This is probably a reference to 2 Peter 1:20 which states that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation.
The only Catholics reading scripture were priests and scholars who could read Greek or Latin. It may have been a two-way street which doens’t make it right. The original question was how could we follow such a man, that question would work both ways.
You act as if people were as ignorant of Latin as they are now. Latin was the lingua franca of Europe for the longest time, so it’s not like it is now. If you could read, you read latin. This is no objection to the language of latin. Futhermore, the Church authorized loads of bibles in various vernacular languages, contrary to popular misconception. In fact, some sixteen or seventeen German bibles alone appeared between 1466-1517. From 1450-1550 some forty Italian bibles, eighteen French editions (with ten before 1520) as well as a hodgepodge assortment of some Russian, Danish, Bohemian, Polish, etc… bibles. English bibles had been produced for long before that of the KJV. (Although the earliest were in Saxon, yes, in the seventh and eighth centuries!!!) This is a common myth that simply must be dropped.
**I don’t recall any apostles teaching the purchase of indulgences, purgatory, or anything else like that. I know what teachings I agree with on him by what I see that lines up with scripture. If you look at most protestant denominations, the majority of them have the same basic, core beliefs on the Trinity, salvation, etc. Its mostly in worship practices and preferences where we differ, and I don’t see a problem with that. **
Neither do I recall the Church advocating this position. I do recall certain people abusing indulgences, however. As for differences in practices, while many practices are not ‘doctrine,’ they nevertheless fall under the authority granted the Church, i.e., the power to bind and loose, rabbinical terms extending basically to the ability to impose these practices, to retain and forgive sins, these are extensions of the authority granted the Church. If the Church has the authority to do this, then you cannot say you can just ignore them. As for protestant beliefs, if you are looking for what the Apostles taught, they very strongly taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Further, the Fathers of the Church unanimously continued this tradition (as well as the sacrifical nature of the Mass). To me, this is one of the most important beliefs Yet, protestants tend to reject this position, nearly unanimously (except for certain “Anglo-Catholics”).
Actually, its Christ I follow, I don’t follow any church or man. I have various teachers who I prefer, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with every single thing. I honestly don’t believe God made us all the same and intended for us all to worship exactly the same way. Some may like organ music, some like to sing loudly and dance. If God is glorified, and Christ is the focus, I don’t see a problem.
I (try to) follow Christ as well. If you love him, why do you not obey him (to paraphrase Scripture)? Christ instituted a Church and gave it authority, thus, we are compelled to follow his Church, whether we like it or not.
In many Catholic churches, you can hear organ music. I know my Church has a huge organ. In any Catholic church with singing, you can sing as loud as you are able. I encourage it, in fact, please join the choir, we could use it. Dancing? Uh, I have to part here. Dancing focuses you on the dancers. As beautiful as dance may potentially be, it should be outside of the Mass, not in it. The purpose of the Mass is not as a social event, but instead to partake of our Lord and God. It is vertically oriented, so to speak, not horizontally.