Heresy Hunters are really like the Catholic Church
Now, before I say anything else, I’d like to say that I really don’t have a huge problem with the Catholic church per se. I disagree with some of their teachings, and I believe that their focus (as a church denomination/movement) is really off with all the stuff about saints and Mary and etc. I think those doctrines lead people away from Jesus. That said, I know some fine Catholics that I’m sure will be in heaven one day because they’re head over heels in love with Jesus.
So, now that I’ve said all that, I can say this:
One doctrine about the Catholic church that pretty much universally bugs non-Catholics is that the Church is best equipped to interpret the Bible, and that any interpretation differing from that of the church is wrong; ergo there’s no sense in thinking for yourself because you’ll likely be wrong. (a note to my Catholic readers - I know that’s not HOW it’s TAUGHT, but that’s the way it sounds to Protestant ears!)
This can be summed up in the following quote from John Shepard’s Catholic site: “The Holy Spirit-inspired teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church provides authoritative teaching and doctrine. When our private interpretations collide with those of the Church, it is inevitably our interpretations which are in error.”
The thought occurred to me a few minutes ago that many of my favorite heresy hunters are just like the Catholic church. They’re saying, “You can’t trust yourself. Can’t trust what you read in the Bible. We alone have the correct interpretations, and if you don’t believe the way we believe, you’re a heretic.”
I find this thought thoroughly amusing. 
Hope my favorite HH’s see this post!
July 31st, 2008 at 4:12 am
How about this modification?
“When our private interpretations collide with those of the Bible, it is inevitably our interpretations which are in error.”
Dave smiles sweetly….
July 31st, 2008 at 4:19 am
And….
“One doctrine about the Catholic church that pretty much universally bugs non-Catholics is that the Church is best equipped to interpret the Bible, and that any interpretation differing from that of the church is wrong; ergo there’s no sense in thinking for yourself because you’ll likely be wrong. (a note to my Catholic readers - I know that’s not HOW it’s TAUGHT, but that’s the way it sounds to Protestant ears!)”
It sounds that way to non-Christian ears as well. Of course, I’ve heard other non-Catholic churches proclaim the same thing.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:06 am
Now Kathi I was raised Catholic until one day I made a priest mad. I agree with your assessment. Most at least the Catholics I grew up with never read the Bible as we were told the priest would tell us what we need to know
July 31st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Of course, we do have our disagreements, and I’m not going to rehash them. Goodness knows neither of us needs that.
I do have an honest question, though; this is something that has always bothered me about Protestant (read: non-Catholic) traditions.
Ask 5 Protestants how to interpret a “tricky” verse, and you’ll often get as many answers. I did this once with some friends of mine, and I asked them how they knew how they interpreted it was “good” or “right”. They said “the Spirit tells you. You just *know*.”
As you can probably understand, knowing me before I knew Him, that didn’t settle well with me. If everyone has their “own” interpretation, and all claim that the Spirit guided them, who’s right? What’s authoritative?
I’ll stop here and let you try and make sense of me. Thanks, Kathi!
(Rev. Merry, I’m sorry to hear you had a bad time of being Catholic–it hasn’t always be easy for me, either. But you do know that the entire Mass is full of Scripture, right?)
July 31st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Melissa, I know the mass has lots of scripture, but what I never got was any meaning of it as with my age is was all read in Latin and I never understood latin. And bad experience it actually was this. I had just come back from Viet Nam and had been home two or three days and Mom had the local priest for dinner. Well I was sort of rough at this time in my life of course and he kept calling me son and I told him he was not my father so don’t me son which it took him five times to finally understand that. Then he asked if I had gone to mass in Nam and I said no and he asked me why. I said because we couldn’t find a priest with a set of b***s to come where we were and he then said he would start what it took to get me out of the church and I told him don’t waste his time. Three years later on March 21st 1971 I found Jesus and have been happy ever since.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Oh what is a tricky verse by the way.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Funny, your post makes me think of a friend of mine. He runs a website for another gentleman, and this is the site:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
July 31st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Ah, Rev. Merry, I never had the experience of having everything in Latin, nor would I want to, so I sympathize there.
