The literal interpretation is different from the literalist interpretation. Catholics read scripture as literal. But not only words, but the intent of the author and context define that literal interpretation.



Personal interpretation is not forbidden or limited, but if it clashes with Church teaching, that personal interpretation would need a really strong re-examination.



Catholicism is also very consistent in typological interpretation.



 

Quoted:

Sorry, I couldn't negotiate this quote system on this site.  

"The Apostles were the first Catholics. They established our priesthood in ACTS. This is why we've been around for 2000 plus years. No fundamentalist sects were ever mentioned in the bible.
And while the first follower of Christ were Jewish they moved the celebration of mass ( The Last Supper) to Sundays (The day of Christ Resurrection). Our Catholic mass follows in the traditions of the Jewish faith. The Catholics combined the sacred books and wrote the first bible. No where in history does it say it got written by M-1975 anywhere. In fact where are the fundamentalist's foot prints for writing the bible at all?"


There are no Catholics in Acts. The Sabbath was never changed to Sunday, which was traditionally set apart by sun worshipers, then incorporated by Catholics followed by Protestants (protesting Catholics). If it were changed, it would have been boldly announced. Not an interpretation of a verse about followers eating a meal (breaking bread) after the Sabbath at sunset. The Sabbath is the only day that is named in all of Scripture. All of our Father's feast days were dates of the month. None were ever days of the week. There are plenty of verses of the Disciples keeping the Sabbath, and keeping the Feast Days of our Father in Heaven well after the resurrection.

Send in your sarcasm meter for recalibration.

So you don't equate 'Day of the Lord" with Sunday?

As a general aside, since this poster brought it up in a roundabout way...

I also found it funny that God may have exhibited the essence of trolling. He 1) sent his Son to Earth so that 2) the creatures he made could kill that Son 3) so they could come back to Him. Then (here's where the trollish part comes in) he puts what I and many others believe to the Earthly headquarters of His new Church smack dab in the heart of the civilization that ruled the world at that time. The Romans did exactly what was expected..try to eliminate the threat to their power...funny how that DIDN'T work out.

Sorry for the hijack; interesting discussion, and relatively calm. Relatively.

1. There was no sarcasm in my response 2. I don't believe that God 'trolls"

Then allow me clarify.

1. It's obvious that some in this thread are not interested in having their questions regarding Catholicism answered; they would rather shows how wrong we are.
2. God does not "troll" in the sense of GD or the internet. He does, however, do what He pleases, and if that involves taking the then-center of the human world as His own in the face of persecution He will do it and prove a point (as He did many times with the Jews in the OT).

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers.

Thanks, but they weren't ruffled. It does seem to me that the Catholics have answered the questions quite well. As a Catholic I always enjoy the insight my brothers and sisters have in their answers as well as the rebuttal from other Christians.

There's no mention of Christian priests in Acts. The Apostles never took the title.



And how is the RCC 2000+ years old when Christ was crucified 1983 years ago? Are you saying the Pharisees where Catholic? See you do agree with my point about Matthew 23!



Of course, that's a tough claim when the language of Rome has been Latin, and yet the New Testament was written in common Greek. Nevermind that the Bible is mostly Old Testament, which is Jewish. Oh, and did I mention the New Testament mostly consists of Midrash teachings on the Old Testament? It's essentially a commentary, mostly by a Jew, "circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews". Yeah, not a Roman Catholic, lol.



Now once the Romans state got a hold of the church, well it became the third kingdom parable, which wasn't a good thing. Then it added leaven, which in Jewish Scripture, is symbolic of sin, particularly the sin of pride. Then they rewrote history and reinterpreted the Bible through philosophy, ignoring the Jewish roots.



The major texts of the Bible, such as the Textus Receptus, and Codex Sinaiticus, aren't Latin or use Latin sources, they're Greek. The Textus Receptus comes fromt eh eastern manuscripts preserved by the Orthodox, who as you should know, broke from Rome when Rome got to big for it's britches. Then Rome hid the Bible in a language the laity couldn't speak, and replaced Scripture with it's own doctrine.



