a question for Orthodox and Catholic Christians

[Fea_Istra]

"Not at all. I'm just trying to stick to the first principle, which is that we do not agree on what we accept as authority. For me, it is a visible Church. For you it is yourself."

My authority is God, based on the Bible.. I don't know whether it's a flaw that I don't accept everything I read in the Church writings. Maybe it's lack of trust, which is bad... I respect you for trusting your Church. However, I never doubt God's Word, even if it makes no sense to me.

the reason I say 'to me', or 'i think', is just that I'm not trying to convince you to adopt my view. Thus, I'm not stating it as 'fact'. If you're convinced that Orthodoxy is correct, then I hope you remain Orthodox and grow in your faith, and not doubt.

"If you choose a church because you feel more 'comfortable' there, does that not reveal that your criteria is comfort rather than Truth?"

I didn't choose my church because I feel more comfortable there (initially, I actually felt rather uncomfortable because it was so new) but because I felt focused on God there.

"Simply hoping and praying that God guides you is fine, but if you depend mainly on that, it is like trying to be Luke Skywalker using the Force without the real Jedi Masters guiding you. Our own 20-60 years of exp. is too small. We need something that is as old as the Church to have any kind of chance against the Father of Lies."

I agree that only relying on yourself is not the best idea. I don't just rely on my own reason, I read theology, the saints, listen to my pastor, etc...and I pray for guidance and read the Bible. However, the idea that there's no Church outside the Orthodox Church is not explicitly said in the Bible (it's one of the possible interpretations of it). Someone came up with the view, either by revelation or by his own reason. Either these views are really the truth, or they are just what people said long ago to protect their church. I don't know.

About the analogy, I was just trying to show that sometimes people's view of God's plan is not the truth, especially when they try to limit Him or define Him.

Don't worry, you haven't offended me at all :) You've made me think about some things, and I'll continue to research. Obviously you have a right to stick with your own view, hehe.

God bless :)

[rusmeister]

I don't think you've understood what I meant by 'authority'. Of course we all accept God as Authority; trouble is, He doesn't generally have the angel Gabriel appear and explain to us what this-and-so means, or what this seeming contradiction means, or what was the original meaning of the phrase rendered in English as "...until she had brought forth her firstborn Son Jesus", etc.

When you seek understanding, who is the earthly, physical, solid person or institution you turn to get clarity? Or do you make up your mind on your own? Or do you believe that God mystically reveals what it really means (which to everyone else is no different from #2)?

The idea that something needs to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible (Sola Scriptura) doesn't really hold water. Does your church use a pulpit? Pews? Where are they mentioned? The Bible doesn't speak about Baptists, Methodists, Catholics or Independents either, come to think of it. How is a worship service conducted? There is no way to get that from the Bible at all, except for what little is described of Jewish worship.

I do agree that we cannot limit God. That's the main basis for my belief that perhaps everyone really can be saved (and I mean that in the eternal sense, not the temporal one used by many Protestants). However, if God has, through revelation, revealed things about Himself, that is not a case of us limiting Him.

I don't guess you are Baptist, but this personal account of a journey in faith has elements you may find of interest:
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets ... entury.htm
(I was raised Baptist, so find it incredibly interesting)

[Fea_Istra]

Hi Rusmeister

My authority is the Bible, and I interpret it based on some theological works I read, what my church teaches, and what God reveals to me in prayer. I believe He does this..

I believe that the Bible writes about the things that really matter in Christianity: the essence of it. I believe it was inspired by God. When you put it all together, you get an 'impression' of what our faith should be like, and how we should live. And I've found that individual passages also have a lot to say, even if you don't relate them to other passages. Maybe it doesn't mention denominations because they don't matter all that much? I don't know. But I do know it explicitly says that everyone who believes would be saved, and that if you love God and obey Him you'll be on the right path. It doesn't seem that anything else is really necessary (although it can be helpful), because the person who has God, has everything they need. I've never thought that I need a particular church to get to know God 'properly', because I know I have a relationship with Him as it is. I know He has changed me, so it's not an illusion. I really grew in my faith when I became Protestant, so I just remained that way. I go to church to have fellowship with other believers, to take Communion, to worship with others as a Body of Christ, and to learn...but my most meaningful time spent with God is in prayer. Perhaps my faith is a little simplistic, but I'm just trying to focus only on God and see where He leads me. So far it has worked, and God has changed me and lead me in ways I never expected. All glory to Him.

