Question for Catholics

[The Persnickety Platypus]

What is the purpose of a pope?



I have some opinions on the issue and would like to put them up for debate, but to be fair, would first like to hear your reasoning firsthand.

[Dilettante]

unprofitable servant wrote:

I am not judging catholics based on the opinions of others, but according to scripture.

What you mean is that you are judging them according to your interpretation of scripture, which is not exactly the same. Plus, you are judging them as if scripture was the only source of authority, which according to the RCC is not.

They based their doctrine on the testimony of Jesus but do the very opposite of what Jesus spoke.

Perhaps. But you are forgetting that we do not know what Jesus spoke directly. Like Socrates, he didn't write anything. Apart from brief or very indirect mentions in non-Christian sources, all we know about Jesus comes indirectly to us, through the authors of the gospels who wrote later in that century. Also, the sayings of Jesus are sometimes obscure and difficult to interpret, and even apparently contradictory (one time he commands us to turn the other cheek, yet another time he says he has come bring not peace but a sword). It's not surprising that those who base their church in the gospels sometimes end up acting in ways which contradict the gospel.

You say I am judging them but if their doctrine is based on Christ and the apostles and they built their religion on convincing people of these same things using scriptures as their evidence shouldn't we use the same evidence to determine truthfulness or falseness?

The RCC does not rely on scripture only as evidence, and in any case, it's scripture as interpreted by the magisterium of the RCC, not as interpreted freely by a hypothetical "average reader". So, even if it seems to you that you are using the same evidence, you are using very different readings of that evidence. You are not speaking the same language: you are not going to convince the RCC and the RCC is not going to persuade you.

If they are not doing 'the will of my Father", which is "This is My beloved Son hear ye him" then they are false.

Problem is, who knows what the will of the Father is? Especially if no one knows the Father but the Son.

Another apostle said 'If any come to you with any other gospel.....let him be accursed' isn't the teachings of the RCC another gospel?

No, not at all. It's not another gospel but an interpretation of the same gospel. The only ones with "another gospel" are the Mormons.

And concerning the other denominations that you mentioned haven't they all come from one place? the rcc

Yes, but I don't see what you mean. Do you mean they are all false?

[unprofitable servant]

[dilettante wrote]unprofitable servant wrote:
Quote:
I am not judging catholics based on the opinions of others, but according to scripture.

What you mean is that you are judging them according to your interpretation of scripture, which is not exactly the same. [/quote]

How is it interpretation of scripture when I have not explained it or said what is meant by a particular passage?

When the scripture said' Call no man upon the earth father for one is your Father which is in heaven" where is the interpretation?

If the RCC teaches their followers to call men father and Jesus said 'call no man upon the earth father" how can that be an interpretation of scripture?
Jesus said don't and the RCC says do that is a comparison of what Christ says and what the doctrine of catholicism is.

Isn't the question posed here is "what cause for a pope"
You had said that "we need a leader or leaders to interpret scripture for us" but when that interpretation is shown to go contrary to scripture then it is "judging them" on my own "interpretation of scripture"

Plus, you are judging them as if scripture was the only source of authority, which according to the RCC is not.

But what authority are they using?

Quote:
They based their doctrine on the testimony of Jesus but do the very opposite of what Jesus spoke.

Perhaps. But you are forgetting that we do not know what Jesus spoke directly. Like Socrates, he didn't write anything.

What difference would it make if Jesus had left writings of his own? It still would not be accepted because then there would be no proof that Jesus wrote them. So it would be something else to deny.

But Jesus was not sent here to write, but to speak. 'Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them" "Blessed is he that hath not seen and does believe"

quote] Also, the sayings of Jesus are sometimes obscure and difficult to interpret, and even apparently contradictory (one time he commands us to turn the other cheek, yet another time he says he has come bring not peace but a sword)[/quote]

Yet the scriptures which you deny "saying anyting" does teach what the above saying of Jesus meant but you will only call it interpretation

Quote:
If they are not doing 'the will of my Father", which is "This is My beloved Son hear ye him" then they are false.

Problem is, who knows what the will of the Father is? Especially if no one knows the Father but the Son.Quote:
If they are not doing 'the will of my Father", which is "This is My beloved Son hear ye him" then they are false.

Problem is, who knows what the will of the Father is? Especially if no one knows the Father but the Son.

'And he to whom the son shall reveal him"

Quote:
Another apostle said 'If any come to you with any other gospel.....let him be accursed' isn't the teachings of the RCC another gospel?

