Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:
Seriously? That prophesy can just as well be (and in fact is) used to show Mary as the new Eve Rick. Do you know who Mary as the new Eve's sons are? EVERYONE. You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Of course you have to interpret that as the new Eve's sons. If you interpreted it as Mary's actual children, you'd have to throw away the perpetual virgin, the immaculate conception, and that would mean no more Mary worship. Could you imagine that! Catholicism without focusing on the blessed virgin! Oh the humanity!

In other words you're back to precisely the point I said at the outset you'd be back at, i.e. authority and interpretation. What else is new. But yet again I remind you, you cannot from now on claim Catholics have no scriptural support. You can claim incorrect interpretation, fine with me, we can argue that all day long. But at least be honest enough to drop the claim it's not in scripture.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
Seriously? That prophesy can just as well be (and in fact is) used to show Mary as the new Eve Rick. Do you know who Mary as the new Eve's sons are? EVERYONE. You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Of course you have to interpret that as the new Eve's sons. If you interpreted it as Mary's actual children, you'd have to throw away the perpetual virgin, the immaculate conception, and that would mean no more Mary worship. Could you imagine that! Catholicism without focusing on the blessed virgin! Oh the humanity!

In other words you're back to precisely the point I said at the outset you'd be back at, i.e. authority and interpretation. What else is new. But yet again I remind you, you cannot from now on claim Catholics have no scriptural support. You can claim incorrect interpretation, fine with me, we can argue that all day long. But at least be honest enough to drop the claim it's not in scripture.

Byblos, keep saying that. It might actually pertain to the topic one of these times. That verse doesn't back up Catholicism. If interpreted your way, it just backs up a belief about Mary being compared to Eve. That's not an exclusive Catholic comparison. If interpreted as I claim, it completely erases the eternal virginity of Mary. I realize your dilemma Byblos. And I don't really expect you to take my side in this. If the Catholic dogma about the eternal virginity of Mary is wrong, it opens up a huge can of worms for Catholicism. If that dogma is wrong, then the infallibility of the popes is wrong, then Catholicism pretty much falls apart. Nothing short of God Himself revealing that to your heart will change your beliefs. Lifelong beliefs are very difficult to give up.

Just remember, there's always room for you on this side of the Tiber.

[Byblos]

Byblos, keep saying that. It might actually pertain to the topic one of these times. That verse doesn't back up Catholicism. If interpreted your way, it just backs up a belief about Mary being compared to Eve. That's not an exclusive Catholic comparison. If interpreted as I claim, it completely erases the eternal virginity of Mary. I realize your dilemma Byblos. And I don't really expect you to take my side in this. If the Catholic dogma about the eternal virginity of Mary is wrong, it opens up a huge can of worms for Catholicism. If that dogma is wrong, then the infallibility of the popes is wrong, then Catholicism pretty much falls apart. Nothing short of God Himself revealing that to your heart will change your beliefs. Lifelong beliefs are very difficult to give up.

Just remember, there's always room for you on this side of the Tiber.

Well thank you for at least acknowledging the typology between Mary and Eve. But wait, if you do that then my interpretation of that prophecy is very well within the realm of possibility and does not threaten Catholicism in any way. Yay! Thank you Rick, you just saved the Chrurch Christ built (according to my interpretaion of course).

Look, it's been fun with the witty sarcasm and all, but really, like I said and I will repeat, this will always come down to a matter of interpretation and of authority.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
Thank you Rick, you just saved the Chrurch Christ built (according to my interpretaion of course).

I just saved the Catholic Church? Does that mean I'll be canonized as a saint?

I wanna be St. Richard the Sarcastic. Byblos, can you put a recommendation to the Blessed Virgin for me?

Look, it's been fun with the witty sarcasm and all, but really, like I said and I will repeat, this will always come down to a matter of interpretation and of authority.

Byblos, ultimately it comes down to right and wrong. At least one of us is wrong. Are you truly open to God showing you the truth?

Remember, you thought you agreed with Jac in regards to my absolute assurance of salvation beliefs. Didn't you see a change of tune in how Jac now sees my belief? Think about it Byblos. Listen to the HS. He will lead you into all truth.

