Can you have God as your Father, without the Church as your mother?

[Selene]

Telling someone they cannot marry is not in the Bible. The Cahtolic church has definately said this to it's priests and if they haven't then why don't they marry?

Again, one of the links in my post has this as the intro: Britain's most senior Roman Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has spoken out on the issue of celibacy, saying priests should be allowed to marry and have children.


So I'm not imagining things....unless the Cardinal is also delusional. That's what I mean. Denial over well known facts or saying you don't understand is sheer nonsense
in the light of the massive amounts of info that are there for any and all to peruse. (I'm not meaning this at you personally...but certain people here make this there MO)

I often find it amusing that non-Catholics like yourself always claim to know more about Catholicism than Roman Catholics. I'm the Roman Catholic. You're not. As for Britain's most senior Roman Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien this is what he further stated in the weblink below. According to the weblink:

The cardinal said that the next pope would be free to consider changing church policy on issues, such as celibacy for priests, that were not "basic dogmatic beliefs."

He said that "we know at the present time in some branches of the church – in some branches of the Catholic church – priests can get married, so that is obviously not of divine origin and it could get discussed again."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/cardinal-keith-obrien-married-catholic-priests-a-possibility_n_2743362.html


You see.....even Britain's Roman Catholic Cardinal Keith O'Brien knows that in some branches of the Catholic Church, priests can get married. So, who is delusional now??

As I have been telling you.......there are some married priests in the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholics allow their priests to marry, and they are part of the Roman Catholic Church. Married pastors who converted to Catholicism are also allowed to be ordained into the priesthood as married priests. I rest my case.

 

[Niki]

Interesting. I have to be honest here. I think the biggest problem with your posts Selene, is that you believe them.

Right. You are definitely the Roman Catholic on the scene here.

The only thing you have proved, is that you will not change your mind even when scripture says something different than what you believe.

IMO, you have no desire to discuss anything except your opinion. Your opinion is very small compared to the reams of information out there regarding
Catholicism. I doubt you really know most of it.

There are other Catholics on the board here and most of them do not adopt the attitude of having to prove something or twisting people's words.

That, seems to be your forte.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Interesting. I have to be honest here. I think the biggest problem with your posts Selene, is that you believe them.

Right. You are definitely the Roman Catholic on the scene here.

The only thing you have proved, is that you will not change your mind even when scripture says something different than what you believe.

IMO, you have no desire to discuss anything except your opinion. Your opinion is very small compared to the reams of information out there regarding
Catholicism. I doubt you really know most of it.

There are other Catholics on the board here and most of them do not adopt the attitude of having to prove something or twisting people's words.

That, seems to be your forte.

I find it laughable that you seize upon another's haughty disposition while being completely blind to your own. It sort of reminds me of the teaching Jesus gave about taking a sliver out of your own eye before taking a plank out of another's. You assert your opinion as scripture and another's opinion as just an opinion. You say that Selene has to prove something as if you yourself don't. But the most profound shortcoming you show is confusing your opinion of scripture with actual scripture. You ignore that Paul exhorted those who serve the Church in leadership not to get married; that most of the apostles didn't marry and neither did Jesus. Because to be truly focused on the issues of the church, one cannot have their attentions divided, as Paul explained. You may not like or agree or like the Catholic Church's view on clergy marriage in the Latin Rite, but your opinion (OPINION!) is not more scriptural than ours, so stow it.

And quit bleeding all over the thread. Sheesh!

 

[Niki]

Typical. This is why those of us who are not Catholic walk away shaking our heads.

I have posted scritpure, links to CATHOLIC sites that agree with what I say and have repeatedly asked Selene to please respond without attacking.

I guess that is just asking too much.

No one is bleeding all over the threads. That's just you being snarky because, well, that's what you do I guess.

Neither of you seem able to be civil for very long. I had a little hope with your last post, but hey, it's just the same boring nasty response again

No worries though. Now you can be on my ignore list along with her.

Go ahead..snark away. It's boring already.

You ignore that Paul exhorted those who serve the Church in leadership not to get married; that most of the apostles didn't marry and neither did Jesus.

No I never ignored any such thing.

I know the Bible probably better than you do. I certainly seem to understand it better.

Let's have a closer look at your words in the quote above.

1. You say I ignored what Paul said. Where? If I mentioned it...then how could I possibly ignore it? And, if I did not mention it, then how could I possibly ignore it?
I would had to have mentioned it and said let's ignore it for your words to be true. This is just typical of the way you and your friend respond to things. You attack
and twist.

2. I know full well what Paul wrote...the problem is, Catholics or at least those in leadership, have ADDED to the Bible...like they usually do because you know, God's
words just are not binding enough, and they have said that it is better not to marry and so you are NOT ALLOWED to marry, if you want to serve God. HOWEVER
the marriage bed is undefiled. It is people like yourself and others who ADD to the words of God and those who were inspired in their writing to the churches,
by defiling scripture and forbidding to marry when neither Paul and certainly not God who created both sexes to begin with, EVER said any such thing.

3. The Bible speaks of elders as leaders in the church...NOT PRIESTS my friend...priests were OT and Jesus is our HIGH PRIEST...NOT your pope or any one of you.
Jesus also said to call no one but God Father...yet you lay that title on anyone that would like to wear it through ordination. NOT in the Bible. You all just like
the pomp and circumstance of you religious grab and great big swelling words of hypocrisy.

Elders are to have one one wife and Paul says it is better to marry then to burn. Have any priests transgressed Gods commandments? Perhaps they should have
been married so as to avoid burning,.

I have no idea why you would even mention Jesus did not marry. Really! No kidding! He was God in the flesh. I guess not then, eh?

As far as the Apostles being married, here is a quote from yet another CATHOLIC site...so eat your words

The only other thing in the New Testament that is said directly about the apostles and their families is in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (9:5), where he asks, “Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles ...?”
From that passage, and from the early writings of the church fathers, it seems probable that all of the apostles were married when they were called by Jesus (with the possible exception of John, who seems to have been very young when chosen).
Read it for yourself and apologize. Never mind...that is not something you perfect people need to do most likely.

It seems probable that ALL of the apostles were married.

You people are the blind leading the blind.

and seriously? Catholics should stick to their own forums instead of coming to Christian forums and trying to belittle everyone and being rude and aggressive when we
show you from scripture how wrong you and the pope really are.

