Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure.” Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?
Why is it important to defend the tradition of St. Peter and Rome?
The importance of establishing St. Peter’s ministry in Rome may be boiled down to authority and more specifically the historic existence and continuance of the Office of Vicar held by St. Peter. To understand why St. Peter was important and what authority was given to him by Christ SPL has composed two lists – 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy and 13 Reasons St. Peter Was the Prince of the Apostles.
The rest of the list is cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Peter and represents only a small fraction of the evidence set therein.
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):
“Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory”.
He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:
“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says:
“If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John.”
In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”.
By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).
There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.
Everything in this universe was willed into existence by the mind of God. That includes Mary. Mary's perfection was best addressed by the venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen:
"When Whistler painted the picture of his mother, did he not have the image of her in his mind before he ever gathered his colors on his palette? If you could have preexisted your mother (not artistically, but really), would you not have made her the most perfect woman that ever lived—one so beautiful she would have been the sweet envy of all women, and one so gentle and so merciful that all other mothers would have sought to imitate her virtues? Why, then, should we think that God would do otherwise? When Whistler was complimented on the portrait of his mother, he said, "You know how it is; one tries to make one's Mummy just as nice as he can." When God became Man, He too, I believe, would make His Mother as nice as He could—and that would make her a perfect Mother."
Peace be with you
Sad but true, yet Reformation is not the work of one day or two, and there is much to unlearn from Rome, which did indeed sanction torture and other things she now condemns.
And you have not answered http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=948#948
You mean as you did when you posted your erroneous assertion that Peter was mentioned in Scripture more than all the other apostles combined, which was not even close? And which you have yet to admit?
As for your assertion here, where is your documentation that refutes your fellow RCs? Just some pictures? To you want a green Qur'an? http://images.go-makkah.com/upload/images/dossiers/go-makkah-hajj-oumra-f66jb5-the-holy-quranjpg.jpg
You were even on the FR thread which tried to deny this but in which the opposite is the only thing documented: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2820143/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2820143/posts?page=85#85
At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam. - http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=10415
Father Joe, Pope John Paul II Kisses the Koran: "The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by bowing and kissing the Koran as a sign of respect." - http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/debates/anti-catholicism/pope-john-paul-ii-kisses-the-koran/
and this scripture that you refer to came to by what means????Lutheranism?, mr zwingli?, mr Wesley and brother?perhaps Henry VIII...no, well then how about Calvin......oh wait a second, they, and you, can read scripture because of the Catholic Church.....at least say thank you!!
well how long can that take you to research??????
Paul told the believers that there was no other foundation laid, but Christ. This was in answer to the fact that people were putting emphasis on particular men, instead of putting their whole faith and attention on Christ. This was causing division in the Church. Paul said that he, Apollos and Cephas were mere ministers, which in the Greek means servants of Christ.
Paul emphasized that each believer was complete in Christ, therefore not needing to elevate any other person between themselves and God. Everyone is the temple of the living God. Everyone owns all things. All have access to unspeakable knowledge given by The Holy Spirit. All have the mind of Christ. All are Saints. The whole idea of anyone being lifted up as some lift up Peter and the Popes was obviously anathema to Paul. No man should glory in any person, but only in God was his ardent message.
Everyone, open up the Bible and read the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians. This topic is spelled out here. No man should be lifted up and gloried in. Anyone who has an honest heart and cares about the truth cannot read these chapters and come away thinking that anyone should be lifted up and glorified other than God. God is there for each one of us, Himself, through Jesus Christ our LORD. Therefore, we should not divide off under particular human leaders.
____________________________________________
1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
____________________________________________
1Cr 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's.
absolutely not, the Catholic Church is infallible because Christ said so....Now, one cannot accept something valid without the Catholic Church endorsement because ONLY the Catholic Church is infallible.
never happened, never! By the way, the Catholic church brought you the scriptures....say thanks Catholics!!!!
You should have read 4 more posts down, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=947#947, but at least you did not state your support of that claim.
