Dear Moses,

 

I hope to trya nd address your email and try to show where I believe that the Lord has shown me the Catholic Faith does in no way contradict the scriptures.

 

Now you mentioned that:

 

Were it actually the case that the "sacred tradition" were really the "true interpretation" of Scripture passed on, I would certainly not have a problem with that as that has happened for sure, no doubt.

 

The main point of me asking you the question about the true interpretation of sacred scripture is this:

 

Let me explain that we are not looking for the true interpretation of scripture.  Please understand what I going to say here:  We are looking for the true interpetation of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh.  The understanding that can be gained from what your response above is this:

 

Since you have no problem with  the idea of a sacred tradition being the true interpretation of sacred scripture, try and see the reason why we can use this to formulate another and much more beautiful statement.

 

We seek the true interpretation of not scripture, but of Christ Himself.  This is why making scripture the sole authority actually in a sense makes it God.  But no, the word is not the bible in the sense that many think it is, but the Word is Jesus Christ (as I mentioned in John 1,1-5).

 

This is also why the mention of miracles and the power of the holy Spirit is also the teaching of Christ.  to say that it is not, would be like saying the miracles of Jesus posed no purpose.  But the Lord did say "If you do not believe in me because of the words I say, at least believe in me because of the works I do."  This is an important message of Jesus because it shows that we can believe in Him based on the fact that He worked miracles.  This proved He was the Son of God.

 

and also you said:

Now, by "handed down" I assume that you mean passed on orally. Frankly this seems a bit odd that one would "orally transmit" the "true interpretation" for fear of misinterpreting the Scriptures from which they came.

 

and

It strikes me as odd that the Scriptures were written down for their preservation but not this "true interpretation".

 

You see Moses, The true interpretation was written down.  It was written on the hearts of the Church itself.  The problem with expecting books and books of interpretation is simply that people could barely read back then.  Practically 97% of the population could not read!  That is why most people can't understand a Church that did not find its inspiration from reading the "Bible" (which of course didn't even exist at this point) but that the message of Christ was passed down by word of mouth.  We also used art and statues to convey biblical truths.

 

now to try and understand this better, I want to talk about this in a little more depth.

you said:

The reasoning is odd, because wouldn¢t one want to actually protect the source of the interpretations rather than the interpretations?

 

I do agree with you exactly in what you just said.  But you see, this is exactly what the church did!  And you know, we have protected this sacred tradition for 2000 years.  Of course you can not believe this unless you first find out what the early Church believed in the first place.  It all hangs on that.  That is why this desperately needs to be addressed at some point, quoting what the Church Fathers said about their beliefs on subjects such as the eucharist, the church, the pope, baptism and the other sacraments.  No one can assume that the church has held any particular belief on these subjects until they can read and quote early church leaders themselves who led the church from      110 A.D. - 300 A.D.  These are years that most protestants feel the church was uncorrupted.  Can you please read the early church fathers themselves and not commentaries on them if you do this?  Otherwise, you will not hear it straight from the horses mouths.

 

One would have to presuppose that the Scriptures are not clear enough that they need a "true interpretation". That is, we would have to suppose that the Scriptures are obscure and veiled. But then that would mean that they are not "revelation" at all.

 

I want to tell you something about this statement.  Please bear with me, I know this is not an easy thing to hear but I do want to be a blessing to you my brother.  The Lord gave me a word about this subject a little while after I sent you my last email.  When I say "a word" I mean that he spoke to me pertaining to what I should say.  the word I got (twice actually) was Kool Aid.  Then I knew what He was talking about. Kool Aid Moses, Kool Aid.  Do you understand what I am refering to?  If not I will explain.

 

You must know that the scriptures are not clear to all people.  Yet, many can give convincing interpretations of them.  So although it sounds nice to say that the scriptures are clear enough so that all may come to the exact same understanding, history has proven that this is just not the case.

 

I would like to address the question you asked here:

 

How is Rome any different from the Watchtower Society which claims to be a true interpreter of Scripture as well, or Mormonism?

 

Well the way that the Catholic Church is different from those organizations is this: 

 

Only the catholic church has existed since the time of Christ.  Only the Catholic Church had the councils that decided what books belong to the canon of scriptures that all the world uses.  And Moses, only the catholic church preserved that same bible for all generations until today.  Doesn't this  put the Catholic Church in a class by itself?  Far beyond that of other churches, for they derived their knowledge of Christ from Her. 

 

The church is unique in a way that no one else can ever dare claim:  Without the existance and preservation of the Cahtolic Church, no one on earth would have ever heard of Jesus Christ in the first place.

 

If you can show me how anyone would have heard of Jesus Christ without the catholic monks, who preserved bibles for hundreds of years in monestaries (since the papyrus would deteriorate over short spans of time), then please show me who else preserved the bible?

 

And if no one else preserved the bible for us today, Can anyone claim that out of all the churches, the catholic Church is the one that is false?  This seems absurd and just plain contradictory to reason.  The opposite does make complete sense though.  That being, the Church that gave us the knowledge of Christ was the one sent by God.

 

Well I would like to ask you this:

 

Can you please quote me word for word what Early Church fathers said, and please show me from what early church letter the statement came from.  You may be surprised that some people in their commentaries have lied about what was truly said.  So let us hear it srtaight from the Fathers themselves.  I hope this will put the matter to rest.  Let us hear about the Pope and also let us hear what they have said about the church and the eucharist and the other sacaments.  I won't agrue with what they said specifically about these subjects. 

 

I do apologize that I did not examine your argument deep enough to understand that you were not referring to the new testament in what you said.  I thought you meant something else.  But please believe me that I intended no malice and was only refuting what I thought you were saying.  My apologies. 

 

This is my point in some of the above statements.  Moses, sometimes it takes a few tries to explain something and it is not done in one statement.  Please keep that in mind as we progress in our converstation.  I will do my best to answer all the questions that are brought up, but bear with me as I do my best.

 

Thank you and God be with you always,

Ben