You have plenty of forums in which to discuss your anti-biblical beliefs, so why don't you take it there?
Say what you want...report it...cry..hire a lawyer...tell your priest. I don't care. Really.

oh yeah...one more thing....baptism does not save anyone. Only Jesus saves.

Your religion is manmade.

Clement of Alexandria, for example, wrote, “Peter and Philip fathered children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.” This would be consistent, too, with the custom of that period in history, when it would have been quite unusual for a man to be unmarried.
But the common belief of the fathers seems to have been that, following their call by Christ, the apostles lived lives of celibacy from then on, their focus squarely on following Jesus during the two-and-a-half years of his public ministry and spreading his message thereafter.
(Some early Christian writers make reference to the fact that, even though celibate after their call, the apostles continued to provide for the temporal needs of their families through their occupations, such as fishing.)
In the earliest centuries of the church’s history, it was commonplace for clergy to be married. See, for example, Paul’s directive in his first letter to Timothy (3:2) that “a bishop should be irreproachable, married only once.” But by the fourth century, when the Council of Elvira was held in Spain, it seems clear that celibacy was already commonplace among Christian clergy, though it never became an absolute mandate for the Latin-rite church until the 11th century.
To just examine the above a little closer....and to further demonstrate how your faith cannot make up its mind, nowhere in scritpure do we read the apostles became celibate and left their families.

I wish you understood how little regard I have for the lies of the teaching of the RCC.

Fear no one but God. God alone is Holy. I pray that those who really do belong to Christ come out from the lies and cling to Jesus instead of your pope.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Now we have a gusher. Call EMS.

 

[aspen]

Typical. This is why those of us who are not Catholic walk away shaking our heads.

I have posted scritpure, links to CATHOLIC sites that agree with what I say and have repeatedly asked Selene to please respond without attacking.

I guess that is just asking too much.

No one is bleeding all over the threads. That's just you being snarky because, well, that's what you do I guess.

Neither of you seem able to be civil for very long. I had a little hope with your last post, but hey, it's just the same boring nasty response again

No worries though. Now you can be on my ignore list along with her.

Go ahead..snark away. It's boring already.


No I never ignored any such thing.

I know the Bible probably better than you do. I certainly seem to understand it better.

Let's have a closer look at your words in the quote above.

1. You say I ignored what Paul said. Where? If I mentioned it...then how could I possibly ignore it? And, if I did not mention it, then how could I possibly ignore it?
I would had to have mentioned it and said let's ignore it for your words to be true. This is just typical of the way you and your friend respond to things. You attack
and twist.

2. I know full well what Paul wrote...the problem is, Catholics or at least those in leadership, have ADDED to the Bible...like they usually do because you know, God's
words just are not binding enough, and they have said that it is better not to marry and so you are NOT ALLOWED to marry, if you want to serve God. HOWEVER
the marriage bed is undefiled. It is people like yourself and others who ADD to the words of God and those who were inspired in their writing to the churches,
by defiling scripture and forbidding to marry when neither Paul and certainly not God who created both sexes to begin with, EVER said any such thing.

3. The Bible speaks of elders as leaders in the church...NOT PRIESTS my friend...priests were OT and Jesus is our HIGH PRIEST...NOT your pope or any one of you.
Jesus also said to call no one but God Father...yet you lay that title on anyone that would like to wear it through ordination. NOT in the Bible. You all just like
the pomp and circumstance of you religious grab and great big swelling words of hypocrisy.

Elders are to have one one wife and Paul says it is better to marry then to burn. Have any priests transgressed Gods commandments? Perhaps they should have
been married so as to avoid burning,.

I have no idea why you would even mention Jesus did not marry. Really! No kidding! He was God in the flesh. I guess not then, eh?

As far as the Apostles being married, here is a quote from yet another CATHOLIC site...so eat your words

The only other thing in the New Testament that is said directly about the apostles and their families is in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (9:5), where he asks, “Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles ...?”
From that passage, and from the early writings of the church fathers, it seems probable that all of the apostles were married when they were called by Jesus (with the possible exception of John, who seems to have been very young when chosen).
Read it for yourself and apologize. Never mind...that is not something you perfect people need to do most likely.

It seems probable that ALL of the apostles were married.

You people are the blind leading the blind.

and seriously? Catholics should stick to their own forums instead of coming to Christian forums and trying to belittle everyone and being rude and aggressive when we
show you from scripture how wrong you and the pope really are.

You have plenty of forums in which to discuss your anti-biblical beliefs, so why don't you take it there?

Say what you want...report it...cry..hire a lawyer...tell your priest. I don't care. Really.

oh yeah...one more thing....baptism does not save anyone. Only Jesus saves.

Your religion is manmade.

Clement of Alexandria, for example, wrote, “Peter and Philip fathered children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.” This would be consistent, too, with the custom of that period in history, when it would have been quite unusual for a man to be unmarried.
But the common belief of the fathers seems to have been that, following their call by Christ, the apostles lived lives of celibacy from then on, their focus squarely on following Jesus during the two-and-a-half years of his public ministry and spreading his message thereafter.
(Some early Christian writers make reference to the fact that, even though celibate after their call, the apostles continued to provide for the temporal needs of their families through their occupations, such as fishing.)
In the earliest centuries of the church’s history, it was commonplace for clergy to be married. See, for example, Paul’s directive in his first letter to Timothy (3:2) that “a bishop should be irreproachable, married only once.” But by the fourth century, when the Council of Elvira was held in Spain, it seems clear that celibacy was already commonplace among Christian clergy, though it never became an absolute mandate for the Latin-rite church until the 11th century.
To just examine the above a little closer....and to further demonstrate how your faith cannot make up its mind, nowhere in scritpure do we read the apostles became celibate and left their families.

I wish you understood how little regard I have for the lies of the teaching of the RCC.

Fear no one but God. God alone is Holy. I pray that those who really do belong to Christ come out from the lies and cling to Jesus instead of your pope.

Hmm...

So you think I should not be allowed to post here, because I am Catholic?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Back about 17 years ago or so, when I first heard the gospel with understanding and received it by faith, I felt moved to write a letter to Pope John Paul, because of an article that I read in a news magazine. I think that it was Newsweek. The article was about a discussion within the ranks of the Roman Catholic Church and a "movement" to elevate the status of Mary, the mother of our Savior, to that of "coredemptress." My own mother (also carrying the name Mary) was part of a catholic "society" which holds Mary in extraordinary esteem, believes that she remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, believes that she was miraculously transported to heaven, etc. These traditions are not only extrabiblical, but contrary to what the scripture says and teaches.