A tricky verse is one that can have multiple logical interpretations, like “Faith without works is dead” from James.
That’s just one example, mind you.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:53 am
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing the word of God. I have never seen a tricky verse, that is why I asked.
The verse you mentioned is a good one. What one has to do is put their faith to work. this means if you want to be healed you ask for healing and when it happens, everyday you thank God for it as I do for the healing he has done in my life. The woman with the issue of blood had faith that if she touched the hem of the garment she would be healed, then she put works to it by pressing through the crowd to make it happen. I remember a scripture that says the bible is not open for private interpretations. We must rely on the Holy Spirit to do it.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:02 am
>> Ask 5 Protestants how to interpret a “tricky” verse, and you’ll often get as many answers. I did this once with some friends of mine, and I asked them how they knew how they interpreted it was “good” or “right”. They said “the Spirit tells you. You just *know*.”
As you can probably understand, knowing me before I knew Him, that didn’t settle well with me. If everyone has their “own” interpretation, and all claim that the Spirit guided them, who’s right? What’s authoritative?< <
Missy, here’s the non-Catholic reply - God wants for us to have a relationship with HIM… not a relationship with the church. In order to have a passionate fiery loving relationship we need to really get to know Him for ourselves. Having the church interpret His Word and distill it for us, acting as the go-between between us and God, would be sort of like if Ken and I had an intermediary in our marriage. They listened to everything he said, and told me; they listened to everything I said, and told him, and they advised both of us regarding what to do, how, and when. What kind of marriage would we have? What kind of intimacy would we know? How well would we really know each other? We wouldn’t, we’d know the one who was between us since everything had passed through that person’s filter to us.
Does that make sense?
August 1st, 2008 at 5:04 am
BTW, I have been to Mass a few times. It was interesting but I didn’t really understand what was going on (I was a teenager quite far from God. Had the same feeling in Protestant churches: why do they DO that?)
I’ve heard Mass in Latin, French, and one time in English. I’d like to go again now, as a Christian and with a Catholic to explain things, just to understand better.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:09 am
Kathi, I went to my granddaughters first communion and I left there with the feeling of oh no. No asking to be born again and just on a class without asking Jesus in to their hearts these young people were give communion. No scripture read as we do in our service about the Lords table nor the warning at the end to examine one self.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:13 am
One of the cardinals at the Diet of Worms warned Mr. Luther that he was about to turn the Bible, “into a wax nose.” Meaning it could be bent and shaped into any fashion that one desired. According to Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary in 2006 there are 38,000 denomination in the Christian faith. It would seem that the Cardinal was correct. I wish I could remember his name, but at this moment I cannot.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:23 am
#Skippy…Looks like you’re my neighbor, eh? (I live in Level Cross).
What on earth is the Diet of Worms?
I understand the Cardinal’s point, but I’d rather work that out with God, myself, than have somebody else do it for me… since the only mediator between God and myself is Christ, the church just can’t do it for me.
#Rev… I really find that horrifying.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:44 am
Kathi, when we were sitting there my daughters friend said now Pastor don’t speak in tongues and I laughed and said to her if I did, then the place would only have a few people left here
August 1st, 2008 at 6:44 am
Kathy,
On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis on the door of the Church / school at Wittenberg Germany.
He was being tried for heresy at the “Diet of Worms” . It was an ecumenical council that convened for this purpose. Worms was the town in which it took place. Mr. Luther was protesting the abuses of the Catholic church at that time, not the least of which was the “selling of indulgences.”
Your point of concern for submitting to church authority is well taken, especially in lieu of the atrocities committed by the church throughout history. But we still cannot escape the scripture where Jesus gives authority to the church and declare that what-so-ever things you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever things you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
One of the propensities of man is to create a god that we like… to fashion God in our image.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:29 am
Yanno, I wanted this post to be about the heresy hunters, not the Catholic church… oh well.
Skippy, I guess I’d just never heard the name of Luther’s trial. I just skimmed over his 95 Theses and it seems he was equally concerned with salvation, misuse of funds, the concept of purgatory, the futility of performing rituals for dead people, etc. as he was over indulgences.
I know that your church teaches its own seeming omnipotence because of Matthew 16:15-19, but most people don’t read it the way you do.