If what you're saying about Church is correct, then maybe in the future I'll realize that, when I'm ready. Maybe I'm not at that stage yet.

"How is a worship service conducted? There is no way to get that from the Bible at all, except for what little is described of Jewish worship"

The Samaritan woman asked Jesus if it's right to worship God in Jerusalem or on the mountain, like her ancestors. Jesus said that God desires followers who worship 'in spirit and in truth'. I don't think that it matters how we worship, unless it's 'in spirit and in truth'. God looks at our hearts.

"I don't guess you are Baptist, but this personal account of a journey in faith has elements you may find of interest: "

No, I'm not Baptist (I go to a non denominational church), but thanks for the link, I'll read it! :)

fea

[Fea_Istra]

I read it :) Indeed, it's very interesting! The author has some very good things to say. I’ll write my thoughts on the article, just because I’m very bored right now.. haha.

I sympathize with the author.
That’s quite a journey to make, and it sounds like it was a difficult process for him (but one with a good outcome ). However, the author’s descriptions of Protestantism don’t quite reflect most of my experience with it. Maybe the problems he encountered were particular to the Baptist denomination (or not. I don’t know many Baptists). The only thing I noticed is what he called the “cult of instant conversion”. I think that’s a problem as well, because the person is likely to forget all about God the next day and go back to their old life. However, there is nothing wrong with making a conscious decision to follow Christ, and telling Him that in prayer…it’s not the prayer that saves the person, it’s their faith in Christ, by which they should live. I know some very strong Christians who “accepted Christ” (the evangelical way)…but of course there are problems with this system as well.

"Worship" music: the author calls contemporary praise and worship music "shallow, sentimental, and emotionally manipulative". It does not seem so to me. I know there is a lot more to worship than music, and I try to worship God in all I do (but it's a struggle, I still have a lot more to go. Hopefully, some day it shall be natural.). But when I sing, I feel like I'm expressing to God how thankful I am for what He has done. But of course, it might not work for everyone, and that's alright...as I said before, worship should be done 'in spirit and in truth' no matter what form it takes.

"I no longer wanted "Christianity according to me." I was tired of an individualistic Christianity that needed to be reinvented every generation. I wanted the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3)"

I completely agree with him, but I've never felt that my faith is individualistic! Sure, I can be individualistic at times, and that's a sin. :( But when I think of God, I think of myself in terms of my relation to Him. The only meaning of our lives is found in being truly united with God, giving up our 'selves' to find life in Him. The definition of "person" is that they belong to God (or should). If they don't belong to God, they are cut off from the source of Life and are 'dead'. The author of the article said the same thing :) "individual autonomy" is not something that my church teaches, if I have understood it correctly.

Maybe the reason evangelical Protestantism seems so individualistic is because it's so focused on a personal 'relationship' with God, and on personal revelation and experience. But this need not be individualistic at all. I love the concept of a 'relationship' because this defines us as Christians. In fact I would even say that the whole concept is anti-individual. The 'personal' part just makes it very real to me. I used to think of God as a 'force', or 'energy', and this changed how I view Him. And the more we get to know Him, the more He transforms us, and we start seeing other people in a new way as well.

Another reason for this impression might be that many Protestants believe in the "priesthood of all believers"...that we have direct access to God. I agree with this belief, but I don't think that this means that we are separate from one another. Neither does it mean that God doesn't work in the Church as a whole. Since we are 'in' God (this suggests a 'relationship', and that we're not 'individuals'), we're also 'in' each other, in some way. This is why I believe that the Church is made up of all believers...because once you are 'in' God, you are 'in' the Body of Christ, and somehow, 'in' others. At the same time, you have direct access to Christ. These things need not be mutually exclusive.

