's teaching against scripture, so we test the words of men against the words of God. (Do you dismiss the Berean Church as being wrong in their actions because they dated to question the Apostle?)

I don't have a blanket disregard for the RCC. I know some believers in the RCC. They are born again, in spite of obstacles the RCC puts in front of them. In the catechism there is correct understanding. But, there is also very flawed, incorrect, understanding as well. How can I know? I can test the RCC catechism against God's word and see.

Cathode, do you ever open up a Bible and read it? Are you afraid of reading the primary source and thus confine yourself to one secondary source? (Yes, the commentary's of the RCC are secondary sources, not primary. They are interpretations of the primary source.) Is your faith in Jesus or in the Roman Catholic Church?

 

That is self explanatory. The RCC has no biblical authority as they want to exercise it.

The French Roman Catholic llinois surveyed the writings of the church fathers to see what the early church said about Mat_16:18 {Peter the rock} did they say that this made him the Pope he found 17 citations from church fathers who agreed that Matthew when he says the rock it's referring to Peter so 17 citations that make Peter the rock now they did not say that Peter was the Pope most of them don't even talk about that because it historically didn't exist yet but they did say that the phrase the rock referred to Peter he found 16 citations that identify the rock as Christ so those are split 50-50 he found 8 that identified the rock as all of the disciples not just Peter but all the disciples and he found 44 citations that identified the rock as the confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God so the favourite interpretation of the Church Fathers is that the rock is the confession of trusting Christ as God so 80% of the time the Church Fathers disagree with the Roman Catholic position.

Eamon Duffy, a Catholic historian, says there is nothing directly approaching a papal Authority in the pages of the New Testament. Mat_16:18-19 was never interpreted by the 1st century Church in terms of claims to preeminence by a non-existent monarchical Bishop of Rome or even later by the Apostolic fathers.

The Roman Catholic Church says that Matthew 16 has always been understood to make Peter the Pope.
In 1870 Vatican 1 made this false claim:
"We, for the the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, judge it to be necessary to propose, for the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy"

So as you can see the foundation your RCC is built upon is at best shaky but more to the point is flat out wrong. What have you provided that supports your view? The RCC say that only they have the authority to rightly interpret the bible because Mat 16:18-19 gives them that authority. That is circular logic and that is aside from the fact it is self-serving to say the least.

RCC doctrine
“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

The Bible
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Now which do you think we should believe, the bible or the RCC

 

Still not will to answer the question are you. Where is the biblical support for the RCC ideas. The fact that you admit that you do not even trust your God given ability to read and understand scripture says a great deal. You are trusting in other men to tell you what to believe but the question becomes how do you know if they are correct as they are only men just like you.

 

The Bereans had scrolls of the Old Testament. Paul always argued from the scripture of the Old Covenant, and the Bereans constantly checked God's word to verify and debate Paul's comments. They did not take Paul's word for it. God compliments the Bereans.
Do you dare to be a Berean, Cathode? Do you dare call for the RCC to prove itself from scripture alone?

No recreation! Reform!!! This is the call whenever leadership strays from God's word and creates myths and adds burdens to the church members. Rome Acts exactly like the scribes and Pharisees that added huge burdens upon Israel that God has not given. You refuse to accept this reality.

Jesus left us 39 Old Covenant books and 27 New Covenant books for us to read and observe, question, interpret, and apply. God has left us a legacy (Hebrews 11 and Hebrews 12) that are our witnesses to the walk of faith. All whom God has chosen, by grace alone, will persevere in faith to the end.

God has the true interpretation and God alone. Not any man. Not any institution. Only God. This is why we study God's word rather than the secondary writings of fallible men. Let that sink in.

Indulgences are not in the Bible. Nowhere does God ever grant an indulgence to reduce time in purgatory by you reading the Bible. Here you make an assertion that is extra-biblical. You place your faith, not in God, but in a man-made institutionary secondary source. You do what the Pharisees did. You take from a commentary and force it up on yourself.

