Replies

I pray that Rome would obey the Gospel instead of it's distorted version.

I interpret that to mean...

"I pray that Rome obeys my version of the Gospel instead of its own version"

I find this to be nearly universal. Protestants think that Rome doesn't follow the Gospel because Rome doesn't follow THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION. Never mind that Rome can point to Scriptures and any unbiased person can see that the Bible can be interpreted a multidude of ways.

Again, to bring up St. Irenaeus of Lyons. If you would read some of "Against Heresies", you will discover that the problem of "correct interpretation" was a major part of HIS time, as well. WHO has the authority to offer the official interpretation? That is the question that is rarely addressed. Protestants implicitly demand that THEY THEMSELVES are the official interpreter of the Bible, even if the community as a whole tells them they are wrong!

How arrogant is that?

Regards

I find this to be nearly universal. Protestants think that Rome doesn't follow the Gospel because Rome doesn't follow THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.

I find this to be nearly universal, that Roman Catholics regurgitate indoctrinated Roman Catholic revisions, inventions, forgeries, fraudulent documents and un-Biblical, anti-Christian dogmas that pervert the Gospel of Christ. And do so just as predicted by the Roman Catholic historian, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger:

"In the future every Roman Catholic when asked why he believes this or that can and may give but the one answer: I believe or reject it because the infallible Pope has bidden it to be believed or rejected"---Declarations and Letters, pgs. 101,101.

But that tired old Roman Catholic nonsense of "personal interpretation" itself is contrary to Scripture and the early Church, particularly in that the Gospel is so clear, so simply stated that no "special interpreter" is needed. The need of a "special interpreter" is what the Gnostics purport.

Never mind that Rome can point to Scriptures and any unbiased person can see that the Bible can be interpreted a multidude of ways.

Strange, especially since Rome came to interpret Matthew 16 in contradiction to the consensus of the church fathers, as well as a great many other passages that Rome reads it's invented doctrines into where they do not exist, such as the "two swords" doctrine of the unam sanctum.

Protestants think that Rome doesn't follow the Gospel because Rome doesn't follow THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.

That argument is always amusing, since Roman Catholics have to make a PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of what Rome teaches them, or else Roman Catholics take everything on purely, blind trust that everything taught is the truth.

It goes like this, the pope or magesterium renders a teaching, that goes to the cardinals, who interpret what the pope and magesterium has taught.

Then it goes down to the archbishops, who interpret the cardinal's interpretation of what the pope or magesterium taught.

Then, it goes down to the bishops, who interpret the archbishop's interpretation of the cardinal's interpretation of what the pope or magesterium taught.

Then it goes down to the priest who interprets the bishop's interpretation of the archbishop's interpretation of the cardinal's interpretation of what the pope or magesterium taught.

Then each individual Roman Catholic must make a personal interpretation of the priest's interpretation of the bishop's interpretation of the archbishop's interpretation of the cardinal's interpretation of what the pope or magesterium taught.

Which is why popes, magesterium's, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and individual Roman Catholics have contradicted themselves more times than Budweiser has brewed beers.