I agree with everything the author said about the Trinity and the Original Sin. I've felt this before, but could never put it into words. These are powerful truths! I think the author did an awesome job explaining them.

"I have heard 45 minute sermons on heaven, which dealt almost exclusively on the "literal streets of gold." God and Christ were mentioned only a couple of times."

That's pretty sad :( I understand why he didn't find any of this fulfilling. I don't think anyone really does. I love what Julian of Norwich said: "Thou art my heaven". Amen!

"In free church Protestantism, anything that constrains the individual even the Truth is viewed as a threat to his autonomy"

I've never come across this, either...I'm sure that the author has, I'm just trying to say that maybe it's not as common as it seems from the article. Of course Protestantism has its problems, as does everything else on earth, but there are still churches out there that teach solid doctrine.

I also agree that the Church should be as described in John 17:21, that Christianity is positive, not negative, etc...

The point I'm trying to make here is not that "I know it all" (of course I don't!) but rather that it's quite possible to be Protestant and believe all these things... I just define the Church differently. But I do see it (her :) ) as 'one' whole, the Bride of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. At the same time, I love the idea of a 'personal relationship' with God. Instead of cutting out the rest of the world, it draws it in! And God is the center of it all, the Meaning, and the sustainer of everything, including our faith. If we rely on ourselves, we would die. If we rely on His Spirit, we would not be lead astray. God gives life, in the fullest sense of the word.

I have another question From what I understand, Orthodox Christians believe that we have access to God through the Church (correct me if I'm wrong). According to Orthodoxy, how does God work in the Church? How is it used to 'reach' people? I hope my question makes sense.... I also hope I'm not wearing you out with my questions

[rusmeister]

A belief can be taught without ever being formally mentioned.
I know from personal experience that state teacher prep programs in the US teach pluralism without ever naming it and that pluralism and its daughter relativism are subsequently taught indirectly to most children in the nation. The very idea that "I have my point of view, you have your point of view - How nice!" is the essence of pluralism - an insistence that there is no absolute Truth against which many points of view are wrong, but rather that everybody can have different faiths and beliefs and live together in harmony because your faith doesn't really matter. It doesn't reflect a reality that also affects me. The cardinal sin against this ideology, that most are steeped in unconsciously, is to insist that there can be a right and a wrong, and that someone's views can actually be wrong.

Your answer to my previous question seems to be mostly #2 (self), with a #1 element (authority) referred to in what your local church teaches. All of your responses are based on "I think" "I feel" "It seems to me". (I know we use these conventions in our everyday lives, but in the ultimate question of authority we cannot use these words without making us the arbiter of that authority.) Is it not truer that if there is an absolute Truth on this question, it should be something that we should find 'as is', and like some things about it and not like other things? Indeed, there ought to be some things we don't 'like'; some things ought to make us distinctly uncomfortable, particularly with how we live our lives.
Faith in the West, and in the US more than anywhere else, tends to be deeply individualistic, especially Protestantism, and I agree - the individualism is rarely 'taught' as such openly - except for things like references to a 'personal' Savior. It is something that most are not consciously aware of.

A counter-question - are some Protestant faiths wrong? Or at least less correct than others? Are any Christian denominations at all pretty much or totally off-base?

Also, a very strong point in the article was about the general lack of reference to the Holy Trinity (outside of, say, Baptism). I'd be interested in your comments on that!

No, I'm not tired from your questions!
But I am just one man (3 kids!), and not the best source of information for questions about the Orthodox Church because I have found that there is so much to learn it will take me a lifetime. The Orthodox Faith is simple enough that a simpleton can say "I believe" and be accepted (noting that he accepts the Church and not himself as authority) and complex enough to, well, take a lifetime to learn. In the end, if I have doubts about a Church teaching, for me the Church is right and I am wrong. It's quite simple. There's something I have not yet learned or understood and that is why I am wrong. Not blind. Rational acceptance of my own limitations.