My letter to the Pope was in the form of advice and a warning. If he had chosen to use his Papal authority to declare St. Mary's equality to God, he would have further divided the church and have been acting in the spirit of antichrist, stealing glory from our Lord in order to elevate His earthly "mother" to a divine status. I suggested instead that he repent of false teachings in the church and restore the RCC to strictly biblical doctrine.

I don't know if my letter ever found its way to the Pope's hands, but praise the Lord, John Paul didn't make any Papal declaration that would further split the church. While he didn't go to great effort to correct doctrine, he did declare a jubilee and asked for forgiveness for the church, for its part in Jewish persecutions, etc.

I suppose that the problem that John Paul had to contend with is the RCC doctrine of Papal infallibility. If he were to admit that a Pope could be wrong about a doctrine, then there would be a problem with the doctrine of Apostolic succession and a number of other doctrines as well. Its funny, but the church seemed to survive for centuries without these doctrines.

Without these doctrines, the auhority of Rome would collapse (not the church's authority, but that of men.) I don't want to deprive the RCC of their "figure head," but our Lord is head of the church and He certainly doesn't need a Vicar. Nor does He need the saints to "help" Him or receive the prayers of men because "He is too busy."

My mom was no theologian, and had incredibly simplistic views about the church and about God. These were by no means discouraged by her peers within her church. The Lord won't hold her responsible for a childish understanding, but will He hold those responsible who cling to power through lies and justify themselves as "protectors of Holy Mother the church?"

I realize that these statements will be taken as inflammatory by some, and the Roman Catholic Church has the right to define their own faith, but God alone is our savior. That's what His word says and that settles the matter.

 

[Selene]

Back about 17 years ago or so, when I first heard the gospel with understanding and received it by faith, I felt moved to write a letter to Pope John Paul, because of an article that I read in a news magazine. I think that it was Newsweek. The article was about a discussion within the ranks of the Roman Catholic Church and a "movement" to elevate the status of Mary, the mother of our Savior, to that of "coredemptress." My own mother (also carrying the name Mary) was part of a catholic "society" which holds Mary in extraordinary esteem, believes that she remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, believes that she was miraculously transported to heaven, etc. These traditions are not only extrabiblical, but contrary to what the scripture says and teaches.

Hi Michael,
First of all, the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not contradictory to scripture simply because there is nothing in scripture that says whether she was assumed into Heaven or not. Things that are not mentioned in the Holy Bible are not contrary to scripture. Because it's not mentioned in the Bible, the possibility exists that Mary was taken up into Heaven just as Enoch and Elijah were also taken up into Heaven. Nevertheless, the assumption of the Blessed Mother came from Sacred Tradition.

My letter to the Pope was in the form of advice and a warning. If he had chosen to use his Papal authority to declare St. Mary's equality to God, he would have further divided the church and have been acting in the spirit of antichrist, stealing glory from our Lord in order to elevate His earthly "mother" to a divine status. I suggested instead that he repent of false teachings in the church and restore the RCC to strictly biblical doctrine.

The Blessed Mother of Christ was never given any equal status to God. However, as you know Catholics (and even Orthodox Christians) honor Mary simply because we wish to imitate Christ. Christ, after all, is the Way to salvation. It was Christ who honored His mother. Christ was the perfect Son....more perfect than any of us. He followed the 4th Commandment better than anyone on earth. This commandment is to honor thy mother and father. Christ honored His Father, who is God, but He also honored His mother Mary and even allowed Himself to be subject under her (See Luke 2:51). By fulfilling the 4th commandment, Jesus honored His mother above all creatures, but never above God His Father. We imitate Christ in the same way, by honoring His mother, but never above God, our Father.

Without these doctrines, the auhority of Rome would collapse (not the church's authority, but that of men.) I don't want to deprive the RCC of their "figure head," but our Lord is head of the church and He certainly doesn't need a Vicar. Nor does He need the saints to "help" Him or receive the prayers of men because "He is too busy."

I agree. The Lord is the Head of the Church, but it was Christ Himself who established the Apostle Peter as the leader of the Apostles. It was Christ who entrusted Peter to take care of His entire flock (See John 21:15-18). The Pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter. The word "Vicar" in Latin is vicarius, which means "a substitute." Also, our Lord is never too busy for mankind. He loves us so much that He gave His life for us. He is never too busy for His children because He is the perfect Father. God receives the prayers of the saints (See Revelations 8:3-4).

My mom was no theologian, and had incredibly simplistic views about the church and about God. These were by no means discouraged by her peers within her church. The Lord won't hold her responsible for a childish understanding, but will He hold those responsible who cling to power through lies and justify themselves as "protectors of Holy Mother the church?"

I realize that these statements will be taken as inflammatory by some, and the Roman Catholic Church has the right to define their own faith, but God alone is our savior. That's what His word says and that settles the matter.

Our faith is in Jesus Christ. However, we do have a right to establish requirements for priestly ordination as well as other disciplines and practices. Our teachings (which is our doctrines) is unchangeable.

 

[Niki]

Hmm...

So you think I should not be allowed to post here, because I am Catholic?

Oh I'm sorry aspen. No. That is not what I meant. I was venting my frustration at 2 people on this board and I got carried away.

I really did not mean that the way it came out. I'm sorry if I hurt you by that ... I am up to here with the tactics I have seen displayed with regards to steam rolling
over the truth...no one has all truth. We see through a glass darkly. Please accept my apologies. I meant that those who see the truth and yet still try to cover
it up by attacking and twisting the words of others should take that away. That, is what I meant. If attacks fail, then they resort to sarcastic remarks like Vale
did in his last post. He obviously cannot address what I wrote unless he apologizes and admits that the RCC is not God's plan for mankind. God has already
revealed His plan for mankind and it is in the gospels...not the vatican.

I suppose that the problem that John Paul had to contend with is the RCC doctrine of Papal infallibility. If he were to admit that a Pope could be wrong about a doctrine, then there would be a problem with the doctrine of Apostolic succession and a number of other doctrines as well. Its funny, but the church seemed to survive for centuries without these doctrines.