In verse 15 and 16, Jesus asks the disciples who they think He really is. In a Holy Spirit-inspired moment, Simon Peter says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
Verse 18 is the key to this passage:
“And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
At central issue here is what Jesus was referring to when He said, “On this rock”.
Was He referring to the church? No. Why would He build the church on the church?
Was He referring to Peter? No. Why would He build the church on a man (and on a man that He said, “Get behind Me, satan” to a few short verses later!)?
I know the Catholic Church makes much of Peter as the first pope, but neither this verse nor the rest of Scripture supports that notion. Was he an apostle? Yes. Did he move in the power of God? Yes. A church leader? Yes. THE church leader? No. Nothing in Scripture supports the theory.
So what was the rock?
It’s the knowledge of who Jesus TRULY is in the hearts and minds of individual believers.
Did Jesus give Peter the sole authority for binding and loosing? No, and this is borne out by people in the Bible doing just that, as well as modern people having that authority.
I’m eyeballing the time and need to go
August 1st, 2008 at 7:39 am
Sad you have to go. What I believe he was referring to in Verse 18 is this, Peter upon people believe who I am is the way the church will be built. WE,are the church, not a building not a rock.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:47 am
Right!
Peter and John both called believers “priests”
August 1st, 2008 at 8:10 am
Kathy,
I’m not catholic. My purpose for the “binding and loosing” scripture was simply to point out the church’s authority to establish standards of behavior, whatever the denomination.
For example a Baptist church could make a case that it has the biblical authority to establish a requirement for membership that would prohibit members from consuming alcohol.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:01 am
When Jesus died on the cross for us we became the High Priest and we have access to the holy of holies
August 1st, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Sorry if I’ve derailed this post. Not what I meant to do, naturally.
And yes, Kathi, that makes a lot of sense about our relationships with Christ being individual experiences, something to be developed on its own and not fashioned by others.
I’m just curious as to how that applies to Sacred Scripture–when people of different denoms, and even different churches within the same denom, interpret a verse differently, are they both valid?
(Feel free to take this to email if you’d rather. I’m not out to start a debate, but really I’ve never belonged to a Protestant church, so I lack the understanding of how you “do” certain things. It was Jesus and I, and then Jesus and I as I knew it growing up Catholic, so.)
And also, let the offer stand that if our paths ever cross, you’re more than welcome to come to Mass with me!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
*Waves at Missy*
taking it back to the opening article here; I would submit that the HH I’ve run into also feel that you have to accept their interpretation of their current target.
As in, no, don’t take time to form your own opinion and check things out for yourself, just trust them to be right.
And if you disagree with them on any point….. Look Out! cause the character assassination will begin post haste.
Just my experience with them mind you.
mark
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
“One doctrine about the Catholic church that pretty much universally bugs non-Catholics is that the Church is best equipped to interpret the Bible, and that any interpretation differing from that of the church is wrong; ergo there’s no sense in thinking for yourself because you’ll likely be wrong.”
I would think that the assumption that all protestants are doomed to eternal damnation should rate close to the top.
For protestants, they believe in justification by faith through grace ALONE, or put another way, the instrumental cause of justification is faith.
Catholics, on the other hand believe in justification by faith through grace, but with some other conditions. For catholics the instrumental cause of justification is baptism into the church. ( by a catholic priest) Ergo if have not been baptised by a catholic priest into the one true church you are doomed forever.
I would think that would be unnerving to protestants.
The fact that papal aurthority carries the same weight as scripture would seem to be a minor point of contention.
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:40 am
>>should rate close to the top.
Skippy, I didn’t say that controversy over sola scriptura was the ONLY controversy or problem I have.
On an interesting note - while the church’s position may well be that if you’re not Catholic, you’re not saved - I know a great many Catholics who’ll say publicly that’s not what they believe.
(which makes me wonder about the whole “the church must interpret” thing - there’s a lot of Catholics out there who aren’t doing/believing as the church dictates.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
Kathy said “there’s a lot of Catholics out there who aren’t doing/believing as the church dictates.”
I was in a conversation several years ago with a catholic in which I asked him if he was a good catholic or a bad catholic?