Your questions would be answered better here:
http://www.oca.org/QAIndex.asp?SID=3 There's an e-mail there for Fr. John Matusiak.
You can find me and a bunch of other Orthodox layfolk at
http://www.christianforums.com/f145-the ... hodox.html

Your understanding of 'access' could vary. Of course, we can always talk to God through prayer - both spontaneous prayer and prepared prayers (which, modelled on the Lord's prayer, show us what we SHOULD be praying about, instead of just our own selfish needs and desires. In the Church, we have 'access' and God works through the Sacraments. We have access through the Divine Liturgy and other services (funny how I used to see the idea of a service as of ME being spiritually served - now it's more about serving God than being served - worshipping and praising Him)
As to reaching others - a variety of ways (missions, outreaches, various Church initiatives and ministries, but (I think) chief among them is how we live our own lives. At least in our age, where everyone has heard of Christianity, so few have seen it.
A key element is that you have to want to be saved (in the general sense) before you can hear.
('He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.')
God finds His sheep, and while we are to do what we can, in the end it's up to the Lord.

[Fea_Istra]

Hi Rusmeister :)

I definitely do not support relavitism or pluralism, and neither does my church (my pastor once said that there is no 'our way', only God's way, and the only way to Him is through Jesus Christ). But since it's faith in Christ that saves us, not a style of worship or a tradition, I'm willing to accept different traditions among Christians. What truly matters is how we are to God and to others..the Pharisees had all the right laws and traditions, yet Jesus said that they have no love for God in their hearts because they did not believe in Him. Of course it's good to have traditions and to belong to a church and to have faith in what is taught there..God meant for us to be one Body..and it's very important to recognize and avoid false doctrine. But which one of us has full understanding of God's ways?

If we see a fellow Christian sinning, we should help them in a loving way. If we see false doctrine, we should avoid it. The Bible says that if someone teaches a different gospel than the one we have heard from the beginning, it is incorrect. But I’ve seen people go into big arguments because one considers the other’s worship style ‘wrong’. Isn’t this what Paul was talking about in Romans 14 (only he was talking about ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ food)? “Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men”. (Romans 14: 13- 18). If something does not lead to sin, we should not criticize it. I don’t believe that there is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ worship style, and although I know which one I prefer, I don’t really care if a person likes the Liturgy, singing hymns, or contemporary songs. This also goes for traditions and other external things. I’ve seen people go into huge arguments about these things. It’s important to be sure of what you believe and not doubt, but peace is also important. Any type of worship is good as long as its in spirit and in truth, and anyway we should primarily worship God through our actions and by how we live.

By the way, I’m not at all accusing you of being a ‘stumbling block’! I hope it doesn’t sound like I am. Our conversation on this forum has been a learning experience, and I’m looking more into the Orthodox Church and feel more accepting of it than before. I mentioned Romans 14 as a response to what you said about pluralism. Pluralism is only bad if it prevents us from glorifying God (for example, believing that Christ is not the only way to salvation).

“Your answer to my previous question seems to be mostly #2 (self), with a #1 element (authority) referred to in what your local church teaches.”

I really do believe that sometimes the Holy Spirit helps me interpret the Bible. Of course I’ve made mistakes in the past and have relied on my own mind – quite frequently. But if I ask God for wisdom, how is this taking myself as authority? Isn’t this taking God as authority? I also listen to others’ interpretations, I read books, I go to church, etc. But in the end, no matter what I hear I try to find out what God says about it. The Church is made up of imperfect humans, and therefore can (and does) make mistakes. Do you fully rely on the teachings of the Church Fathers? I am certain that they were better Christians than I am, but they were still human, so I pray about what I read.