This is very much at the heart of the matter regarding the infallibility of a mere human being. I liked Pope John Paul....but no one is God but God. Of course no one church
has it all right. IMO, the RCC is holding its skirts together with threats and fear...exactly what spawned the Inquistion. Don't question and don't think for yourself.

Without these doctrines, the auhority of Rome would collapse (not the church's authority, but that of men.) I don't want to deprive the RCC of their "figure head," but our Lord is head of the church and He certainly doesn't need a Vicar. Nor does He need the saints to "help" Him or receive the prayers of men because "He is too busy."

Good points.

My mom was no theologian, and had incredibly simplistic views about the church and about God. These were by no means discouraged by her peers within her church. The Lord won't hold her responsible for a childish understanding, but will He hold those responsible who cling to power through lies and justify themselves as "protectors of Holy Mother the church?"

I realize that these statements will be taken as inflammatory by some, and the Roman Catholic Church has the right to define their own faith, but God alone is our savior. That's what His word says and that settles the matter.

That is what I believe. Not one single person on this planet can die for the sins of another.

I apologize to anyone I may have hurt by my strong words yesterday. I was aiming them at attitudes and lies but I think I may have shot a few people along the way. I am sorry for that.

I believe that ANYONE who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and understands that He alone can forgive your sin and He alone is the WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE,
is a Christian.

I do NOT believe that a denom can save you and I do NOT believe we should tolerate obvious lies and twisting of scripture to accomodate people who want to lord it over others
and make points (in their own eyes only) with sarcastic comments and a holier than thou attitude.

Vale ~ you can claim I think I am self righteous or just like your pal, but I am not and you saying so just further indicates your need to be right because you are afraid to have to change.

May God, this day, give to those who are His, believing faith in accordance with His Word and may the scales be taken off the eyes of those who have been led astray.

Amen

 

[Selene]

Oh I'm sorry aspen. No. That is not what I meant. I was venting my frustration at 2 people on this board and I got carried away.

I really did not mean that the way it came out. I'm sorry if I hurt you by that ... I am up to here with the tactics I have seen displayed with regards to steam rolling
over the truth...no one has all truth. We see through a glass darkly. Please accept my apologies. I meant that those who see the truth and yet still try to cover
it up by attacking and twisting the words of others should take that away. That, is what I meant. If attacks fail, then they resort to sarcastic remarks like Vale
did in his last post. He obviously cannot address what I wrote unless he apologizes and admits that the RCC is not God's plan for mankind. God has already
revealed His plan for mankind and it is in the gospels...not the vatican.

And exactly what was I trying to cover up?? I was telling the truth.....a truth that you were not aware of. You were the one making the claim that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow priests to marry, and that is not quite true. It is only in the Latin-rite Church that celibacy is a requirement for ordination. A priest in the Latin-rite Church is not being forced into giving up marriage because no one is forcing anyone to be a priest in the first place. And any male who joins the priesthood in the Latin-rite Church is already aware of the requirements. Furthermore, married pastors who converted into the Catholic faith are allowed to be ordained as married priests in the Latin-rite Church.

Also, the nuns do not marry, and it was their choice. No one forced anyone to be a nun, and the sisters who chose to join the convent already knew the requirements. One of those requirements is to take a vow of poverty and give up everything. They cannot own a house, car, or anything of that sort.

I don't go around telling Protestants what requirements they should establish for their pastors because quite frankly it's none of my business. Whatever requirement a Christian church establishes is their own. Who are you to tell us the ordination requirements for our priests?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

And exactly what was I trying to cover up?? I was telling the truth.....a truth that you were not aware of. You were the one making the claim that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow priests to marry, and that is not quite true. It is only in the Latin-rite Church that celibacy is a requirement for ordination. A priest in the Latin-rite Church is not being forced into giving up marriage because no one is forcing anyone to be a priest in the first place. And any male who joins the priesthood in the Latin-rite Church is already aware of the requirements. In fact, even the nuns do not marry, and it was their choice.

I don't go around telling Protestants what requirements they should establish for their pastors because quite frankly it's none of my business. Whatever requirement a Christian church establishes is their own. Who are you to tell us the ordination requirements for our priests?

And that is an excellent question. How does it hurt a Protestant if a Catholic priest won't marry? The truth is, priests are wrong in the eyes of Protestants right from the start. They believe there is only one priest in Christianity, Jesus Christ (that's another debate) and they don't like the fact that priests are referred to as "father". Oh....oh yes......and priests are Catholic, so that makes them wrong right there as well. It's a target rich environment for those who want to attack the Catholic Church.

But let's take a good look at how marriage can be a disaster even for Protestant pastors. Nearly everyone knows the 18th century evangelist George Whitfield who preached more sermons than any other Christian has in the history of the church. He went from England to America, from town to town preaching in churches or in open air to all who would hear. Crowds would develop from miles around to hear Whitfield's passionate sermons. Even when he took ill and his doctors advised he take it easy, he could not. As long as he had breath to draw, he felt compelled to use it for the gospel. He died at the age of 56 and had literally preached himself to death.

What few know is that George Whitfield had a wife, Elizabeth. She was sorely neglected and complained bitterly, "I'm nothing but a drain on him". She was miserable and alone for the entire marriage. She was proof that a man can truly have only one passion and one thing that engages his attention. And it wasn't her. So the wisdom of St. Paul is this, that a man who is dedicated to the service of God should forego marriage because an unmarried man is focused on the things of God, to better serve the Church, but a married man is focused on the things of the world, so that he may serve his wife. That wisdom cannot be defied in his age or in any other.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Our faith is in Jesus Christ. However, we do have a right to establish requirements for priestly ordination as well as other disciplines and practices. Our teachings (which is our doctrines) is unchangeable.