Well then the humanists got a hold of the eastern manuscripts and figured out how far off Rome had gotten when they read the Greek Scriptures and discovered the Latin ones had some errors. Thus the Reformation was born.
 

I do equate the Day of the Lord as Sunday. We celebrate the Resurrection every Sunday. Sabbath is Saturday.

The troll reference is irreverent.



 

I told you, 1 Corinthians 4:6; "Do not go beyond what is written".



You aren't posting any scripture that passes tests of simple context or grammatical exegesis. Yet you do not even realize that you are saying one thing and arguing the opposite. You are saying we are not saved by faith alone, but are instead saved by works but you try to deny this while arguing against being saved by faith alone. And then you cut the scriptures that contradict you out and try to ignore them.



I've addressed your "proof-texts" and shown them to be false; why don't you cut the appeals to fallacious logic and address what I posted?

 

 

Wow.



 

Please give proper credit when you cut-and-paste your answers.





BTW, the Greek word for "priest" is archiereus, not presbuteros, which is never translated as "priest". Your apologist link is pulling a switcheroo with the language.




The only one other than the Jewish priests, called "priest" in the new testament is Christ, which makes sense since He is the only mediator between God and man, per 1 Timothy 2:

5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
 

Matthew 18:8-9
8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Jesus also said to cut off your body parts when you sin, Do you do that? Or did He mean something else?

Maybe you can explain how these verses don't contradict the idea that we must do works, i.e. actions, to be saved? How do they not teach that we are saved by faith alone?



Please don't deflect like TWIRE did.





John 6:28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD, THAT YOU BELIEVE IN HIM WHOM HE SENT.”


John 6:37-40: All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and THE ONE WHO COMES TO ME I WILL BY NO MEANS CAST OUT. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose NOTHING, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son AND BELIEVES IN HIM may have everlasting life; and I WILL raise him up at the last day.” John 6: 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40, "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that EVERYONE WHO SEES THE SON AND BELIEVES IN HIM MAY HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE; and I will raise him up at the last day.”)


John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall NEVER perish; neither shall ANYONE snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and NO ONE is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”


John 11:25 "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who BELIEVES in me WILL live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by BELIEVING IN ME WILL NEVER DIE. Do you believe this?”


Acts 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by FAITH. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the GRACE of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”


Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through FAITH in Jesus Christ, to all and ON ALL WHO BELIEVE. For there is no difference; 23 FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD, 24 being JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the JUSTIFIER OF THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN JESUS. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but BY THE LAW OF FAITH. 28 Therefore we conclude that A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH APART FROM THE DEEDS OF THE LAW.






Hebrews 7:25: Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.





 

2Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Pauls epistles made it around the churches of that day. Before they were even called the Bible. Peter who you claim as your first Pope not only talked about Pauls writings in his epistle but also put Pauls epistles on the same level as other Scriptures, ( Old Testament).

2Tim 3:16-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The writers of the new Testament were led by the Holy Spirit, What else do you need?

BTW here's an Anglican quoting TWIRE's "honest protestant" on how dishonest the translating was in the Latin Vulgate:

 

As soon as you show me where the Bible states that the Bible is the sole authority for what I should or should not believe. This is the fourth request after all.



I am fully aware of what I am arguing, you just keep repeating your assumptions and hope that at some point everyone will believe that I actually posted as such. Must be a democrat or a journalist by trade.



 

Biblically, the Day of the Lord is at the 2nd coming. It's right there in black and white for all to see. The resurrection is laid out by our Father as the Feast of First Fruits, which occurs on Aviv 17th, three days after the crucifixion. It just happened to fall on Sunday this year, April 24th.
The 7 set-apart Feast Days given to us by our Father in Heaven can not be reconciled with a pagan, solar based Gregorian calendar. The Bible is based on lunar cycles. Other than the Sabbath, no day of the week has any major Biblical importance.