We can both agree it is tragic in any case, yet unlike RCs, evangelicals can separate from liberal Prots who are too much like most of RCs, whom Rome treats as members in life and in death, and thus whom you must remain with. From STATISTICS COMPARING ►CATHOLICS + EVANGELICALS
77% of Catholics polled "believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter. http://www.catholictradition.org/v2-bombs14b.htm
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly, 2004) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases. 2004, The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4%
Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^
Comparing 16 moral behaviors, Catholics were less likely to say mean things about people behind their back, and tending to engage in recycling more. However, they were also twice as likely to view pornographic content on the Internet, and were more prone to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets. ^
Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.catholicleague.org/research/Catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
26 percent of Catholics (2007) polled strongly agree with the Church's unequivocal position on abortion Catholic World Report; 2997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut
46 percent of Catholics who say they attend mass weekly accept Church teaching on abortion; 43 percent accept the all-male priesthood; and 30 percent see contraception as morally wrong. ^
A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
71 percent of priests responded that it always was wrong for a woman to get an abortion, 19 percent that it often was, and 4 percent seldom/never. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
28 percent judged that is always was sin for married couples to use artificial birth control, 25 percent often, 40 percent never. ^
96% of evangelical leaders worldwide disapprove of abortion at least conditionally, with 51% (59% in the “Global South,” including Africa) affirming that abortion is always wrong, with 45% saying it is usually wrong. 84% say that society should discourage homosexuality, and 79% say that men should serve as the religious leaders in the marriage and family, and 71% of the leaders are male, yet 75% think that women may be allowed to serve as pastors. (in contrast to historical Protestantism). http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Christian/Evangelical_Protestant_Churches/Global%20Survey%20of%20Evan.%20Prot.%20Leaders.pdf
A study which broke down Mainline Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, and non-Hispanic Catholics into the three subgroups of traditionalists, centrists, and modernists, found that 5.3 percent of the population qualified as traditionalist Catholic, 5.4 percent as centrist Catholics, and 4.9 percent of were modernist Catholics. The Henry Institute, A Pre-Election Analysis http://www.calvin.edu/henry/civic/CivicRespGrant/rel&08election.doc
Traditionalist Catholics disagreed that “abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide” 71 to 21 percent, centrist Catholics agreed 54 to 40 percent, and modernist Catholics agreed 80-16 percent. ^
For those in black Catholic churches, political affiliation or leaning in 2007 was 17%/74% Republican/Democrat, and 11%/76% for black evangelical churches. Opposition to homosexuality 37% by black Catholics and 58% by black evangelicals. Opposition to abortion was 35% by black Catholics and 53% by black evangelicals. 66% of black evangelicals and 36% of black Catholics say they attend services at least weekly. http://www.pewforum.org/A-Religious-Portrait-of-African-Americans.aspx
71% of Evangelicals, 35% of Protestants and 25% of Catholics said that a candidates position on abortion would have a lot of influence on their decision of who to vote for in 2012. Likewise 63% of evangelicals, 35% of Protestants and 19% of Catholics and said a candidates position on homosexual marriage would have a lot of influence on their decision. Barna, April, 2011 http://www.barna.org/transformation-articles/482-voters-most-interested-in-issues-concerning-security-and-comfort-least-interested-in-moral-issues
73% of Catholics polled say they believe Catholic politicians are under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend, with 75% disapproving of denying communion to Catholics who support legal abortion, while 70% of Catholics say that the views of Catholic bishops in the US are unimportant to them in deciding for whom to vote, and 69% of say they feel no obligation to vote against candidates who support abortion. Belden Russonello & Stewart, "Secular and Security-Minded: The Catholic Vote in Summer 2008," Catholics for Choice, July 2008. http://www.catholicvote.net/page7/page22/page22.html
65% of Catholics supported a tax increase for the wealthiest Americans in 2006, up from 52 percent in 2002. Majorities of Catholics support issues traditionally considered planks of the Democratic Party platform: universal healthcare, pro-labor policies, access to abortion, and social welfare programs for the poor. http://cara.georgetown.edu/NewsandPress/PressReleases/pr061808.pdf
50% of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they stopped believing in Catholicism's teachings overall. Only 23% (20% now evangelical) were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion the liked more in Protestantism. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf
Latino evangelicals are more than 20 percentage points more likely than Catholics to say that abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. http://www.nhclc.org/news/latino-religion-us-demographic-shifts-and-trend
73 percent of Catholics rejected Catholic teaching artificial methods of birth control. Catholic World Report; 1997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut
74% of Evangelicals, 73% of Mainline Protestants, and 68% of sexually active Catholics women use birth control. 3% of the Catholics rely on natural family planning. Attendance at religious services and importance of religion to daily life are largely unrelated to use of highly effective contraceptive methods. Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use, Guttmacher Institute, April. 2011
88% of Catholics believe that they can practice artificial means of birth control and still be considered good Catholics. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5%
98% of self-identified Catholic women ages 15-44 who have ever had sexual relations have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives. .” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker
40% of 18- to 29-year-old Catholics said the church’s “teachings on sexuality and birth control are out of date.” http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church
59% of all Catholic women of childbearing age practice contraception—a rate of usage statistically equivalent to that of the general population (60%). Calvin Goldscheider and William D. Mosher, "Patterns of Contraceptive Use in the United States:
58% of Catholics 52% if they are voters) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception;
50% of white Catholics support this requirement, versus 47% who oppose it, along with 38% of white evangelical Protestants an 50% of white mainline Protestants. Public Religion Research Institute, February 2012 http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/
54% of Hispanic Catholics believe that churches and other places of worship should be required to provide health care coverage that includes contraception, compared to 41% Hispanic Protestants. African American & Hispanic Reproductive Issues Survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, July 2012
terycarl: absolutely not,
absolutely not what? Specify what you are denying. Are you affirming that being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ makes you the infallible interpreters of it, and the indisputable supreme authority? If not, then you are arguing against your promotion of Rome in this regard.