Are you not listening to me?
We...
Observe
Question
Interpret
Check our interpretation with the many number of saints that came before us to see what they said. If none agree with us, we are very likely wrong.
Apply to our lives

Cathode, do you do this? Do you labor and wrestle with God's word? Or are you lazy, trusting the secondary commentary of one group of self-proclaimed elites without asking if they got it wrong?
Cathode, you answer to God, alone. The RCC won't be there to advocate for you before the throne of God. Will you be able to come boldly before the throne of grace, knowing your high priest is eternally advocating for you against the deserved wrath of God the Father because of your sins? Can you stand in confidence before the throne of God, knowing by faith that you are 100% justified by faith in the shed blood of Christ, once and for all, for your sins?
Can you do that? Or are you desperately trusting in the RCC as your advocate? If it's the RCC, then you are doomed.

 

One thing you can depend on; if there is no pasture in a field, and the dude/shepherd can't be bothered to provide it, it won't be long before the sheep find a way through the hedge and go into the field next door. That's what happened at the Reformation and what is still going on today in Central and South America. It is also going on in Britain today, where the major denominations, including the Church of Rome, are falling off a cliff, but Bible-believing congregations are steadily increasing.

 

there is an elephant in the room which you are trying to ignore; namely that the Roman Catholic Church is itself conflicted. There are different interpretations of RC doctrines all over the place, and most Roman Catholics I have met can't stand Pope Francis.

In fact, the 1st Century churches were all over the place! Just read Galatians and 1 Corinthians. People were interpreting Scripture for themselves, and the teaching coming out of Jerusalem was very often false (Acts of the Apostles 15:1; 21:20; Galatians 2:11-14. Note the temporary split between Paul and Peter described there). Paul was rushing about fire-fighting for much of his life.

Wherever the Bible is taught truly, there you will find the true Church. The unity of the churches is not organizational but spiritual. Disagreements on secondary matters do not affect that unity (Romans 14:1-23). I have attended many Christian conferences where I have been blessed by Christian brothers of many different churches and denominations. It is when churches move away from the Bible, as the Church of Rome has done, that problems begin.

 

Do you not understand what Gal 1:8 is saying? That verse destroys the RCC.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (CCC 95)

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Notice what Paul does not add to the gospel message {sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church}. The RCC is preaching another gospel another means of salvation. They are to be accursed / anathema.

The object of the person’s faith is not just Christ but also the RCC.
… faith in the forgiveness of sins not only with faith in the Holy Spirit, but also with faith in the Church. (CCC 976)

The RCC has assumed authority for itself that it does not have. It has set itself up as having authority over even the word of God as they claim they are the only ones that can correctly interpret it. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

 

All humans are fallible, Cathode. That's the point. Your reliance upon fallible men in the RCC should cause you fear.
I have no problem with reading and observing scripture, then checking my interpretation against the equally fallible saints of old to see how they interpret the passage.
My point is we should look at more than just one person's view. That means we look at others views, not just the RCC view.
Martin Luther made observation. He checked it against the official RCC position. He also checked it against other monks within the Augustinian order. Here's a newsflash: Martin Luther was not the first Monk to read scripture and see God teaching justification by grace alone in the letter to the Romans. There were many monks, living south of Rome who also held to justification by faith alone. It wasn't until the Council of Trent that the RCC rulers decided on an official doctrine of justification by faith plus works. Note, however, that the Pope stacked the deck at Trent to keep the voice of the Augustinian monks from being heard. He stacked it so that only he and his cronies had a say. Cathode, God honors our efforts to know what God thinks and to acknowledge that there are wolves in the church we need to be discerning of. Check the RCC interpretation, but also check others to see if there is difference and why there is difference. Here's my personal opinion, which may encourage you: When I check the RCC commentary on various Bible passages, I often find agreement with my observation and the observation of other Protestant scholars. We often agree. Isn't that great! That means the agreement is truly from God. It's the areas of disagreement where we have to work and see how and why there is a difference and what Greek word and phrase makes human interpretation different. We are called to wrestle, not to crawl into a corner and fear that we are somehow going to be smitten by God because we want to know God personally. I encourage you to check the saints as a whole. Ask yourself why anyone would be afraid of you reading the Bible, observing, questioning and interpreting. Why do they want you to remain ignorant and living in fear?