[Philip]

Renowned theologian Norman Geisler weighs in on "Papal Infallibility: http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-4.pdf

(was posted on Christian Research Institute's website (Equip.org) in Part Four of its article ("An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism")

And here are the first four parts to the same CRI article:

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-1.pdf

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-2.pdf

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

[Byblos]

Byblos, ultimately it comes down to right and wrong. At least one of us is wrong.

Finally something we can agree on.

Are you truly open to God showing you the truth?

Lol Rick, really, who are you talking to here. You think I'm some neophyte who just stumbled upon Catholicism and was blinded by it? I've been doing this (apologetics) for the better part of a decade now, mainly on a Protestant site (in the lion's den so-to-speak). Not that I'm branding myself an expert or anything but I mention it only as emphasis on the fact that I've seen practically every argument there is against Catholicism and I can say this without a hint of any doubt whatsoever that I am more of a believer today than I ever was. So as you can see I hold the position I do, not from ignorance but from knowledge followed by conviction. All of this to say of course I am open to the truth, are you? You see comments of this nature serve nothing but to make us look arrogant and condescending so let's dispense with them, shall we.

Remember, you thought you agreed with Jac in regards to my absolute assurance of salvation beliefs. Didn't you see a change of tune in how Jac now sees my belief? Think about it Byblos. Listen to the HS. He will lead you into all truth.

It sounds like you're saying either you changed your mind or Jac changed his so I fail to see the connection. But I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, can you point me to it?

[PaulSacramento]

My views as a former RC and current "old catholic" ( Catholic in the sense of universalist and one that does NOT accept the authority of the Pope).
Mary is the Mother of Christ and as such, the correct view as "mother of God" should be stated as "Mother of the Son of God".
Peter was in Rome ( Babylon) and apostolic tradition cites His death in Rome.
As for being the first "pope", sure why not?
Jesus had brothers and sisters, James and Jude for example, and the only real issue with this is IF you believe/agree with the doctrine of Mary being a perpetual virgin and, to be honest, I don't and there is no evidence that Joe was married before or had other kids when he married Mary.
The euchrist - the body and blood of Christ- is symbolic in the sense that the waffer and wine do NOT become actual flesh and blood but it is important to realize the significance of them and Christ's atoning sacrifice ( that His body WAS BROKEN and His blood WAS SPILLED).
My understanding of Papal infallibility is that he is infalliable in matters of RCC doctrine that is approved by the council of cardinals.

[Byblos]

My views as a former RC and current "old catholic" ( Catholic in the sense of universalist and one that does NOT accept the authority of the Pope).
Mary is the Mother of Christ and as such, the correct view as "mother of God" should be stated as "Mother of the Son of God".
Peter was in Rome ( Babylon) and apostolic tradition cites His death in Rome.
As for being the first "pope", sure why not?
Jesus had brothers and sisters, James and Jude for example, and the only real issue with this is IF you believe/agree with the doctrine of Mary being a perpetual virgin and, to be honest, I don't and there is no evidence that Joe was married before or had other kids when he married Mary.
The euchrist - the body and blood of Christ- is symbolic in the sense that the waffer and wine do NOT become actual flesh and blood but it is important to realize the significance of them and Christ's atoning sacrifice ( that His body WAS BROKEN and His blood WAS SPILLED).
My understanding of Papal infallibility is that he is infalliable in matters of RCC doctrine that is approved by the council of cardinals.

Then I'm sorry "old catholic" is even more of a misnomer, old catholics are more Catholic than I'll ever be.

[jlay]

Geisler brings up some good points.

I have several issues with the institutional Catholic church, but I also have many with protestants. And I'm not particularly interested in just taking shots at the RCC. In fact, I'd say that better than 50% of protestants (based on their beliefs) would be better served by reconnecting to the RCC.