the Catholic Church is infallible because Christ said so....Now, one cannot accept something valid without the Catholic Church endorsement because ONLY the Catholic Church is infallible
But that is based upon an interpretation of what Christ said. What is the basis for your assurance of faith that Rome is the one true church, etc.?
Not simply mine but others, to God be the glory.
To GOD be the glory, not man, never man.
oh goodie....and just where did these properly translated scriptures come from??? who brought them down 1,600 years so you could refer to them, and who determined that they, and not the RCC versions were correct.....get real.
oh goodie....and just where did these properly translated scriptures come from??? who brought them down 1,600 years so you could refer to them, and who determined that they, and not the RCC versions were correct.....get real.
Modern translators have never actually heard these languages, and I don’t see how they could possibilty have the same intimacy with these tongues. It’s like a modern screenwriter trying to guess how Jefferson actually spoke in conversation. That said. Luther ’s true genius was not as an accurate translator but as a writer of the German language. To read some of the earlier translations and then to read Luther is to suddenly encounter genius of the first order, and religious inspiration as well as genius as a writer. He’s a poet, and it just flows.
They don't, not really. If the magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church teaches truth that is revealed in Holy Scripture, no true believer would have any reason to deny them the same consideration. But where the magesterium diverts away from Scripture and invents doctrines either not mentioned in Scripture or even contrary to Scripture then they are just as wrong as any other sect or religion that projects itself above the word of God.
I'll give you an example. When the Catholic Catechism describes the Trinity, and it matches what the Bible says about the Trinity - such as the deity of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God - and also teaches about the Father and the Holy Spirit with the Son all being one God, they are teaching the truth (orthodoxy). If someone comes along and teaches that Mary is the fourth person of the Trinity - as many Catholics HAVE done - both nonCatholics AND Catholics can confidently say they are not teaching according to Scripture and they are teaching heterodoxy.
Like I have said many times here, as have others, there is much that we hold in common concerning our Christian faith. Where we differ, where the Reformers differed, have been in the areas that Rome has ventured away from what was the orthodox faith. How can we know what is the orthodox faith? The doctrines must be found in Scripture and proven by them. This doesn't make the Bible an idol or make those who trust in it to teach the truth, Bibliolaters. It places the importance on what the Bible contains - and that is the Divine, God-breathed truth that God, Himself, says will NEVER pass away, will always accomplish what HE sends it out to do and that HE preserves so that we CAN know the truth. It takes the indwelling Holy Spirit within the person with a new, Spirit nature to receive the things of God and to understand and know them. When those within the Catholic magesterium mandate obedience of all Christians to doctrines God does not, then the prudent believer chooses to obey God rather than man - even men that hold a position of ecclesiastical power over them.
And to answer your probable next question, there are NOT "thousands" of different interpretations produced by holding to the authority of the Scriptures. That is a strawman, an impossibility and a false construct. There is truth or thousands of not-truth, but truth is still truth even if NO ONE believes it. Having a magesterium has not prevented the Catholic Church from members differing with each other. A lot is tolerated and excused. Where there is and MUST be unity is on the major tenets of the faith and they are ALL found in the Bible. As Paul said, we should not go beyond that which is written. Good advice.
And also:
The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.