No, not at all. It's not another gospel but an interpretation of the same gospel.

But the interpretation of that gospel has made it another when according to your previous words

Plus, you are judging them as if scripture was the only source of authority, which according to the RCC is not.

If it is being added to by a source and authority that is not scriptural then it is another gospel "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness"

Quote:
And concerning the other denominations that you mentioned haven't they all come from one place? the rcc

Yes, but I don't see what you mean. Do you mean they are all false?

"whosoever transgesseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God'" Jesus says'Ye do err not knowing the scriptures nor even the power of God" if these do not abide in the doctrine of Christ they are in error

[Dilettante]

unprofitable servant wrote:

How is it interpretation of scripture when I have not explained it or said what is meant by a particular passage?

Your interpretation need not be explicit. When you read a passage silently, your brain interprets it using previous information. Depending on your religious background and your interpretive method, the resulting interpretation can be literal, metaphorical, allegorical, historical, historico-critical, etc. But you cannot understand a text without interpreting it in some way.

When the scripture said' Call no man upon the earth father for one is your Father which is in heaven" where is the interpretation?

There can be several. A literal interpretation would mean that you can't call your own dad "father". A less literal one would be that you should not worship a man as if he were God himself. And other interpretations, I suppose, are also possible.

If the RCC teaches their followers to call men father and Jesus said 'call no man upon the earth father" how can that be an interpretation of scripture?
Jesus said don't and the RCC says do that is a comparison of what Christ says and what the doctrine of catholicism is.

Obviously the RCC is not interpreting that passage literally. The RCC does not generally believe in literal interpretation of Scripture. And it has reasons to believe this. For one thing, if the alleged words of Jesus as represented in the NT were to be taken literally as a rule, we would have to conclude that Jesus was wrong about his second coming, which he promised would occur before all of the apostles then listening to him were dead.

You had said that "we need a leader or leaders to interpret scripture for us" but when that interpretation is shown to go contrary to scripture then it is "judging them" on my own "interpretation of scripture"

But it has not been shown to go contrary to scripture, but rather "contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture". Why should the literal interpretation trump all others?

But what authority are they using?

The RCC believes that the Holy Spirit works though the magisterium of the church to help interpret scripture. Now, I'm not saying this belief is correct or that anyone should just accept it. I am agnostic myself. I just mention it so that you take into account that Catholics believe that the best interpretation of scripture comes from the magisterium of the RCC, which in turn is believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What difference would it make if Jesus had left writings of his own?

A lot, at least to me. If I want to give somebody a message and I don't want it to be misunderstood, I choose the most direct route and give the message myself, in my own words. It's true that authorship can always be disputed, but there is a difference between reporting what someone said and did and reading the protagonist's own account.

But Jesus was not sent here to write, but to speak.

Unfortunately, that seems to have been the case.

Yet the scriptures which you deny "saying anyting" does teach what the above saying of Jesus meant but you will only call it interpretation

Of course. Every time we read something we are interpreting it. A literal interpretation is still an interpretation, and it may be adequate in the case of most everyday texts (such as shopping lists, "danger" notices, road signs, etc). But with others, such as poems and literary texts in general, the literal interpretation is clearly insufficient. Religious texts are closer to the latter than to the former.

If it is being added to by a source and authority that is not scriptural then it is another gospel "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness"

But how is it being added to? The text reads the same in most Bibles. It's the interpretation that is different. Perhaps you are referring here to particular doctrines whose scriptural basis is flimsy or even non-existent according to non-Catholics. But the RCC has produced volumes explaining why and how those doctrines were developed. Of course, their reasons may or may not convince us, but I don't see how the matter can be settled by an impartial authority. If it were a scientific dispute, one could wait for the evidence to settle the issue. But it's a theological one, and short of Jesus coming back and telling us the answer, it's hard to imagine a definitive resolution which would satisfy honest believers on both sides.

Jesus says'Ye do err not knowing the scriptures nor even the power of God" if these do not abide in the doctrine of Christ they are in error

Unfortunately we do not have a single document stating what the doctrine of Christ is and isn't. We have to gather it bit by bit from different New Testament writers. That's where the possibility of errors and misinterpretations lies. Imagine if there were four different versions of the US Constitution, each drafted by a different author with a different audience in mind. Imagine, in addition, a series of letters and apologetics texts still by other authors which were to be used to shed light on each other. Lawyers would love it, wouldn't they?