-Boasting on the approval of the canon. This one just never made sense too me. We already know that God inspired scripture even while Israel was in captivity in Babylon. God used an apostate Israel for a thousand years, and yet we don't seek out Jews today or praise them for the OT canon. The fact that the catholic institution played a role in 'authenticating' the canon, doesn't carry much weight with me. Certainly the Catholic church played a critical part, but what does that mean? Israel was used, and look at its history. Sticking that in my face as a proof, actually has the opposite effect. It shows pride and trust in institutions much like the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked.

Papal lineage- Geneologies were important for the Old Covenant. We know that as they reference them often. After the cross, this kind of thinking is discouraged and not held in authority. (Titus 3:9)
What is even more of a problem is that the NT clearly shows a shift from the Jewish ministry of Peter to the Gentile ministry of Paul. Paul, by office, and by writing is by far the Apostle who was called by Christ to instruct the believer for today. This is even endorsed by Peter himself.

Finally, the early church fathers obviously got a lot of things right. But we also know they got a lot of things wrong. Even prior, the majority of Paul's letters were written to correct error. In fact Paul corrects Peter. But even that said, I don't see Ignatius quotes as supporting the bread and wine as actually physically becoming real skin and blood. What I do see is that hundreds of years later some started reading into thes words of the early church fathers the presuppositions they already held. Presuppositions ingrained through the shift of encorporating pagan traditions into the church over a long period of time.

All Christian appologetics have used the apostolic fathers to show that the early Christians believed in the divinity of Christ, but some evangelical apologists suddenly become allergic to their teachings when it came to things like the eucharist, the hierchial structure of the church among other things.

Yes, but there is a difference. The scripture itself speaks to this truth. So, we see the early church confirming what is also evident in the scripture. Is this so with the eucharist? Not even close. The quote from Augustine, which really wasn't early, paints a picture that I doesn't seem to hold to transbustantiation. I hope you understand that he is often sited by Protestants when it comes to arguing against this.

Jesus meant this literally and not figuratively, and this is also why in the bible many of Christs followers left him because they couldn't understand how someone could eat the flesh of another , but his 12 stayed with him for as they said, his are the only words of eternal life.

They couldn't understand his teaching. They THOUGHT He was being literal, when He was speaking figuratively. That doesn't even hold to the context of the actual supper. Much like when He spoke to Nicodemus about being born again. We know that Nic took it to mean a literal, physical birth, which it wasn't. Next, Jesus was not yet dead. He offered the bread and wine as evidence of the new covenant, which He would soon ratify at His crucifixion. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Even the way Jesus had already referred to "cup" symbolically totally blows that argument out of the water.
I am amazed that people think physically injesting actual blood and flesh has anything to do with what Christ's was teaching and illustrating. But it does show the power of religious tradition.

[bippy123]

Geisler brings up some good points.

I have several issues with the institutional Catholic church, but I also have many with protestants. And I'm not particularly interested in just taking shots at the RCC. In fact, I'd say that better than 50% of protestants (based on their beliefs) would be better served by reconnecting to the RCC.

-Boasting on the approval of the canon. This one just never made sense too me. We already know that God inspired scripture even while Israel was in captivity in Babylon. God used an apostate Israel for a thousand years, and yet we don't seek out Jews today or praise them for the OT canon. The fact that the catholic institution played a role in 'authenticating' the canon, doesn't carry much weight with me. Certainly the Catholic church played a critical part, but what does that mean? Israel was used, and look at its history. Sticking that in my face as a proof, actually has the opposite effect. It shows pride and trust in institutions much like the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked.

Papal lineage- Geneologies were important for the Old Covenant. We know that as they reference them often. After the cross, this kind of thinking is discouraged and not held in authority. (Titus 3:9)
What is even more of a problem is that the NT clearly shows a shift from the Jewish ministry of Peter to the Gentile ministry of Paul. Paul, by office, and by writing is by far the Apostle who was called by Christ to instruct the believer for today. This is even endorsed by Peter himself.

Finally, the early church fathers obviously got a lot of things right. But we also know they got a lot of things wrong. Even prior, the majority of Paul's letters were written to correct error. In fact Paul corrects Peter. But even that said, I don't see Ignatius quotes as supporting the bread and wine as actually physically becoming real skin and blood. What I do see is that hundreds of years later some started reading into thes words of the early church fathers the presuppositions they already held. Presuppositions ingrained through the shift of encorporating pagan traditions into the church over a long period of time.

