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!
“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.”
They wrote it down. The writings that were quoted were written directly by them. They were not passed down in oral form for generations until someone else wrote them down on behalf of the Apostles.
“Catholics claim the pope is Peter’s successor, not that he has miraculous powers.”
The Catholic Church claims an unending succession of Apostles to the present day. Those men of God were healing people, receiving visions, having discourses with God. They were heavily equipped for the mission God gave to them to do, which was to preach the Gospel.
These Apostles were also impoverished. They did not value material goods, but specifically rebuked a love for them. They also rebuked public displays of vain religion, such as rituals or chantings.
Meanwhile, the Pope, who claims the title Holy Father, even though the Bible calls us all wicked, and calls himself the Vicar of Christ, does not have any of these characteristics.
“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.”
The Jews did not attack him for not having the authority to interpret scriptures. He merely read them, and argued from them, and they were forced to accept His superior reasonings. This means that anyone could have read the scriptures, argued from them, and proven their meaning using scripture. There are never any appeals to tradition or some other authority, even an ancient one, other than the scripture.
Matthew 22
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
Instead of no longer asking Him any more questions, they would have accused Him of not obeying the accepted teachings of their time if things were as you claim. In fact, Jesus Himself condemns their reliance on traditions.
In other words, you’re spinning things to accept the Catholic insistence that only they can read the Bible and understand it, since that is necessary for them to continue such blasphemies as requiring people to submit to their church in order to have salvation.
“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.”
Regarding Acts 1. Last I checked, the Popish Church does not choose Apostles by lot after prayer. I will also note that Christ appeared directly to Paul, who was blinded, and later was filled with the Holy Spirit and was baptized. None of this was done by the decision of the Apostles, and yet he is called the Apostle Paul. The same can be said of so many other heroes of the Bible who were not ordained by men, but by God directly. So with what justification do we have to believe that your men, who are ordained by other men, have more authority than those called by God directly and are sent “straightway [preaching] Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God”?
Regarding 2 Timothy. What if the “faithful men” are not faithful, to whom you want us to commit ourselves to? The scripture also says that if any man preaches a different Gospel than the one delivered to us by the Apostles, that man is an anti-Christ. The Catholic Church delivers a different Gospel than the one given to us by the Apostles, because they specifically state that having faith in Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation. One must follow Popish rituals, appear at Mass or suffer a mortal sin, commit certain verbal and physical acts in order to enter a “state of grace” in order to receive communion, which they say is the physical blood and body of Christ that only they can offer.
The Gospel of the Bible was never so difficult. The Gospel is in so many ways a specifically spiritual message, requiring salvation and a ‘state of grace’ that cannot be seen except by God.
John 4:19-23
King James Version (KJV)
19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
And yet despite this, so much focus is placed on the ritual and the buildings and the objects in Catholicism. You assume that by participating in mass or in the Catholic traditions that they can achieve a “state of grace”, which then allows them to experience something no one else to experience.
And because I call this a lie, the Catholic Church condemns me to hell. Not because I do not submit to Christ, but because I do not submit to the Catholic “authority”.
“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...”
That’s quite the perversion of scripture. It says:
28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
He taught them “as one having authority” is not the same as “he claimed authority” or “he had authority”. It means He spoke as one having confidence, and wisdom, and understanding. There was no official title that he received from any Jewish religious institution. Therefore, He had no visible authority of which to appeal to, and no such authority was ever used against Him. If the Pharisees thought He had authority just by looking at Him, they would have obeyed Him. There is no similarity between this as the Catholic Priests or Bishops, who claim authority based on having a physical system give them a title to it. Your argument is pitifully weak.