Hello Selene, and the Lord bless you (though I'm sure that he already has),
I have no desire to engage in any lengthy discussion or argument over Catholic doctrine. Its somewhat akin to beating a dead horse. I have Catholic brothers in Christ whom I have no desire to injure by "attacking their faith," and I have seen the injury in their eyes from mispoken words. No one who places their faith in Jesus Christ, trusting Him for salvation will be disappointed (I find that in scripture).The problem that I have is with those who place their faith in their church and see the Church as equivalent to God. Actually my problem isn't even with them, but with the doctrine that brings them to that place. Nothing in scripture elevates the Church or any person in the Church to an authority equal to God's, Now, I understand that argument can be made from the verses about the "keys to the kingdom," but these have also been beaten to death and can be readily explained in terms of the power of the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation.
You've said that the Catholic church's doctrine is unchangeable, but that itself is untrue. It has changed many times including at least a few times within my lifetime. The doctrine of Papal infallibility for one has been changed and narrowed down, redefined, to quell arguments from obvious Papal error. The doctrine itself doesn't date back to the 1st century, but was created much later to protect the power of the Papacy, as was the doctrine of Apostolic succession. Change of doctrine has been the norm in the Roman Catholic Church going back at least as far as the emporer Constantine. In declaring Christianity the official religion of the empire, Constantine immediately put hundreds of thousands of Pagans under the authority of the Church. In the desire to accomodate Pagan practices, the Roman church allowed the keeping of household idols but steered people to believe that they were "patron saints" who took the place of the gods that the heathen prayed to. This was largely responsible for the split with the Byzantine church. I'm not making this up, some honest research will reveal the truth of the matter. In trying to advance their kingdom, these early church leaders did a great disservice to Christ. The protestant reformation had its roots in the desire to get the Roman Catholic Church back on track, so to speak, but the early leaders in the movement were condemned and would have been murdered if captured by "church authorities."
When we study the history of such movements we sometimes (if not always) find that the struggle initiated over doctrinal purity was motivated by the quest for temporal power, rather than the sincere desire to elevate Jesus Christ and His gospel. Even within the context of the Roman Catholic Church we find a history of bloody warfare fought over the seat of the Papacy itself and was this for doctrinal purity? Absolutely not. If you don't believe what I'm saying, then do some research on Pope Fortunatis. The reading of such historical docuements is incredibly tedious, but revealing. That episode in the church's history is by no means unique, but church doctrine was changed on more than one occassion to fortify the power of the Pope and the council of cardinals, all justified as protecting "Holy mother the church." Did the Church, the body of Christ, ever really need protecting? Is God's arm shortened?
I have something of a burden for the Catholic Church and this in part because it was the church of a large part of my family, but like the reformers, it isn't possible for me to give more weight to the doctrines and traditions of men than to the authority of scripture. One reason that people like me engage in doctrinal discussion together with Roman Catholics is to present truth from scripture and in this feed our brethren God's word so that they may be strengthened in biblical faith. Who casts doubt upon the veracity of scripture? It certainly isn't reformers. For nearly two millenia the RCC has upheld the authority of scripture, yet maintained that it was the only legitimate interpretor of scripture. Don't you find that a bit convenient for those desiring to maintain their authority and the stability of the power structure they have climbed? Or do you believe that the heirarchy of the Roman church is free of worldly ambition?
I think that its almost funny that many protestant or evangelical teachers are looking for a resurgence of the Roman empire in their escatology, when the Roman empire never really disappeared, but went underground within the heirarchy of the church.
I pray for you, because I pray for your church, for your understanding and your strenghtening in the faith, that you may stand in the evil day. A purification is coming, a refiner's fire, and what will come forth as gold? I pray that you may stand and it is our Lord who will make you to stand. I was called to feed the flock and His flock is scattered so that's no little task, but I know better than Elijah; I'm not alone and Christ is with us. Amen

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Hello Selene, and the Lord bless you (though I'm sure that he already has),
I have no desire to engage in any lengthy discussion or argument over Catholic doctrine. Its somewhat akin to beating a dead horse. I have Catholic brothers in Christ whom I have no desire to injure by "attacking their faith," and I have seen the injury in their eyes from mispoken words. No one who places their faith in Jesus Christ, trusting Him for salvation will be disappointed (I find that in scripture).The problem that I have is with those who place their faith in their church and see the Church as equivalent to God. Actually my problem isn't even with them, but with the doctrine that brings them to that place. Nothing in scripture elevates the Church or any person in the Church to an authority equal to God's, Now, I understand that argument can be made from the verses about the "keys to the kingdom," but these have also been beaten to death and can be readily explained in terms of the power of the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation.
You've said that the Catholic church's doctrine is unchangeable, but that itself is untrue. It has changed many times including at least a few times within my lifetime. The doctrine of Papal infallibility for one has been changed and narrowed down, redefined, to quell arguments from obvious Papal error. The doctrine itself doesn't date back to the 1st century, but was created much later to protect the power of the Papacy, as was the doctrine of Apostolic succession. Change of doctrine has been the norm in the Roman Catholic Church going back at least as far as the emporer Constantine. In declaring Christianity the official religion of the empire, Constantine immediately put hundreds of thousands of Pagans under the authority of the Church. In the desire to accomodate Pagan practices, the Roman church allowed the keeping of household idols but steered people to believe that they were "patron saints" who took the place of the gods that the heathen prayed to. This was largely responsible for the split with the Byzantine church. I'm not making this up, some honest research will reveal the truth of the matter. In trying to advance their kingdom, these early church leaders did a great disservice to Christ. The protestant reformation had its roots in the desire to get the Roman Catholic Church back on track, so to speak, but the early leaders in the movement were condemned and would have been murdered if captured by "church authorities."
When we study the history of such movements we sometimes (if not always) find that the struggle initiated over doctrinal purity was motivated by the quest for temporal power, rather than the sincere desire to elevate Jesus Christ and His gospel. Even within the context of the Roman Catholic Church we find a history of bloody warfare fought over the seat of the Papacy itself and was this for doctrinal purity? Absolutely not. If you don't believe what I'm saying, then do some research on Pope Fortunatis. The reading of such historical docuements is incredibly tedious, but revealing. That episode in the church's history is by no means unique, but church doctrine was changed on more than one occassion to fortify the power of the Pope and the council of cardinals, all justified as protecting "Holy mother the church." Did the Church, the body of Christ, ever really need protecting? Is God's arm shortened?
I have something of a burden for the Catholic Church and this in part because it was the church of a large part of my family, but like the reformers, it isn't possible for me to give more weight to the doctrines and traditions of men than to the authority of scripture. One reason that people like me engage in doctrinal discussion together with Roman Catholics is to present truth from scripture and in this feed our brethren God's word so that they may be strengthened in biblical faith. Who casts doubt upon the veracity of scripture? It certainly isn't reformers. For nearly two millenia the RCC has upheld the authority of scripture, yet maintained that it was the only legitimate interpretor of scripture. Don't you find that a bit convenient for those desiring to maintain their authority and the stability of the power structure they have climbed? Or do you believe that the heirarchy of the Roman church is free of worldly ambition?
I think that its almost funny that many protestant or evangelical teachers are looking for a resurgence of the Roman empire in their escatology, when the Roman empire never really disappeared, but went underground within the heirarchy of the church.
I pray for you, because I pray for your church, for your understanding and your strenghtening in the faith, that you may stand in the evil day. A purification is coming, a refiner's fire, and what will come forth as gold? I pray that you may stand and it is our Lord who will make you to stand. I was called to feed the flock and His flock is scattered so that's no little task, but I know better than Elijah; I'm not alone and Christ is with us. Amen