All Christian appologetics have used the apostolic fathers to show that the early Christians believed in the divinity of Christ, but some evangelical apologists suddenly become allergic to their teachings when it came to things like the eucharist, the hierchial structure of the church among other things.

Yes, but there is a difference. The scripture itself speaks to this truth. So, we see the early church confirming what is also evident in the scripture. Is this so with the eucharist? Not even close. The quote from Augustine, which really wasn't early, paints a picture that I doesn't seem to hold to transbustantiation. I hope you understand that he is often sited by Protestants when it comes to arguing against this.

Jesus meant this literally and not figuratively, and this is also why in the bible many of Christs followers left him because they couldn't understand how someone could eat the flesh of another , but his 12 stayed with him for as they said, his are the only words of eternal life.

They couldn't understand his teaching. They THOUGHT He was being literal, when He was speaking figuratively. That doesn't even hold to the context of the actual supper. Much like when He spoke to Nicodemus about being born again. We know that Nic took it to mean a literal, physical birth, which it wasn't. Next, Jesus was not yet dead. He offered the bread and wine as evidence of the new covenant, which He would soon ratify at His crucifixion. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Even the way Jesus had already referred to "cup" symbolically totally blows that argument out of the water.
I am amazed that people think physically injesting actual blood and flesh has anything to do with what Christ's was teaching and illustrating. But it does show the power of religious tradition.

Jlay I cited augustine as an additional source. You did not answer my quotes on ignatius who clearly is speaking of the eucharist being the flesh of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, and Justin Martyr. I provided these 2 because they were very early on. I understand that Augustine spoke in metaphors also when he spoke about the eucharist, but I can also speak of it that way. It doesn't negate the physical meaning of it. When Augustine said Jesus held himself in his own hands he literally meant this as it is plain to see when reading the whole verse.

Again ignatius of Antioch spoke of the eucharist being the flesh of Christ only when the eucharist is performed under the bishop or someone under the bishop. Protestants can't escape this because ignatius was taught at the feet of John the post ls. Now the challenge for you jlay is to find me just one apostlic father who disagree with ignatius and called this belief a heresy. If you can't then it is pretty clear from the earliest Christian believes that the Eucharist was the flesh and blood of our lord. Ignatius didn't call it the bread of immortality for the heck of it.
Instead of being condemned it is actually being confirmed by Justin Marty and others down the line.

Of course if you wanna interprete things personally you can deny almost anything in the bible ad make it sound to your own personal beliefs. Don't Mormons and jehovas witnesses have their own interpretations also.

The power to bind and loose wasnt given to every Tom and Harry , Jesus gave that authority to Peter and the apostles, and contrary to what Protestants believe, Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the good news, not wrote a book.the bible even says that if all that Jesus had done were to be written down we won't have enough books to hold them.
The early Christians believed in sacrad tradition and sacrad scripture , not sola scriptura alone.
The original bible wasnt put together until the early 5 century Jlay, what did the early Christians do in the meantime ?
They developed doctrine . There was also many disagreements over what belonged in the bible and what didnt belong in the bible. Who finally decided what belonged in the bible?
It was no other Church then the Catholic Church , the original Church of Christ.
Christ understood that personal interpretation of Scripture would lead to chaos, and that is why he left us one holy and apostolic church and gave her the power to bind and loose .
Never had the church didnt have this authority until the reformation set the stage for chaos and as a results we have 1000's of different denominations and churches , each with their own personal doctrines and beliefs.
How so you get unity from personal interpretation ?
You don't
What did augustine say when it came to authority?
Sure he had many personal opinions but when it came to authority
"Rome has spoken , the matter is settled"

The classical case of division caused by personal interpretation of scripture is Arminianism and Calvinism .
Both know the bible inside and out , yet they disagree on some extremely I portent issues. Who is right?
According to personal interpretation no one will ever know.
Do you seriously think that Jesus would leave us without an authority to bind and loose (interpret and settle doctrinal matters) on these issues ? He plainly gave the authority to bind and loose to Peter and the apostles.
The authority was then passed down by Peter and the apostles to the one holy and catholic apostolic church which can trace its lineage in Christian history all the way to Peter and the apostles.