“the individualism is rarely ‘taught’ as such openly – except for things like references to a ‘personal’ Savior”

How do you interpret the idea of a ‘personal’ Savior?
To me, this means that we can have a direct, personal relationship with God. That when we are saved, we are transformed just by knowing Him. This whole idea of a 'personal' Savior has helped me grow in faith, be a better Christian, and be more committed to God. He seemed far away before but now I know that He loves each one of us and that I became His when I accepted Christ by faith. Of course it's possible to realize all these things without this idea! In the end it's God who draws us to Himself. But it has really helped me. And from my experience, it's not individualistic. A 'personal' relationship with God does not exclude others, it draws them in! The closer I am to God, the more I want to share His love and light with others, and the more I want to deny myself to follow Him. It's not easy to do what God asks, and when I try to do it on my own strength I fail. But this 'personal relationship' has helped me be closer to God, and this helps me serve Him. It has helped me experience His love, and isn't this what enables us to put Him first in our life? Isn't this why the martyrs gave up their lives rather than deny Jesus? From my experience, God is not 'impersonal' at all.

I'm just trying to say that this idea helped me to know God better, and it's not individualistic because it's impossible to be individualistic when you're with Him. When you define yourself based on your relationship with God, all relationships are affected...the 'personal' part just shows that it's a close one on one sort of relationship, but this doesn't make it individualistic cause it's with God.

"Are any Christian denominations at all pretty much or totally off-base?"

I think that anything that teaches a different gospel and a different Christ than the Bible is a false teaching. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again from death, and if you are committed to following Him and obeying Him, you are on the 'narrow' path... whoever is willing to believe these things is willing to accept Christ, and He does not drive away anyone who comes to Him (John 6: 37). It is faith that's important, not necessarily understanding, because it shows trust and reliance on God. Faith allows us to open our hearts to God, and by this He changes us and helps us do good deeds. By this, we please Him. The Pharisees had a great amount of knowledge and correct doctrine, yet their hearts were in the wrong place.

"A counter-question - are some Protestant faiths wrong? Or at least less correct than others?"

I do not believe that any of us has the whole Truth, so we are all wrong about something or other. If we knew and understood everything we would be God. But even if your understanding of theology isn't perfect, if you try to obey God out of love, I believe He accepts this as faithful service. In the end it's the heart that matters. I imagine that a person who only knows that Jesus saved them, but fully believes and lives a life of selfless love; is closer to God than someone who knows all the theology in the world but never actually lives it. So it may well be that some denominations are less correct than others, but God doesn't judge us based on labels, and it's not up to me to say who is more correct. In the end, what matters is..do we worship God, or something else.

"Also, a very strong point in the article was about the general lack of reference to the Holy Trinity (outside of, say, Baptism). I'd be interested in your comments on that! "

You're right, the Holy Trinity is not mentioned all that much in the church I go to. It's mostly assumed (we do believe in it). The pastor mentioned the words 'the Trinity' a couple of times in sermons, and some of the worship songs mentioned it too. But that's about it. I wish there was more about the Holy Trinity :( I like what the author of that article said about it. However, it's mentioned implicitly quite a bit, because the pastor frequently talks about Jesus being the Son of God and being one with the Father, and there was a sermon on the role of the Holy Spirit.

"In the end, if I have doubts about a Church teaching, for me the Church is right and I am wrong. "

I have the same attitude towards the Bible. If it is saying something I can't understand, or even something that seems strange to me, I try to accept it anyway. I believe that understanding comes from faith more than faith comes from understanding. We can only understand spiritual things if we are spiritual people.

I fully accept the Bible because I believe it to be inspired by God. I also believe that God works in the Church and is present in her by the Holy Spirit. But I don't always accept everything the Church teaches because how do I know if a teaching was given by God, or not? There were many false teachers in the early Church, even during the times of the Apostles. When the Apostles died, some corrupted teachings might have become popular. So I evaluate everything by the Bible, because it doesn't change (except a bit in translation). If I disagree with something the Church teaches, I try to determine if my view is from God, or from myself. If it's my own, I take the Church teaching. If I know it's from God, I choose Him. After all, we all have the Holy Spirit, not only the Bishops. But in the spirit of Romans 14, if you fully accept everything the Church teaches, I would not tell you to change your mind. I pray that God would guard both of us from any false teaching or deception.