 

Can you see that?

 

That's a huge assumption you make that the author of Peter called Paul's writing 'scripture.' So when Paul speaks of 'scripture,' he is also referring to his own letters, in this case to Timothy? I think not. Undoubtedly, Paul's letter were in circulation, as were countless other non-canonical documents and writings.





 

Seems the order of Rome is to use the Bible when it supports RCC doctrine; deny it's authority when it doesn't.



The doublespeak is astounding.

So are you saying that the Bible that you claim your church put together actually does not contain the inerrant word of God? Because that seems to be the case you are making.
 

It seems I certainly stepped in it, between my messed-up quoting and a joking comment taken way too seriously.

I was quoting M-1975, not you, as he is the one commenting on the Sabbath versus Sunday. And the 'trolling' comment is meant to put a lighthearted, modern spin on "His plan, not mine". I'll hit the confessional I guess.

Even this guy admits that the Catholic Church produced the Bible from the deposit of faith, not the other way around. The assumption after this tirade can be summarized as follows: The Catholic Church codified the canon of Scripture and authorized the translation into the vernacular of the Roman empire. Jerome and the Catholic Church, the gates of hell having prevailed over them, willfully manipulated this translation of the Bible and thus catapulted Christians into error for the next 1100 years. Then, thank God, some 1400+ years since its founding, the Church was finally righted by the process of its own destruction.



A laughable and completely disingenuous history from a website dedicated to defamation of Catholic thought.

I'll go first.... but fare warning.. I need a 25 perimeter in case I get smited.



 

I did not write Peters letters, Peter did! Do you think the author of Peters letter was someone else? And Peter said, Pauls letters were being misused by unlearned and unstable people as the other Scriptures were. Peter put Pauls letters on the same level as the OT.
Pauls letters and Peters are now called Scripture because they are in the Bible. So why would you be surprised that Peter called Pauls letters Scripture?

Your non-canical books are not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, They may have some value for history but not for Doctrine.

Not in this thread.

 

Oh so the "honest protestant" isn't honest now?



Like the bible is inerrant one post and unreliable the next.

 

Yep because the SPIN can ONLY be yours. We'll give you a 25 foot perimeter... for smiting no confession needed.



 

Still waiting on your understanding of how all those scriptures don't undermine RCC doctrine.

 

You have been given pages of that answer and RCC doesn't undermine the Sacred Scripture.


You never answered where Christ was in your life? What do you do to show your faith other than abuse the sacred word?


Preach the Gospel and when necessary use words....





See you have proven nothing but provided more missing pieces.  And it's shade of SAE.  We all know you can use google my friend. The answers are the same. But you are so indoctrinated with a single focal point you refuse to see the joy that comes from living faith.





You have proven over and over and over and over ... and over... aud nausium that it doesn't matter what we say.





The end game for you is to...


A. Wipe Catholics from the face of the earth


B. Prove somehow your thought process is superior to anyone else (which makes you somehow superior to Christ because apparently you are smarter than our Lord. Because you want to rewrite that histiory)


C. Defame the Catholic church


D. Quote the bodies of works from people who for years (in the deep south) have continuously discriminated against the Catholic faith carrying on the agenda of misguided, misinformed assumptions based on hatred.





I have nothing against what you personally want to believe or don't want to believe. You have proven this entire time that it doesn't matter what we quote or say.  





We have a right to practice our faith without persecution.





You take this thread to service on Sunday and twist it to teach more hatred?








 

What I'm trying to do is get you to read the Bible for yourself, see where it differs from Catholic doctrine, because it does, and greatly.
I'm not smarter than Christ, I'm showing you what Christ said, and what the Apostles taught about Him.
I want you to realize that you can have a personal relationship with Christ. For He is our Priest.

1 John 1:3-4

 

Done