This passage is in perfect context and stands on its own.
Your refusal to acknowledge same is out of fear of losing the “protest”, which is why you go to such great lengths to obfuscate the subject.
Name calling and citing “obvious larger context” dribble is pure smoke.
Do you believe condescension and volume make you seem authoritative?
When you defend a church which arrogates to itself the claim of supremacy and universal jurisdiction then you should not complain when the warrant for such is examined and impugned when found wanting, despite their church's own prolixity, and the foundational presuppositions behind your assertions warrant more than a cursory examination, despite the unwillingness of Roman Catholic apologists to allow themselves to see superficiality of their claims, and even though such RCs often basically ignore what refutes them and continue to argue by assertion, after the autocratic premise of their object of devotion. And as you have done so here I will reiterate and expand upon some of what I said. For Paul, “as his manner was,” “reasoned out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:20) and we are to search out a matter and be like the noble Bereans. (Act 17:11)
In contrast, for you Rome's say so on such matters is to be sufficient, for as one of your own says, “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips,” (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm] and “the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” Pope Pius X, VEHEMENTER NOS, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means")
But of course, as shown, there is still significant personal interpretation involved in this.
Nah...Protestant Bibles contain more than 5% error, compared to the Catholic Bible they watered down.
“First, the NKJV seems to be what you are referring to,..”
NO! I meant KJV, because that is exactly what World Publishing wrote, so take it up with them.
I find your statement from one unreferenced study to be rather meaningless without a comparison with the current official Roman Catholic Bible today, the greater problems of which you ignored, as well as its approved notes, while the old version which few Roman Catholics use which you chose to compare it with is criticized by weightier Roman Catholics than G. Larry, which source was also supplied by link.
Christ meant precisely what is written here:Matt 16:18-19
Your “argument” is simply an assertion, while you ignored the reality that the interpretation that this refers to Peter uniquely being the infallible Rock is only one interpretation, finding disagreement even among CFs, and that the real basis for this verse having any authority for that position is that Rome has infallibly declared that she is infallible, and uses this in support.
And which does not necessarily amount to a formal exegesis of it according to one of your own:
Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: the dogma being defined here is Peter´s primacy and authority over the Church, not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It´s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.
You go to great lengths to pretend that Christ left us with no earthly authority to preserve his Gospel and his Church on earth. This passage at the moment it is delivered makes clear that Peter and his successors are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
Clear? Even the context in which this is supposedly exercised is a manner of interpretation, and your EO friends reject the aspect of the unique Petrine prerogative. That assured, formulaic perpetual infallibility is what Rome goes to great lengths to extrapolate from such texts in her eisegesis is what is clear, and shows ignorance of how God preserved truth and under what context the claim to authenticity and the exercise of power is valid.
While Rome pretends that such promises support her magisterium, examining all the verses invoked for this in the light of the rest of Scripture does not evidence, as was shown, that Peter was uniquely the rock upon which the church is built — but that this refers to Peter's Divinely revealed confession of who Christ was, and thus to Christ Himself, “the Rock of this faith confessed by St Peter,” as your CCC even allows — while binding and loosing are manifest to reference apostolic powers Rome only wishes she really evidenced (thus the instruments of the Inquisitions would have been all spiritual, and the Last Rites would be associated with healing, and not death), as well as to rulings which rested upon Scriptural warrant and substantiation, (Acts 5:1-10; 13:9, 1Cor. 5:4,5; Ja. 5:14-16; Acts 15:7-20; Gen. 34:2,27; 35:2; Ex. 20:3-5; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Rm. 15:8-12,19; Num. 23:19 Amos 9:11-12) and not after the autocratic means of Rome and its premise of perpetual assured formulaic infallibility.
In addition, Rome argues her conclusion upon the premise that an AIM is necessary to preserve Truth. However, what Scripture manifests is that God never needed a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium of men to preserve His truth, and which does indeed lead to autocratic presumption (as seen in cults, and Rome infallibly defining herself to be infallible, and thus all “proofs,” if needed), but instead He often raised up men from without the formal magisterium to reprove it, as Christ did to those who presumed to teach for doctrines things which were merely the “tradition of the elders.” (Mk. 7:3-13) And as John the Baptist and the Lord Himself had no claim to sit in the seat of Moses, so their authority was challenged by the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders. (Mk. 11:28-33) But the claims of Christ were established by Scripture and the manner of attestation it affirms being given to the Truth. And thus the church began in dissent from those who supposed perpetual power based upon formal decent.
In contrast, rather than leaving an earthly authority to preserve his Gospel and his Church on earth that would end up being like the one that was replaced, the Lord did not establish a perpetuated Petrine papacy through formal decent, but established the church of the Living God (not institutionalized God) upon faith, by which the just shall live, this being demonstrable Scriptural faith in Him as the Divine Son of God, the Rock, “a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.” (Dt. 32:4b) to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:25) By this faith the church exists and by this faith the one body has its members, (1Cor. 12:13) and overcomes, (1Jn. 5:5) attacking the gates of Hell which shall not withstand it. (Mt. 16:18) And upon which faith authenticity rests, like that of a true Jew, not by formal decent, (Rm. 2:28,29) Though such are to ordain others who have this faith, it is by their Scriptural testimony that authenticity rests, but not as defined by autocratic determination.
