Catholic Exegesis Involves Some Eisegesis (as it Should)

When a Catholic Apologist Says THESE THINGS, They Are Wrong (Here's How You Answer)!
BiblicallyMotivated | 8 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8---ti8nIw

Excuses, I just took a look at the caption.

That image of an angry priest in a Lent sermon or hearing confession, did you get it from a Hollywood film or is it AI?

---

Lots of church history, sometimes some Latin, lots of confident assertions about what the father said, but when you actually press them back to the text of scripture, things wax interpretive pretty fast. Because most Catholic ecclesiastical arguments aren't exeetical. their interpretive frameworks built on top of scripture and then read back into it. The text gets cited, but it's rarely doing the work they claim it's doing.

How do you avoid this with Christian interpretation of the OT?

As you may be awareish of, a certain Tovia Singer will interpret those passages differently.

I would say, yes, Catholic interpretation of the OT is a framework on top of OT Scripture which Jesus read back into it, on His walk to Emmaus and on other occasions after rising and before ascending.

I note that 4 out of your 5 examples deal with "Formalprinzip" (equivalent to Protestant "sola Scriptura") and only Apostolic Succession gets to the meat ("Materialprinzip", equivalent to Protestant "whereever the Christian faith is truly taught" and so on).

BiblicallyMotivated

@BiblicallyMotivated

The difference is in new revelation. The prophets told the Jews to expect a new covenant which would naturally include new revelation. The OT passages quoted in the NT that deviate from their original context is the right of new revelation and attributable to "manifold fulfillment" where various scriptures from the OT would be applied in new ways or given a new layer of meaning. I fully expect this to happen again at the return of Christ, but not until then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated We agree that there is no new revelation (other than as to pragmatical detail) prior to the second coming after the last Apostle died.

However, with OT, we know that Jesus gave a Christian interpretation of all of the OT, Moses and all the prophets, and that's more than the few comments within NT quotes supply us with.

Our claim isn't we are authorised somehow to add, our claim is, we have preserved all of that.

---

Wait, your Apostolic Succession is not the Catholic term.

The Catholic term doesn't refer to Apostolic origin of Scriptures, but to Apostolic origin of sacramental Church leaders.

As to Apostolic origin of Scriptures, you actually may have a point.

Like CMI certainly has a point (from Behe, I think) that the flagellum of the bacterium proves God as Creator, as Intelligent Designer.

However, the problem is, for Behe, Romans 1 doesn't refer to a thing which will be discovered close to 20 centuries later in a microscope. And your view on how NT books are authenticated involves a kind and degree of philologic work which would have been way beyond most people in the first and second centuries.

St. Paul relied on Geocentrism. We observe it, it's not a set of shining things attached to one solid cylinder or spheric inside, since Sun, Moon and other planets have orbits independent of the Sphere of the Fix Stars, therefore this needs, in the present, a very good and conscious coordinator, who, for being able to roll the universe around us needs to have inexhaustible power.

And second C. Christians relied on Tradition. Hebrews actually has two alternative authorships within the first centuries, Tertullian thought or mentioned that some thought, it was written by St. Barnabas (whom we celebrate today).

Please, do tell me if you ever get to grips with what Catholics mean by Apostolic Succession, and do a reply to that. Would you like my defense first?

john irish

@johnirish989

The total silence of Scripture. Hmm.

But sure, school us, teacher.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 A silence can be very deafening, if you are deaf or don't turn the ear in the right direction.

Silence on what? Our sense of Apostolic Succession?

Matthew 28:16 to 20 says Jesus will be with His Apostles to the end of time. Apostles, if you note verse 16, He was not speaking to all faithful.

Now, this would be redundant if it were just about Apostles in their own persons, since they (Judas was already gone) went to Heaven.

Therefore it refers to them having successors.

Acts 1 shows the traitor getting, not exactly a successor in this sense, but a replacement, but in his quality of sacramental bishop, he was successor of the other 11.

I think it was Antioch that started out without Apostolic Succession, Apollo hadn't even got a Christian Baptism, but the Apostles in Jerusalem saw to it that this didn't remain so.

People in Antioch with Apostolic succession laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.

Meanwhile, in Acts 8 (I think) the Apostles had shown they had a power that the other disciples lacked, and Simon Magus wanted it. Now, Peter didn't tell him "this isn't how it works" but "your motivation and assumption about God are blasphemy". We may assume Simon Magus was right he would have been able to baptise in Holy Spirit if Peter had laid hands on him, which he didn't.

Paul, as said, had Apostolic succession at one remote (if none of the twelve was in Antioch in Acts 13), he gave it to Timothy and told Timothy about who to give or not give it to.

Complaining you don't find this in one passage is like complaining the chronology of Kings isn't in one passage.

john irish

You're adding much to Scripture. Sacramental bishops in Acts 1. Why are we adding that? Those with Apostolic succession in Acts 13. Why are we adding that?

Acts 13:1-3, 2 Timothy 1:6, 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:22: Wow. Not a peep about succession.