I like your greeting and setting the right tone even on a post that disagrees with us. You start with a blessing and that scores high in my book. Compliments.

 

[Selene]

You've said that the Catholic church's doctrine is unchangeable, but that itself is untrue. It has changed many times including at least a few times within my lifetime. The doctrine of Papal infallibility for one has been changed and narrowed down, redefined, to quell arguments from obvious Papal error. The doctrine itself doesn't date back to the 1st century, but was created much later to protect the power of the Papacy, as was the doctrine of Apostolic succession.

Hello Michael,

Peace be with you. Yes, I stated that a doctrine cannot be changed. The doctrine of papal infallibility was defined by Vatican II in 1965. But what they defined was already in practice for thousands of years. When the Vatican defines something, it is never anything new. According to the definition of infallibility as defined by Vatican II, there has only been two infallible doctrines that meets that criteria.......only two......because these are the only two that were declared in ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter). So, for over 2000 years, we only have two doctrines that were declared "infallible." This, however, does not mean that the other doctrines we have are NOT infallible. Many of the other teachings are "irreformable" and "definitive" and as such can be seen as possessing the binding quality of an infallible doctrine despite that they were never proclaimed ex cathedra.

The only two infallible doctrines declared in ex cathedra were the Immaculate Conception, which was defined in 1854 and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950. These two doctrines were declared "infallible" even before 1965 when Vatican II defined "infallibility." Thus, the concept of infallibility already existed before 1965 and it has not changed. Infallibility goes back to the first century. The Apostles had infallibility because all the things they taught and wrote were without error. Therefore, we believe that the Bible, which was written by fallible men is the word of God and contains no error.

When the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854, some Protestants believe that was the date the Pope invented the doctrine. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. This is a misconception. Doctrines are defined only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium thinks the faithful can be helped by a particular emphasis being drawn to some already existing-belief. In the case with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was the Catholic faithful who requested the Pope to officially proclaim it.

Apostolic succession is actually biblical. When Judas Iscariot died, he was replaced by Matthias (See Acts 1:23-26). This was the first apostolic succession that took place.

Change of doctrine has been the norm in the Roman Catholic Church going back at least as far as the emporer Constantine. In declaring Christianity the official religion of the empire, Constantine immediately put hundreds of thousands of Pagans under the authority of the Church. In the desire to accomodate Pagan practices, the Roman church allowed the keeping of household idols but steered people to believe that they were "patron saints" who took the place of the gods that the heathen prayed to. This was largely responsible for the split with the Byzantine church. I'm not making this up, some honest research will reveal the truth of the matter. In trying to advance their kingdom, these early church leaders did a great disservice to Christ. The protestant reformation had its roots in the desire to get the Roman Catholic Church back on track, so to speak, but the early leaders in the movement were condemned and would have been murdered if captured by "church authorities."

First of all, Constantine never declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine passed the Edict of Milan, which granted "freedom of religion" to everyone. If you read the Edict of Milian, it will show you that "freedom of religion" was granted to all people. "Freedom of religion" was good for the Christians who were being persecuted at that time. It meant that they could now openly practice their religion without fear of being put to death. The Edict of Milan is actually the first historical document showing "freedom of religion".....a concept that Americans have adopted in their Constitution.

As for the Reformation, Martin Luther was correct that some of the priests in his homeland Germany were corrupted. The teachings of the Catholic Church is that indulgences cannot be sold. This teaching has not changed. Unfortunately, some priests in Germany went against Church teaching and sold indulgences for their own selfish ends. The selling of indulgences, however, was not worldwide as some of our Protestant brothers believe. It only occurred in Germany. Martin Luther was correct when he said that the selling of indulgences was wrong. Unfortunately, Martin Luther did not stay to help correct the abuses happening in Germany's Catholic Church. He opted to leave and build his own church.

When we study the history of such movements we sometimes (if not always) find that the struggle initiated over doctrinal purity was motivated by the quest for temporal power, rather than the sincere desire to elevate Jesus Christ and His gospel. Even within the context of the Roman Catholic Church we find a history of bloody warfare fought over the seat of the Papacy itself and was this for doctrinal purity? Absolutely not. If you don't believe what I'm saying, then do some research on Pope Fortunatis. The reading of such historical docuements is incredibly tedious, but revealing. That episode in the church's history is by no means unique, but church doctrine was changed on more than one occassion to fortify the power of the Pope and the council of cardinals, all justified as protecting "Holy mother the church." Did the Church, the body of Christ, ever really need protecting? Is God's arm shortened?

First of all, we've never had a Pope Fortunatis, so I don't know where you got this information. Below is the list of Popes from the Apostle Peter to the present day Pope Francis. We've never had a Pope named Fortunatis.:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

I have something of a burden for the Catholic Church and this in part because it was the church of a large part of my family, but like the reformers, it isn't possible for me to give more weight to the doctrines and traditions of men than to the authority of scripture. One reason that people like me engage in doctrinal discussion together with Roman Catholics is to present truth from scripture and in this feed our brethren God's word so that they may be strengthened in biblical faith. Who casts doubt upon the veracity of scripture? It certainly isn't reformers. For nearly two millenia the RCC has upheld the authority of scripture, yet maintained that it was the only legitimate interpretor of scripture. Don't you find that a bit convenient for those desiring to maintain their authority and the stability of the power structure they have climbed? Or do you believe that the heirarchy of the Roman church is free of worldly ambition?