Paul even spoke against sola scriptura
http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

Sola scriptura or bible alone is a modern invention in the 16th century which wasnt even practiced by the apostles.
This is clearly in the bible.

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

[PaulSacramento]

My views as a former RC and current "old catholic" ( Catholic in the sense of universalist and one that does NOT accept the authority of the Pope).
Mary is the Mother of Christ and as such, the correct view as "mother of God" should be stated as "Mother of the Son of God".
Peter was in Rome ( Babylon) and apostolic tradition cites His death in Rome.
As for being the first "pope", sure why not?
Jesus had brothers and sisters, James and Jude for example, and the only real issue with this is IF you believe/agree with the doctrine of Mary being a perpetual virgin and, to be honest, I don't and there is no evidence that Joe was married before or had other kids when he married Mary.
The euchrist - the body and blood of Christ- is symbolic in the sense that the waffer and wine do NOT become actual flesh and blood but it is important to realize the significance of them and Christ's atoning sacrifice ( that His body WAS BROKEN and His blood WAS SPILLED).
My understanding of Papal infallibility is that he is infalliable in matters of RCC doctrine that is approved by the council of cardinals.

Then I'm sorry "old catholic" is even more of a misnomer, old catholics are more Catholic than I'll ever be.

LOL, probably !

[bippy123]

For those that are interested, this article speaks about the Eucharist, the Catholic view of the Eucharist(Transubstantiation), the church history regarding differing Eucharist beliefs, etc. It basically refutes what Bippy posted. Let the reader be the judge.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/transubstantiation.html

Again the keyword in your post is "let the reader be the judge" and according to the criteria of personal interpretation some will be convinced and others will not and thousands of others will have other personal opinions on what is true.
Personal interpretation Rick.
Was it practiced by the apostolic fathers?
It clearly was not as ignatius of Antioch said in his letters to the smyrneans
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

The Fathers of the Church

Christian writers of the fist and second centuries show a Church with a hierarchical structure, having power to teach and rule, a bishop being in charge of each community.
The fourth Pope, St. Clement, wrote a long letter to the Church in Corinth about A.D. 96, endeavoring to settle dissensions there. He states: 'Our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop. In their full knowledge of this, therefore. they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of. and they went on to add an instruction that if these would die, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office (Corinthians, no. 44).

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Church in Smyrna about A.D. 107 exhorts them: 'Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father' (Smyrneans, no. .

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and the great opponent of Gnosticism in the second century, insists on the need to follow the Church's bishops if we are to have the truth. 'It is necessary to obey the presbyters in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father' (Adv. Haereses, IV, 26, 2).

Irenaeus names all the Bishops of Rome down to his own time, and says: 'In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us' (111, 3, 3).

No personal interpretation of scripture here . Ignatius clearly is telling people to follow the bishop,and the early church fathers that came after him tell their fellow Christians to follow the one holy and apostolic Church. They didnt instruct them to interpret scripture personally.

When I was going to evangelical bible study, the was a verse from the New Testament "work out your faith in fear and trembling. There were at least 3 different personal interpretations on this, and if pushed further it will lead to 3 different churches since no one had the authority to interpret scripture authoritatively. The early Christians all were unanimous in declaring to their fellow Christians to follow their bishops. But the Catholic Church has the clear line of apostolic succession .does yours?

The early Christians never taught as Paul said for us to be the judge. The ones who are given the authority to interpret scripture was the church and according to scripture and sacred tradition. The early Christians didnt tell us to listen to anyone, they specifically told us to listen to the authoritative interpretation of the apostles , the apostolic fathers and the church fathers which were all chosen before them.
An unbroken line of apostolic succession which the Catholic Church has.
Does your church have this unbroken line of apostolic succession .
There are new churches popping up left and right.
Under what apostolic succession do they operate?
That's right they have known.
Again which church had the authority to decide on the canon of the bible?
The original church if Christ with an unbroken line of apostolic succession?
Or the church of Luther, the church of Calvin or the church of some pastor who under his own authority decided to form his own church. Again personal interpretation leads to division, disunity and chaos among us.

