“Indeed. 2 Pt 1:20-21: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” 2 Thes 2:15: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Pt 3:16 speaks of uninstructed/unstable people twisting Paul’s written word.”
And yet, we have their letters, their speeches, their wisdom, all in the Bible.
If anyone had authority, it was those men who worked miracles wherever they walked. The Pope has no such power.
“Jesus says in Mt 10:40 that whoever receives one of the apostles receives him and the one who sent him. He makes a similar statement regarding those he appointed in Lk 10:16. The Lord even told us in Mt 23:2-3 that he honored the Jewish magisterium’s authority but criticized their hypocrisy.”
Is that what you would like us to do? Honor the Catholic Church’s self appointed authority but criticize their hypocrisy? But yet we also have Jesus debating with the Pharisees and demonstrating how they were wrong in their interpretation of scripture. In fact, He did not point to the authority of some Jewish rabbi in a Rabbanical decree printed 300 years prior in a Jewish Catechism. He pointed to the scripture itself to back up each and every point. Therefore, if Jesus did not appeal to some Jewish Rabbi to explain the scripture, why would you have us appeal to Catholic tradition to explain the scripture? The scripture should defend the scripture, and there are no examples of your Popish ways in the Bible.
Respectfully, that was the Lord questioning the religious leaders. We should not be so arrogant as to believe that we have the same genius as our Lord when interpreting the very scripture inspired by Him.
Not sure what your point is unless you're suggesting that the Bible contains the entirety of their wisdom. If so, it seems unlikely that a culture that relied on oral transmission would commit everything to writing. Especially in times of persecution, but I don't argue with your right to hold an opinion.
If anyone had authority, it was those men who worked miracles wherever they walked. The Pope has no such power.
Catholics claim the pope is Peter's successor, not that he has miraculous powers. Take issue with that, if you like, but please don't misrepresent the teaching. If it's papal infallibility that you're referring to, that relates only to matters of faith and morals, and is not personal impeccability (inability to sin). There's more to it but I suspect you're not inclined to hear it so I'll just say that Jesus himself didn't hold Peter to a standard of perfection (Lk 22:31-32) despite giving him a position of leadership in the Church. But he did state that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against it. If the Church is filled with lies, then Jesus was wrong, wasn't he? Either you believe Jesus' words or you don't. Either you believe Scripture (church as pillar and foundation of truth) or you don't. Or perhaps your point was that apostolic succession is not scriptural, however Acts 1:15-26, 2Tim 2:2 and Ti 1:5 tell us otherwise.
Is that what you would like us to do? Honor the Catholic Church’s self appointed authority but criticize their hypocrisy?
This is why I don't care to dialog with people of ill will. Scripture has multiple references to the authority of the Church and Peter's position of primacy in it. It's only "self-appointed" to those who choose to view it in that light. There are ample scriptural references to support the Catholic view even if you personally choose to discount such verses. As for hypocrisy, yes there has been hypocrisy and sin in the Church from the beginning. All the apostles abandoned him on Thursday evening. One betrayed him. One denied him. None had the courage to do the right thing and only one had the guts to show up at the crucifixion. And it is sometimes that way today. Among many Christians, not just Catholics, by the way.
But yet we also have Jesus debating with the Pharisees and demonstrating how they were wrong in their interpretation of scripture.
True. He claimed authority to interpret Scripture. And he appointed 12 apostles to go and preach (he didn't say it had to be in writing). Jn 14:26 and 16:13 were spoken to the apostles, not the throngs who followed Jesus. You are free to disagree with the Catholic interpretation but you are incorrect to suggest it's not scriptural.
In fact, He did not point to the authority of some Jewish rabbi in a Rabbanical decree printed 300 years prior in a Jewish Catechism. He pointed to the scripture itself to back up each and every point.
Wrong. Jesus pointed to HIS authority (Mt 7:29) to interpret scripture. In Mt 5:21-48 Jesus seems to contradict your assertion that scripture fully backed up his each and every point. He took his followers beyond what scripture laid out every time he said, "But I say to you..."
Therefore, if Jesus did not appeal to some Jewish Rabbi to explain the scripture, why would you have us appeal to Catholic tradition to explain the scripture?
First, I wouldn't expect a noncatholic to appeal to Catholic tradition :) Second, I do not presume to have the same authority Jesus had. Therefore I choose to rely upon scripture (reading Old Testament as a type of the New) AND tradition (the authority of those Jesus appointed to spread his message) AND the writings of the early Fathers. Lacking fluency of the original language of the manuscripts and not having deep knowledge of the culture, I'd rather go with the understanding of early Christians and Fathers closest to the apostles than rely solely on my vantage point 2,000 years later. I also take seriously the last line in John's gospel, which means those closest to Jesus (the apostles and the fathers who learned from the apostles) just might have information I can never glean from Scripture.
The scripture should defend the scripture, and there are no examples of your Popish ways in the Bible.
I do not presume to put preconditions on Scripture. I trust the Holy Spirit was fully capable of saying whatever he wished without my making any demands on Him.
As for my "popish ways," I suspect I could find plenty of examples in the Bible to support my beliefs and practices. And I further suspect you'd discount each verse I gave you. I put away proof texting games a long time ago. You'll have to find someone else to play. It's past bedtime and I have a few prayers yet to say. Yes, they're probably vain and repetitious in your eyes. But my Bible says that Jesus prayed the same prayer three times in the garden. And that the hosts of heaven unceasingly repeat the same prayer of praise. I consider those pretty good role models :)
This papist wishes you peace :) Thank you for making me feel incredibly joyful in my Catholic faith as I trudge off to bed!