It is so hard to just sit idle while you spout misinformation. I had planned to do this privately and I still think that we should because you seem to enjoy the attention.
To begin with The Catholic Church does not need to Interpret Sacred Scripture. She was there when Scripture was written. The Writers of Scripture were there and they were the Ones that Taught those that went on to teach others. She was there when Christ Himself explained everything to His Church and Commanded His Church to � Go to the Ends of the world and TEACH��.
Chuck, most of what was taught was taught by Word of Mouth�ORALLY! Nothing was written down until years later. There was an Oral Tradition in The Church that was Guarded ZEALOUSLY! There was no problem with excepting the Catholic Church as The Sole Authority concerning Sacred Scripture until after Luther rebelled.
It wasn�t your church Chuck that Christ Commanded�your church started�what�10 years ago from another church that split from another church because their Pastor offended them by demanding that they do something that their interpretation of Scripture said differently.
Your church get�s its interpretation from The Holy Spirit�right?
What does your church say that this Scripture means?
2 Thessalonians 2:15
�Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.�
And what about this one?
1 Corinthians 11:2
�I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.�
And this one?
Titus 1:9
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
It seems that Scripture says that the �message� that has been Taught must be passed on, but of course since The Holy Spirit shows you the correct interpretation�it should jibe with what The Church has known since the beginning.
So�Chuck�what does The Holy Spirit say this all means?
Steve I found many web sites with copies of the original decrees of Vatican II. Just google 'Vatican II the decree on ecumenism' you can even get it in latin!
I came across Chapter 2 verse 9 basically says you can't be discussing this stuff without the approval of your bishop ....oops!
Chapter 1 verses 21-22 should be of special interest to you and section II Seperated churches and Ecclesial Communities in the West.
(Sorry I would copy and paste but I'm on a smart phone)
After re-reading, basically the Roman Catholic church is saying there can be only one Church, but it cannot deny the reality of real Christians outside the Catholic church. Therefore it includes all who believe correctly and have been baptized into Christianity in to the Catholic church as kind of honorary members.
I thought I kinda did. I'm "reading" that you're implying that the Catholic church has held onto the traditions that were passed down from Peter and/or the apostles. I don't believe that is the case. As for a direct interpretation of the verses, the apostles were telling the believers to hold on to the truth/traditions that the apostles taught them from the scriptures. The Catholic church didn't hold on to the truth/traditions, and in my opinion, that voids the argument that the Catholic church is the "rock/pillar/true church". Denominations didn't exist during the apostles time. Churches as we know them didn't exist. The "church" was the body of believers, and there was only one body. It wasn't a man or a building that made the body the "church", it was how much truth the body was holding onto. The bible decides truth. The church doesn't decide truth. The church holds up the truth. In my opinion, based on what I've learned/observed from my father/grandmother, and based on historical facts, the catholic church strayed so far from the truth that it was hardly a Christian religion anymore. They're doing better now, but my conscience demands that I have to follow the body of believers that I believe is following the truth the most, and it is definitely not the Catholic church. Honestly, I can't believe that you can stick it out in there. I've been to a catholic church service 4 or 5 times and it's really weird. The Catholic churches I've been to had no bibles in the pews, the priest just gave a short 10-15 minute "talk" with lots of strange congregational cues(very robotic), then went on to communion. Maybe I'm weird, but I like a little more spiritual interaction/learning at church and less repetition. Maybe some Catholic churches are different, who knows.
The Catholic church has passed down teachings over time. The teachings of Christ have been passed down over time as well. Your assertion that the two have always been and are still the same is absolutely ridiculous.
It�s obvious that you don�t see how silly you sound. You may as well just say �Naaaaa!� and stick your tongue out! You�ve failed to show where Vatican II supports your claim. Asking me to do what you cannot do and asking me to show what is not there demonstrates how desperate you are.
Also, how long does it take for The Holy Spirit to �speak� to you and give you the interpretation of those verses?
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can understand those verses and deduce what they mean. They mean just what they say! The Teachings of Christ were passed on (Taught) �Verbally� (Orally). Sacred Scripture was not used because it was not written at that time. Whenever Scripture was mentioned by Christ it was The Old Testament that Jesus was speaking about.
Jesus Promised that His Church would Prevail and still be here when He Returns. He didn�t say that His Bride would �lose� some of The Deposit of faith that He left Her.
You are again wrong in stating that �Chapter 1 verses 21-22� it�s Chapter 1 section 3.. The 21 and 22 refers to footnotes.
Chapter 1 Section 3
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
21. Cf. CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VIII (1439), Decretum Exultate Deo: Mansi 31, 1055 A.
22. Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299
It would be nice if we could have a discussion, but it seems that you are having problems with connecting with The Holy Spirit which apparently renders you incapable of responding to my request. I thought that your church was "spirit filled"?
I assume you have read the Vatican II documents. I assume you see the Catholic church recognizes the Church as extending past the boundaries of Catholicism-----The Church is a Spiritual Church. So lets move onto your scriptures
Lets look at this scriptures in context : They were written by Paul (a important point) to the churches he started on his missionary trips to Thessalonica, (51AD) Corinth, (55AD) Titus@Crete, (64AD) Paul is writing telling them to keep doing what he had taught them when he was with them personally.
Good so far?
Steve you imply Paul was passing down the teachings of Peter, ie : Catholic church teachings and traditions. Well lets take look at this in light of scripture:
Galatians 1:11-23 ~ I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ........... I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after 3 years I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter And stayed with him for 15 days. I saw none of that other apostles--- Only James.
Galatians 2:11 ~ When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed to to his face, Because he was clearly in the wrong.
His church is prevailing, it's just not restricted to the Catholic church:winksmile:. Ok, question time for Arch. Why does the Catholic church remove the second commandment and split the 10th into 2 different commandments? That seems like a lot more than just "authoritatively interpreting".
I just read your post after mine posted, you are correct those are footnotes not verses, but it did get you go the right place on the document. I see you have even posted it. Do you see where it says (where the footnotes 21,22 are) : " ....it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christs Body and have the right to be called Christians, And so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic church."
As you can see in light of Galatians chapters 1 & 2, Paul did not get his teachings from Peter who is as you say "The First Vicar of Christ" nor did Paul view Peter as "infallible" so how can you interpret these scriptures to mean Paul was passing down the traditions of the catholic church?