You say that "for nearly two millenia, the RCC has upheld the authority of scripture, yet maintained that it was the only legitimate interpreter of Scripture." This is true and still true today. Lay Catholics like myself cannot interpret scripture simply because the Bible itself told us not to make any private interpretations (See 2 Peter 1:20). The Church is the only one who can correctly interpret scripture because the Holy Bible says that it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth (See 1 Timothy 3:15).

It was the Church leaders (such as St. Paul and others) who wrote the New Testament books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it was the Church leaders who gathered and canonized the books of the Bible toward the end of the fourth century. And only the Church leaders can correctly interpret scripture under the inspiration of that same Holy Spirit. This is the reason why the Holy Bible tells us to obey the Church leaders.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

 

[jiggyfly]

Can you have God as your Father, without the Church as your mother?

Yes because the ekklesia is not a mother. Religion is a distorter of Truth.

 

[Selene]

Yes because the ekklesia is not a mother. Religion is a distorter of Truth.

A mother produces a child. A Church is like a mother because she produces more "Christians". After all, a Church is supposed to grow, not decrease in size. When Christ said, go out and baptize all nations......He meant go out and convert more Christians. A Church always produces fruits.

 

[day]

It was the Church leaders (such as St. Paul and others) who wrote the New Testament books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it was the Church leaders who gathered and canonized the books of the Bible toward the end of the fourth century. And only the Church leaders can correctly interpret scripture under the inspiration of that same Holy Spirit. This is the reason why the Holy Bible tells us to obey the Church leaders.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

The Apostles wrote the New Testament books so that their teachings would remain intact for future generations and so false teachings, either additions or omissions, could be recognized.. Leaders would be able to refer to them for guidance in teaching and leading, and the laity could refer to them to verify what their leaders were teaching (like the believers at Berea verified what Paul taught Acts 17:11). However to prevent the laity from doing so, the Catholic Church forbid the laity under penalty of death to have even a page of scripture in their possession. By their prideful boast that only they could interpret scripture, the church leaders have led the Catholic Church into doctrinal errors and questionable practices. While an individuals interpretation of a scripture cannot be trusted, the interpretation of a community of believers acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit can be trusted. God's promise of the Holy Spirit was not made to just the leaders.

 

[jiggyfly]

A mother produces a child. A Church is like a mother because she produces more "Christians". After all, a Church is supposed to grow, not decrease in size. When Christ said, go out and baptize all nations......He meant go out and convert more Christians. A Church always produces fruits.

And one can draw many images that the ekklesia "is like" but while one may envision the ekklesia to be "like" a mother the truth is the it is not a mother, nor is it the"bride" of Christ. It is simply Christ's ekklesia.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Hello Michael,

Peace be with you. Yes, I stated that a doctrine cannot be changed. The doctrine of papal infallibility was defined by Vatican II in 1965. But what they defined was already in practice for thousands of years. When the Vatican defines something, it is never anything new. According to the definition of infallibility as defined by Vatican II, there has only been two infallible doctrines that meets that criteria.......only two......because these are the only two that were declared in ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter). So, for over 2000 years, we only have two doctrines that were declared "infallible." This, however, does not mean that the other doctrines we have are NOT infallible. Many of the other teachings are "irreformable" and "definitive" and as such can be seen as possessing the binding quality of an infallible doctrine despite that they were never proclaimed ex cathedra.

The only two infallible doctrines declared in ex cathedra were the Immaculate Conception, which was defined in 1854 and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950. These two doctrines were declared "infallible" even before 1965 when Vatican II defined "infallibility." Thus, the concept of infallibility already existed before 1965 and it has not changed. Infallibility goes back to the first century. The Apostles had infallibility because all the things they taught and wrote were without error. Therefore, we believe that the Bible, which was written by fallible men is the word of God and contains no error.

When the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854, some Protestants believe that was the date the Pope invented the doctrine. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. This is a misconception. Doctrines are defined only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium thinks the faithful can be helped by a particular emphasis being drawn to some already existing-belief. In the case with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was the Catholic faithful who requested the Pope to officially proclaim it.

Apostolic succession is actually biblical. When Judas Iscariot died, he was replaced by Matthias (See Acts 1:23-26). This was the first apostolic succession that took place.


First of all, Constantine never declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine passed the Edict of Milan, which granted "freedom of religion" to everyone. If you read the Edict of Milian, it will show you that "freedom of religion" was granted to all people. "Freedom of religion" was good for the Christians who were being persecuted at that time. It meant that they could now openly practice their religion without fear of being put to death. The Edict of Milan is actually the first historical document showing "freedom of religion".....a concept that Americans have adopted in their Constitution.

As for the Reformation, Martin Luther was correct that some of the priests in his homeland Germany were corrupted. The teachings of the Catholic Church is that indulgences cannot be sold. This teaching has not changed. Unfortunately, some priests in Germany went against Church teaching and sold indulgences for their own selfish ends. The selling of indulgences, however, was not worldwide as some of our Protestant brothers believe. It only occurred in Germany. Martin Luther was correct when he said that the selling of indulgences was wrong. Unfortunately, Martin Luther did not stay to help correct the abuses happening in Germany's Catholic Church. He opted to leave and build his own church.




First of all, we've never had a Pope Fortunatis, so I don't know where you got this information. Below is the list of Popes from the Apostle Peter to the present day Pope Francis. We've never had a Pope named Fortunatis.:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm




You say that "for nearly two millenia, the RCC has upheld the authority of scripture, yet maintained that it was the only legitimate interpreter of Scripture." This is true and still true today. Lay Catholics like myself cannot interpret scripture simply because the Bible itself told us not to make any private interpretations (See 2 Peter 1:20). The Church is the only one who can correctly interpret scripture because the Holy Bible says that it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth (See 1 Timothy 3:15).

