I see nothing in that quote which makes the Roman Catholic church the sole interpreter of scripture or even mentions the Roman Catholic church at all. That’s the best you’ve got? The Comforter (The Holy Spirit) indwells all Christians.
It doesn’t look the poster knows what they post. It is contrary to their own arguments.
Do you have an alternative fellowship of churches that has an unbroken line of apostolic succession ? While new modern cars are a superior mode of transportation, new or “re-formed” religions are creations of men. I want you to name names if you know of genuine apostolic churches that have an unbroken chain from the Jewish apostles. Otherwise I’m not interested in another modern alternative no matter how one markets it.
Yes the Holy Spirit indwells all believers but the passage AF Vet quoted has Jesus speaking to the Apostles. So what He was saying, and describing, was meant for them. Now, are we to believe (since all the apostles have passed on) that the Holy Spirit no longer teaches us all things?
Of course not. He still does today through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to in that passage. So as it was then, it is today.
It’s either that, or we have Jesus (and His Holy Spirit) teaching and guiding his church in different ways throughout time. It’s either as I describe above, or there is no way to truly have the same experience as the early church.
I chose to believe the former. I chose to believe God is consistent.
One thing I haven’t seen discussed on this thread (even though it’s mentioned in the OP) is the matter of the church handling disagreements in its ranks.
Sure, I guess some here have conceded that occurred (it must be conceded because it’s in Scripture) but apparently there isn’t any belief this type of action requires an authority above the “lay” members. But it’s obvious it does.
Why doesn’t someone explain to me (or to anyone) how the early church expelled believers and why? Why were early church members expelled (for what purpose) and how was it done? Was it an effectual “anathema” (excommunication) or did it have a loophole or holes?
That is (and this is the point, the main question to answer): if a member was cut off from the body (the church) back then, could he just go down the street to “another church” and be a member there? Without repenting of the thing (whatever it was) that got him kicked out in the first place?
Does anyone here honestly believe that was the case back then? That even back then, there were so many different “churches” that if you didn’t like the pastor of one, if you disagreed with his interpretation of Scripture, all you had to do was to down the road, or go to another town, and find another?
Does this really make sense, to anyone, that this is what happened even during the time the Scriptures were written, much less later?
Cuz if it DIDNT happen that way THEN, that kind of behavior is, by definition, a more modern invention of MAN.
Think about it, and explain to me how I’m wrong (if you can). Anyone.