This does not mean the church must cease to exist even when it presumes powers it is not given and binds what is not to be bound (including freedom of access to the Bible and men of God who loved it) and loosing that which should be bound (including means of the Inquisitions and certain teachings), nor when it fails in organizational unity or in teaching outside core salvific truths, for as the Church began upon the most essential faith in the Lord Jesus to save them, not their church or own merits, but out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, (Ps. 34:18; Acts 2:37; 16:14, 30) so as long as core salvific truths are preserved by which men may see themselves as damned for their sins and destitute of any means by which they may justify themselves, and so call upon the Lord Jesus to save them by his blood, then souls may yet be added to the body of Christ and the Church may continue, even when its Godliness, and faith is largely external in structure and form.
Yet those who promote salvation by confidence is their own virtues and the power of their church and who presume assured infallibility and perpetuation prophesy their own invalidation, and as God can raise up from stones children of Abraham, (Mt. 3:9) so He can raise up stones who have the essential faith of Peter to continue to build his Church, even if they are not sanctioned by those who presumed perpetuity based upon formal dissent and autocratic presumption.
The only alternative is for you to project that same gift to each of us. Individually.
Your premise is false, as is your argument. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura do not presume assured infallibility; rather they put their faith in the Scriptures as being assuredly infallible and can only seek to persuade souls “by the manifestation of the truth,” which the apostles most supremely did . (2Cor. 4:2) Even those who were the writers of holy writ did not presume to have assured formulaic infallibility, as if they would always be infallible whenever they spoken on faith and morals to the whole nation or church. One may speak infallible truth even if he is a donkey, but this does not assure that he will be infallible whenever he speaks according to a certain scope and subject-based criteria.
Nor is assurance promised in Scripture based upon the promise of an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium. Rather authenticity and assurance is established conformity with the Scriptures and its means of attestation, (1Jn. 5:13) and to which the Lord in his apostles appealed, as has been shown.
We see the fruits of that concept in the proliferation of Protestant denominations, in the aftermath of Luther’s interference.
And as has been shown the divisions in each is only a matter of degrees. And you cannot compare Roman Catholicism with Protestantism, as the former is one entity among other Catholic churches and the latter is many. But you can compare different models for achieving unity. As both have their problems, the question is, which one is Scriptural?
The Roman Catholic model is one in which souls make a of fallible human decision to trust in a assuredly infallible magisterium, which is effectively superior to Scripture, and to which implicit assent is to be rendered, and which justifies itself based upon tradition and history. Under this model, the greatest prevention of dissent based upon interpretation and the greatest degree of unity made be seen, and therefore cults, which basically operate under the same magisterial model, can boast of the greatest degree of unity.
However, while Rome has its Supreme magisterium and infallible statements which require the highest degree of submission of faith, yet discerning which statements are infallible and which was are not, and and at least some of what they mean, still involves some degree of interpretation. Also, infallible pronouncements arguably do not consist of the majority of what Catholics believe and practice, which area allows and requires more interpretation.
Therefore, while Roman Catholics look to an assuredly infallible magisterium and its pronouncements, they have made a fallible choice to do so, and must use fallible human reasoning in deciding which ones are infallible, and at least some of what they mean, as well as much of the other teachings of Rome. In reality, while Catholics subscribe to a certain set of core beliefs, allowable and disallowable disagreements within Rome are substantial even if they do not result in many formal divisions.
Furthermore, the basis for Rome's claim is derived from Scripture, Tradition and history, yet under this basis we still see still many divisions between Catholic churches who like Rome claim an assuredly infallible magisterium based upon Scripture, Tradition and history.
Under Sola Scriptura, souls also make a human decision to trust in an assuredly infallible authority, that being the Divinely established Scriptures, and also must exercise fallible human reasoning, if prayerfully, in understanding what it means. And under which there usually is a denominational magisterium, which again, is effectively all that Rome has herself. However, even without a central magisterium, they overall subscribe and manifestly contend for a limited set of core beliefs, outside of which one is rendered a heretic, yet outside of which allowable and disallowable disagreements are substantial and even result in many formal divisions (although evangelicals manifest a remarkable degree of spiritual unity in manifold ways which transcends denominations.)
Finally, the quality if not quantity, of the unity based upon implicit assent to an assuredly infallible magisterium can hardly be said to be superior to the unity attained by the Berean hearts and method, even if relatively rare.
Therefore as said, division is only about degrees, with any superiority of Rome's model being that of organizational unity, which any single denomination can compete with, while exhibiting essential spiritual unity across the lines and evidencing more fruits of regeneration, as they preached not themselves but Christ Jesus the Lord.
The text is in isolation from its context which is about the church as the body, and does not stand alone by which not discerning the body is made to refer to the nature of what is being eaten.
Even your own official NAB notes, while not denying transubstantiation, recognizes that not discerning the body is really about the manner or spirt in which this communion is to sppsd take place,
“If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12).
* [11:28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25).” (http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11)
Even if one believes in transubstantiation, the focus here is to be properly placed on the above, treating other members with the care they give to the host, while again, the context shows that “not discerning the Lord’s body” has nothing to do with not recognizing the composition of the elements, but refers to their failure to recognize other members for whom Christ died as being members, contrary to being in communion/fellowship with the body and blood of Christ which was given for the very ones they were neglecting while supposedly commemorating it!
I gladly allow the reader to examine my exegesis and judge what is warranted. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/1Cor._11.html#11