It was the Church leaders (such as St. Paul and others) who wrote the New Testament books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it was the Church leaders who gathered and canonized the books of the Bible toward the end of the fourth century. And only the Church leaders can correctly interpret scripture under the inspiration of that same Holy Spirit. This is the reason why the Holy Bible tells us to obey the Church leaders.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

Hello again Selene,
your post was written like a true defender of "Holy Mother the church." Good for you.
I wouldn't expect Pope Fortunatus, or actually (Bishop of Rome) to be in your list of the Popes simply because he was murdered by the order of his successor, who then tried his corpse for heresy, found him guilty because his corpse wouldn't respond, excommunicated his corpse, cut off his blessing fingers and then had his body cast into a river. I'm not a big history buff as I was never very good with dates and memorization by wrote. I encountered this bit of nastiness in a book titled "The Bad Popes." The book covered quite a bit of history through translations of church historical documents and was an incredibly boring read. I don't have the ISBN number and I'm sure that it wasn't a popular book because of the sheer tedium of reading through it (worse than "the antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus). I found it years ago on a bargain book table at a wholesale club. The fact that it was poorly written, however, doesn't alter the content, which was complete with a bibliography of the historical sources. I believe that it covers various transgressions, from around the 4th century up to about the reformation. According to the author, the real corruption set in when one particularly ambitious fellow was able to seize both the office of the Bishop of Rome and the governorship of the city state of Rome, temporal and religious power merged in one man. Almost sounds like the anti-Christ of scripture. That's probably why the authors of the Westminster confession identified the Pope of their time as the anti-Christ, but most reform churches have given up that view as far as I know.
Now, I believe that I've already stated that I had no interest in discussing Roman Catholic Doctrine, but your statements are based upon that doctrine and not strictly upon scripture. The Bible says that no scripture is of private interpretation, but that is because it is all inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore the only proper interpretation is made by the Holy Spirit to those who receive Him. The fact that I can read the scripture and arrive at the same doctrine (for the most part) as another born again believer is because we both are being taught by that same Spirit, not by official interpreters.
You also mention that the scripture calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth, but you'll notice that it doesn't say "Roman Catholic" before the word church. The first church wasn't Roman Catholic, but strictly Jewish and met in the temple at Jerusalem, among other places. All other churches grew out of that one or through the work of the early evangelists, like Paul and Barnabus.
I've gone through these arguments at length before and with people more familiar with church history, and its just an exercise in futility. I don't know how old you are, but you will most likely be alive when Christ returns, as we are already witness to "the beginnings of sorrows" and the generation that sees these signs will still be around at His return. You can ask the Lord about these things then, so lets try not to waste any more time with another pointless "I'm right", "No, I'm right" argument.
I'm not a defender of some denomination, but of the body of Christ and of the faith committed to us through the Holy Scripture and by His grace. Amen.

 

[Selene]

Hello again Selene,
your post was written like a true defender of "Holy Mother the church." Good for you.
I wouldn't expect Pope Fortunatus, or actually (Bishop of Rome) to be in your list of the Popes simply because he was murdered by the order of his successor, who then tried his corpse for heresy, found him guilty because his corpse wouldn't respond, excommunicated his corpse, cut off his blessing fingers and then had his body cast into a river. I'm not a big history buff as I was never very good with dates and memorization by wrote. I encountered this bit of nastiness in a book titled "The Bad Popes." The book covered quite a bit of history through translations of church historical documents and was an incredibly boring read. I don't have the ISBN number and I'm sure that it wasn't a popular book because of the sheer tedium of reading through it (worse than "the antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus). I found it years ago on a bargain book table at a wholesale club. The fact that it was poorly written, however, doesn't alter the content, which was complete with a bibliography of the historical sources. I believe that it covers various transgressions, from around the 4th century up to about the reformation. According to the author, the real corruption set in when one particularly ambitious fellow was able to seize both the office of the Bishop of Rome and the governorship of the city state of Rome, temporal and religious power merged in one man. Almost sounds like the anti-Christ of scripture. That's probably why the authors of the Westminster confession identified the Pope of their time as the anti-Christ, but most reform churches have given up that view as far as I know.

Hello Michael. We do have a few bad popes in history, and we know who they are. They were not taken off the list. Nevertheless, the teachings of the Catholic Church remains the same despite the bad popes we had in history. In fact, even the Apostle Peter could be viewed as a "bad Pope" because he denied Christ three times.

Now, I believe that I've already stated that I had no interest in discussing Roman Catholic Doctrine, but your statements are based upon that doctrine and not strictly upon scripture. The Bible says that no scripture is of private interpretation, but that is because it is all inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore the only proper interpretation is made by the Holy Spirit to those who receive Him. The fact that I can read the scripture and arrive at the same doctrine (for the most part) as another born again believer is because we both are being taught by that same Spirit, not by official interpreters.

Actually, it was based upon scripture and I provided the scripture. St. Peter was the one who said that there should be no private interpretation of scripture. The fact that there are many Protestants reading the same Bible, and many of them are coming up with different interpretations is the reason why we leave it up to the Church leaders to make the interpretation. This is the reason why there are many different Protestant denominations. Let's say for example, that I wrote this one statement: I didn't say that you stole money. This statement can actually be interpreted in five different ways.

#1. I didn't say that you stole money..........means that someone else said it.

#2 I didn't SAY that you stole money...........means that I didn't such a thing. I said something else.

#3. I didn't say that YOU stole money........means that I stated someone else who stole it.

#4 I didn't say that you STOLE money.........means that I said that you borrowed the money, not stole it.

#5 I didn't say that you stole MONEY..........means that I said that you stole something else.

As you can see, if this one sentence can be interpreted in five different ways, how much more the Bible? This is why there are so many different Protestant denominations.

You also mention that the scripture calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth, but you'll notice that it doesn't say "Roman Catholic" before the word church. The first church wasn't Roman Catholic, but strictly Jewish and met in the temple at Jerusalem, among other places. All other churches grew out of that one or through the work of the early evangelists, like Paul and Barnabus.

I agree. And the Roman Catholic Church is one of those Churches. The Eastern Orthodox Church is also an apostolic Church like us. Why? Because like us they can also trace their lineage to an Apostle of Christ. For example, the Church in Syria can trace their lineage to the Apostle Andrew. The Church in Jerusalem can trace their lineage to the Apostle James. The Church in Malta can trace their lineage to the Apostle Paul. The Roman Catholic Church can trace her lineage to the Apostle Peter. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are the only two Churches that can trace their lineage to an Apostle.

Furthermore, you are correct that the first Christians were Jewish. And the only two Churches that you can see the Jewish heritage is only in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. You can see our Jewish roots in our liturgies and vestments, and this is the evidence showing that we are a Church built by Christ through an Apostle of Christ.....in this case "Peter."