You're reading your bias into Scripture. Indicating desperation. Your desperate church so badly needs craves legitimacy, POWER.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Sorry, but you are making yourself obtuse. The only thing I positively added was the terminology, so as to explain it from the Bible.

You read like a JW accusing Trinitarians of adding to the NT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 OK, it seems your questions for two of them actually have some sense.

"Sacramental bishops in Acts 1. Why are we adding that?"

Because the laying of hands is a sacramental sign and because the other thing about being an apostle, namely having witnessed the Resurrection, Matthias already had, or he wouldn't have been eligible.

"Those with Apostolic succession in Acts 13. Why are we adding that?"

Because we know from earlier, Acts 11, that the Apostles had had direct contact with Antioch.

john irish

@hglundahl Your adding garbage rcc terminology.

Again, NADA linking hands to succession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 12. Antioch. Paul and Barnabas. Timothy and Titus. Those Timothy were going to lay hands on.

WHAT is this if not a succession?

And especially as Matthew 28:16 to 20 promises one.

john irish

@hglundahl You have heard of Google, no? It's hyper-quick these days. Yeah yeah, we already know. YOU'RE smarter.

But definitely the Google is uninspired, human, prone to error. You have to RIGHTLY DIVIDE it, too. It's not Godgle. Way too often a trinny. And yet, often quite the helpful.

Alright my brother. It's hot but I'm going on my long walk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 I'm sorry, are you giving up argument and telling me "google it"?

Or are you suggesting the answer I had spent hours of Bible reading for a previous post was just sth I happened to hit as I googled it?

Either way, you are not winning the argument.

john irish

@hglundahl I couldn't have outed you any better. For you people Truth is irrelevant. It's all about winning.

POWER

And no. Googling questions is, just like I said, often quite the helpful.

Scared of a prenate. Don't be weird.

Alright. Let me get my lazy behind up.

Arnold the Schwartz: I'll be back.*

* footnote

If he called me Austrian, danke fürs Compliment; but if he considered me well trained, it's a bit too ridiculous to be one. I might as well ironise about myself before he does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Actually, truth was not relevant to your comments on Google.

I'm not scared to google a question, but I know there are diverse Protestant takes on Apostolic succession (including some Protestants claiming, "we have it, from the Catholic Church") and I'm interested on your take.

I also don't know what a prenate is. Did you mean prelate? No, not all that much.

I do know they can confer and I can't confer ordination, they can confer and I can't confer absolution. By the way, the power God gave His eleven minus Thomas to absolve is antecedent to successions to this power.

About another kind of power. When you tell me to google it, you are basically assuming the role of schooling me.

I'm sorry, I'm up for a debate, but not for schooling. I'm 57. I have lost decades of my life to people who are about the age of my parents, wanting to school me, but who aren't my mother. The one who did school me, when the time was the right one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Just in case you missed it, I actually did google it.

I found one reddit and one Ligonier ministries, and lazy slop dealing with the question on both.

1) "not found in Scripture" is a negative universal, and I happen to have found it in Scripture.
2) "not clearly found in Scripture" is a weasel word: Ligonier admit that it is found in Scripture as Catholics interpret it, but don't give the details or why the interpretation is rejected
3) Nestorius was validly ordained but still rejected, also Ligonier: yes, we differentiate between valid succession (which he had) and valid jurisdiction (which he lost), or in other words between sacrament and pastoral
4) "we place more importance on succession in truth than on succession in bishops" (freely after Ligonier) - we actually need both, since truth, as expressed in Scripture, actually does give us a very clear indication of Apostolic succession.

Calvin was totally right in commenting in Matthew 28:20 that someone who has succession but betrays truth is not heir to this promise. The next problem isn't that he applies this to Catholics. The huge problem is, he's not showing whom he considers to have preserved both sides, succession and truth, or at least whom he considers to have preserved truth — himself he was not claiming to preserve, but to rediscover it, contrary to the term "all days".

---

[dialogue]

Patrick Pawol

@patrickpawol8639

Malachi 1 verse 11 is a prophecy of the Eucharist in the Holy Sacrifice of the in Catholic Mass.

i

Romans (E.J.)

@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus

Christians believe in the Eucharist, what's your point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus Did you catch the nuance "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass"?

It's not just that Jesus is on the altar.

It's that Jesus' sacrifice on Calvary is on the altar.

Malachi speaks of a "pure oblation" ... a sacrifice among the Gentiles, so, after the Jewish temple.

ij

john irish

A MEMORIAL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 That it is a memorial, as per "hoc facite in meam commemorationem" doesn't exclude it is a sacrifice "qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum" / Malachi 1:11.

iij

Jesse Bryant

@jessebryant9233

No, the Eucharist is NOT a holy sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was "once for all", just like the Bible says.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jessebryant9233 You'd have a point if any Catholic said the Mass was another sacrifice.

Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once

And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified
[Hebrews 10:9-14]

What we are saying is not that Mass is another oblation, but that it is, from Heaven's view, the same one.

And that so it is, we prove in Malachi 1:11 and in ...

We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.
[Hebrews 13:10]