Thanks for the links :)

I agree with what you wrote about 'access', especially what you said about living as true Christians. Concerning the Liturgy, I believe that God is present there, but I believe He is present in other forms of corporate (and private) worship as well...as long as He is worshipped, He is there.

Sorry this is so long, wow. a lot of what I said could be summarized in this way:

"It is in the process of being worshipped that God communicates His presence to men."

--Reflections on the Psalms, CS Lewis

Without God, everything turns bad. With God, anything becomes good. The question is not.. are certain traditions good or bad? But…when you follow them, do they lead you closer to God, or not? “by their fruits you shall know them”. Since there are strong Christians in all churches, it follows that God is present in any church that believes in Him. For we can not become strong Christians without His help.

[rusmeister]

[Fea_Istra]

[rusmeister]

[Lord Isaac]

Lets look at some biblical facts here:

In James 5:16, God says to confess our sins to one another.

Well, people were already doing so. In fact, they had been going to priests for thousands of years. Check Leviticus 5:5-6. In it, we see that people were commanded by God to go to the priest who absolves them for God.

But Jesus reaffirms that teaching in Matthew 9:6 when He tells us that He has been given the power to forgive sins. In verse 8, the people marvel that such authority was given to "men" -plural.

In John 20:21-23, Jesus says "As the Father sends me, so do I send you." But how did the father send Jesus? In Matthew 9, it says God sent Him to forgive sins. Now Jesus sends His disciples in the same way. Just to clarify this command, He goes on to say in verses 22 and 23 that if they, the apostles, forgive sins and retain them, they are forgiven and retained.

It sounds pretty slear that Jesus' command of confession was to His apostles, and not by one's self.

[Lord Isaac]

On the subject of authority, for those who claim that the Bible is the most authoritative, why don't we take a look at what the Bible says?

Lets start with 1 Timothy 3:15. What does it say? it says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not the Bible, nor any one parson.

So, in John 17:20-21, Christ prayed for unity. "That they may all be one..." Paul warned against division in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.

According to Matthew 28:18, Jesus was given all authority in Heaven and on earth. In verses 19-20, He told us to observe all the He had commanded. In Ephesians1:22-23, it says that Jesus is the head of the body, being the Church. In Ephesians 5:23-24, His apostles tell us to submit to Him in everything.

To recieve Christ, we must recieve His apostles as it says in John 13:20. (The word "Apostle" means "one sent". So, as Jesus speaks of 'whomever I send', He has particular reference to His apostles.

2 Corinthians 5:20 says the the apostles were sent as "ambassadors for Christ". Therefore the early church "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" as it says in Acts 2:42.

In John 14:26, Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit who would teach the apostles all things, reminding them of what Jesus said. In John 16:12-13, Jesus says that the Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. The arrival of the Spirit did just that.

We see that in Acts 20:27, Paul said he taught "the whole counsel of God" and in 2 Peter 1:3, Peter wrote that God "has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness."

So the apostles had all of Jesus' authority, but is that still around today and how do we find it?

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says "You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church". He doesn't build it on scripture or a mystical body of believers. He builds it on Peter, the apostle. Where the apostles are, there also is the church of Christ. Jesus even says that the "gates of Hell shall not prevail against it".

In John 10:16, Jesus said there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations with pastors. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

In John 17:21 Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse because Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us.

In Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:23-32, and Collossians 1:18 and 24 Paul speaks on unity. The Church does not mean "invisible" unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.

And finally, in Matthew 5:14, Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden. This is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body.

So we are told by the apostles to hold on to the traditions that they have taught us, wether it be "by word of mouth or by letter." as it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. And Peter said in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that no one by themselves can interpret scripture properly on their own.

So who has the authority here? Where is the truth? According to the Bible, the Church has all the truth and the only visible Church on this earth is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[Stanley Anderson]

[Lord Isaac]

[Fea_Istra]

[rusmeister]

Fea, would you say that Lord Isaac's interpretations are not guided by the Holy Spirit? (I was speaking about the enormous problem and division created by personal interpretation...) Whether they are his personal interpretations or teachings of the RCC is beside the point here, I suppose.