What do you mean ? was his reply. I ask him, do you follow faithfully the teachings of the pope? He replied, “no.” My response was, then you are a protestant going to a catholic church. Being catholic requires believing certain things, transubstantiation, infant baptism, papal infallibility just to name a few.
Protestantism does not traditionally posit the notion that salvation demands inclusion and unwavering acceptance of church doctrines and membership. Whereas many local catholic church priest might agree with protestant beliefs, the official church position still demands strict adherence.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Skippy,
It’s true, of course, that the Catholic church requires absolute obedience of all her members regarding matters of faith and morals. However, it’s not really true that the Catholic church requires people to necessarily believe these matters. At least, not at first.
Catholicism differentiates between involuntary and voluntary doubt. The former is considered permissible, with the requirement that a Catholic will continue to study under the assumption that enough understanding will show the truth of the doctrine in question. Catholics view “voluntary” doubt, however, as something more along the lines of doubt for the sake of doubt, which is a form of dissent. Catholics view this as a grave sin (indeed, as heresy).
It’s still incredibly problematic, of course, as their teaching still strictly prohibits disagreement.
Incidentally, nor does the Catholic Church believe that justification requires “baptism into the church. ( by a catholic priest)”
First, orthodox Catholics generally believe that there are many kinds of baptism beyond water baptism, including baptisms of desire and blood(i.e. martyrdom).
Secondly, by “baptism into the church,” Catholics generally mean the entire body of faith. Any water baptism made using the Trinitarian formula (”I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…”) is sufficient. Having this carried out by a priest is considered normative, but it’s hardly required.
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Veronica said “Catholics generally mean the entire body of faith.”
The catholic church has placed, during the period of its counter reformation, protestantism outside the body of faith. They declared it to be heretical. Do they now consider protestantism a part of the Holy, Universal and Apostalic church? When did they issue this retraction?
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I found being rasied Catholic alot of thing even before being saved things I disagreed with. First was why we praying to the mother of Jesus more than to Jesus. Confession always bothered me as I was dependent upon a man to hear my sins, and not God first. third, I was told Peter was the first Pope and I studied some and he was dead long before the Catholic church was formed. the catholic church is just like many other denominations, not of God. Jesus never intended on denominations, It was for us to be follow of Jesus and not man made doctrines. Now being much older, I see the Catholic Church in many ways symbolizing the Levi Priest.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Skippy,
Catholics these days tend to refer to Protestants as their separated brethren; by virtue of their faith, they are part of the Church, although they aren’t seen as being in full communion.
I’m not sure on when, exactly that teaching was modified, as it’s been awhile since I have really thought much about Catholic theology… I would assume around Vatican II. If you like, I can look it up, but I do know that you can find it in the Catechism.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I just find it interesting that a church that was formed many years after the death of Jesus can try claiming to be the one and true church.
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Catholics tend to believe that their church was founded long before that, but since when have people ever really agreed on their Church History?
Personally, what tends to bother me is the fact that any single organization tries to lay claim on absolute truth in so many areas, regardless of when they were founded. Honestly now, Catholicism has defined positions on everything from ethics to epistemology. Clearly, the world is more complicated than that, no?
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I’ll make this brief:
* Generally, the idea is that while Protestants share many parts of the Truth, they are still lacking in the fullness of it. So, while you may have the requirements for salvation, you’re missing pieces of the puzzle. (This means that Protestants aren’t doomed by default.)
* Water baptism makes you a part of the entire church. Your grandmother could do the job, as long as she does it by the Trinity. This opens us up to God’s grace, which leads to faith in Him, which leads to eternal life.
* Regarding confession, see John 20:21-23. Men have the authority through Christ to forgive sins. They also have the authority to retain them.
This is the last I will say on this post, as I think it’s been hijacked enough.
However, if anyone still wants to talk, you are more than welcome to join me at faithandthemuse (dot) blogspot (dot) com.
Peace in Christ!
August 4th, 2008 at 4:55 am
The Bible states there is one mediator between man and God and thats the man Christ Jesus. By analogy, someone who channels contact between mortals and divinity; e.g. in the Christian faith, Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as the mediator between humanity and God the FAther. There is one mediator between God and men, 1 Tim. 2: 5.
No interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage (such as this one) that would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts. The fact is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, i.e., have a forgiving disposition (Eph. 4:32), ultimately, only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psa. 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9; Mic. 7:18; Acts 8:22). The Lord did not grant that right to the apostles or anyone else.
The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness, and that upon the basis of God’s previous appointment. Literally, the text suggests: “Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.” The first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined. In a comprehensive treatment of this passage, noted Greek scholar J.R. Mantey pointed out that the Greek “fathers” never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (see Journal of Biblical Literature, 58, [1939], pp. 243-249). For further comment, see: Boyce Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament, Anderson, In: Warner, 1958, pp. 80-81.
Finally, this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in harmony with the Spirit’s guidance, did not personally forgive the sins of anyone; rather, they merely announced the conditions of pardon to which men and women were amenable. To believers who sincerely inquired: ”. . . what shall we do?”, Peter responded, “Repent ye, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins. . . ” (Acts 2:37-38). Subsequently the reader is informed that: “They then that received his word were immersed. . . ” (41). Hence, we conclude, upon the basis of this testimony, that by means of that word, they received the forgiveness of their sins.
I can forgive someone who has sinned against me is what the verses above meant. Its never given any man the authority to grant forgiveness for any other mans sin. Never did you read where Paul said I forgive you of your sins or Peter. They healed, but never said your sins are forgiven
August 4th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Christ came and he never formed a denomination, Denomintations are man made not God made. Jesus said follow him, not a pope, priest, bishop or anyone else.
there is only one set of rules we as believers need to follow and its pretty well outlined in the Bible. That is my instructional manuel. I don’t need some council sitting around telling us how we must act, how to dress, how to pray, how to eat, how to sit, when to stand, I believe the Bible was given as the only instructions we need. Don’t need a council to vote on what we do. I don’t need a man to tell me what to preach on Sundays, I get that from God. The priesthood of robes and tradition died on the cross. Like people resighting the Lords prayer. Jesus gave this as an example of how to pray, not to keep repeating it. Prayers are to be from the heart, not ones made up by man.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Rev. Merry Said “Christ came and he never formed a denomination, Denomintations are man made not God made. Jesus said follow him, not a pope, priest, bishop or anyone else.”
Until the 11th century and the great schism, I doubt that catholics thought of themselves as a denomination. They most likely only thought f themselves as the church.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Skippy my mom was Catholic and my dad a Methodist. A nun asked me if my dad was catholic and I said no he a metodist and she said then he will burn in hell for not following the one and true church.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Rev. Merry,
So much for Pascal’s wager. There are also denominations in the protestant faith, that consider the veneration of Mary to be the worship of false gods; as a result there are protestants who do not believe that catholics can go to heaven.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Skippy I agree with the fact that if we will worship Jesus and Jesus only then we wouldn’t have so many problems. Seems like the church is the biggest problem more than the world
August 4th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Rev. Merry,
I have to agree with you whole heartedly. I have just finished reading a couple of books on the dark side of church history. In the name of politics and power millions ( perhaps as many as 50 million) have been tortured and murdered in the name of Jesus throughout church history. I am still trying to put all of what I’ve learned into perspective. The church has the capacity to be very ugly and then again, occasionally one gets to observe a mere shadow, a fleeting glance of the glory and beauty that the church is capable of.
It is the reason I’m sure that the distinction is made between the visible and invisible church, between the sheep and the goats and the wheat and the chaff.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Skippy
In early Catholic Church history the church had a lot of violence in the name of Christ. That is why is use the term born again believe and not Christian.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Born again, refers to Jesus words to Nicodemus. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh that which is born of the Spirit is spirit., do not marvel when I say, you must be born again.”Born again refers to the act of regeneration where God through the Holy Spirit makes alive or to use the old english word, (quickens) the spirit that was once dead to sin and trespasses.
Some christians believe that faith precedes regeneration while other christians believe that regeneration precedes faith. Augustinians or Calvinist believe that regeneration precedes faith while Arminians or semi-Pelagians believe that faith precedes regeneration.
It really doesn’t matter since both sides believe that whosoever will come.