I.

Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?" Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles." Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

[bippy123]

Byblos wrote:
Seriously? That prophesy can just as well be (and in fact is) used to show Mary as the new Eve Rick. Do you know who Mary as the new Eve's sons are? EVERYONE. You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Of course you have to interpret that as the new Eve's sons. If you interpreted it as Mary's actual children, you'd have to throw away the perpetual virgin, the immaculate conception, and that would mean no more Mary worship. Could you imagine that! Catholicism without focusing on the blessed virgin! Oh the humanity!

In other words you're back to precisely the point I said at the outset you'd be back at, i.e. authority and interpretation. What else is new. But yet again I remind you, you cannot from now on claim Catholics have no scriptural support. You can claim incorrect interpretation, fine with me, we can argue that all day long. But at least be honest enough to drop the claim it's not in scripture.

Exactly Byblos, and we are left with personal interpretation . What did the apostolic fathers and the early church fathers say about personal interpretation and the need to follow the teachings of the bishop and the successors to the apostoles?
Again I ask which church has an unbroken chain of apostolic succession?

What's to stop anyone today according to personal interpretation to take out parts of the bible because they didnt agree with their own personal interpretation of what the bible means.
Martin Luther took out the deuteros precisely because those books spoke about purgatory.
He also wanted to take out revelations and the book of James .
Can u imagine the bible without them?
Who was the only church with the authority to decide which books belonged in the original bible that was put together in the late 5th century?
The Catholic Church

What's to stop me right now from forming my own church and interpreting scripture to how I personally feel it should be interpreted. Absolutely nothing and viola we have another denomination of Christianity with my own set of personal opinions.

[PaulSacramento]

The early Christians never taught as Paul said for us to be the judge. The ones who are given the authority to interpret scripture was the church and according to scripture and sacred tradition. The early Christians didnt tell us to listen to anyone, they specifically told us to listen to the authoritative interpretation of the apostles , the apostolic fathers and the church fathers which were all chosen before them.
An unbroken line of apostolic succession which the Catholic Church has.
Does your church have this unbroken line of apostolic succession .

The Orthodox church can make such claims also of course, as can any church that DOES have a clear line of succession with the apostles ( which every denomination claims to have I think).
Where does the Holy Spirit come into play then?

[bippy123]

What did the early Church leaders teach on this?


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

Scripture and history

We find the basis in Scripture. At the Last Supper, Jesus told his Apostles: 'The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you (Jn. 14, 26). 'When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth' (Jn. 16,13).
The twelve Apostles were chosen by Jesus to shepherd his Church, with St. Peter as the supreme leader. 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' (Mt. 16, 1819).

St. Paul, knowing that the truth would remain in the Church, speaks of 'the Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe' (1 Tim. 3, 15). Although individuals go astray, therefore, the Church will not. This ecclesial aspect is important, as indicated by St. Peter in his warning: 'we must be most careful to remember that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual' (2 Pet. 1. 20).

This is the apostle Peter speaking here speaking clearly against personal interpretation of scripture.
How do you argue against something so plainly said, and its in the bible itself.


Next we turn to clement of Rome , a student of the apostles Peter and Paul

The Fathers of the Church

Christian writers of the fist and second centuries show a Church with a hierarchical structure, having power to teach and rule, a bishop being in charge of each community.
The fourth Pope, St. Clement, wrote a long letter to the Church in Corinth about A.D. 96, endeavoring to settle dissensions there. He states: 'Our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop. In their full knowledge of this, therefore. they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of. and they went on to add an instruction that if these would die, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office (Corinthians, no. 44).

Again this speaks clearly about authoritative interpretation and the need to follow the bishop and against personal interpretation and the divisiveness that it causes. That is why the is one holy catholic and apostolic Church and many different Protestant denominations .