This is the height of illogical reasoning. Of course, the Holy Spirit does not choose the successor to St. Peter otherwise there would be no freedom of will. We all pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance just as we do in our daily prayers and invocations. But in the end we are free to disobey the will of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Popes may even be corrected. But when a successor to St Peter acts ex cathedra in union with all the Bishops in proclaiming dogma this is where infallibility attaches.
Before the Bible there was the Church. Hence when the Church formally announced the Books in the Bible as the true Word of God somewhere around AD 380 in the Council of Rome, this act became infallible, and hence the authenticity of the written Word of God.
The Church alone may provide authoritative and authentic interpretation of scripture. Otherwise we allow the Billy Grahams, Joel Osteens, Rev. Al Sharptons; Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, the Benny Hinns and every other Dick, Tom and Harry and half-witted foursquare church pastors to tell us what scripture instructs.
Go check out the large number of Protestant denominations that says scripture allows for married gay and lesbian pastors.
Then how can the church be protected from error in teaching in faith or morals if some free will toes are not going to be stepped on?
If the church is going to be protected from error, then it goes without saying that those propagating the error are going to be stopped somehow and that would violate their free will.
For that matter, if it's free will uber alles, then that hog ties God in dealing with man.
Were they not and are they not allowed to continue in their priestly duties, administering sacraments that Catholics consider valid no matter what the sin in their lives because their intent is pure, or some such nonsense?
Y'all need to clean house according the the very Scripture y'all claim your church gave us before throwing any stones.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:5-9 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
That's some organization ya'll are running.
Not so fast fish...
Not in Scripture... anywhere.
not in Scripture... anywhere.
not in Scripture... anywhere.
not in Scripture... anywhere.
Doesn't matter. This is never in Scripture... anywhere.
Homosexuality is rampant & allowed is Vatican City.
Check out all the Protestant denominations that DON’T.
Meanwhile there’s cocaine-fueled sodomite orgies in the Vatican.
Jesus said to judge people by their fruits, no pun intended.
What illogical reasoning? Since you do not even quote what point you are responding to, I can only assume from your reply you think I argued that the Holy Spirit must choose the successor to St. Peter for Rome to submit to him, which I actually argued against in principle.
Thus once again your attempted correction is erroneous from the start.
Moreover,I defined in what manner Holy Spirit would be the one choosing a successor "so that the man they choose is His choice as in selecting Saul and David," and which is no in conflict with free will as per your idea of this choosing, but it means God makes the choice so manifest that it would be a formal act of disobedience to choose otherwise.
But when a successor to St Peter acts ex cathedra in union with all the Bishops in proclaiming dogma this is where infallibility attaches.
If Rome does say so herself, but which mere assertion was just what I took time to reprove. Is comprehension the problem (I am rather slow myself)?
Before the Bible there was the Church. Hence when the Church formally announced the Books in the Bible as the true Word of God somewhere around AD 380 in the Council of Rome, this act became infallible, and hence the authenticity of the written Word of God.
Which assertion (which is all you have) first of all is contrary to your own teachers and history:
► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;
► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
And indeed, despite statements by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence, as these were not infallible, thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent .
Secondly, before the church there was Scripture, a substantive body of wholly inspired writings, and thus the Lord and His apostles, as itinerant preachers, established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Furthermore, this authoritative body of writings were not established by any infallible magisterium, as even common souls could correctly ascertain both men and writings of men as being so (thus they held John the Baptist to be "a prophet indeed:" (Mk. 11:32) Which is actually how the NT church began, contrary to your erroneous RC model.
The Church alone may provide authoritative and authentic interpretation of scripture.
Nonsense. To be consistent with your logic, since those who sat in the seat of Moses were the historical authoritative magisterial stewards of Scripture then they alone could provide authoritative and authentic interpretation of scripture, versus some non-ordained and rejected (by them) itinerant preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). Even the veracity of the apostles was subject to testing by Scripture, versus them being the supreme standard on Truth. For as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Thus what you and many cults have have done is dethrone the Scriptures as supreme and substituted your church, as supporting the Truth upon which the NT church she was established made her supreme infallible authority on Truth. A court can actually be the supreme judicial authority, as was the "supreme court" of the OT, but which does not require or equate to ensured infallibility, much less being wholly inspired of God, which the "infallible": words of popes are not, and thus cannot be equal to Scripture, by which all is judged.
Otherwise we allow the Billy Grahams, Joel Osteens, Rev. Al Sharptons; Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, the Benny Hinns and every other Dick, Tom and Harry and half-witted foursquare church pastors to tell us what scripture instructs.
Your variegated mixture is absurd, as is your reasoning. In Scripture ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was never seen or needed in order to have authority, and dissent from the OT magisterium was a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) but that did not mean that all those who sat in their seat would always judge correctly, Nor do such promises as to guide His body into all Truth (which did not start with the church) promise or require ensured infallibility.
Moreover, unless you make the State the arm of the church in exterminating the heretics as medieval Catholicism required of RC rulers in their lands, then you are not going to silence every Joel Osteen, Rev. Al Sharpton; Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or Steelfish from attempting tell us what scripture instructs. And which use of the sword of men to silence merely theological opponents was not Scriptural, which just adds to the list of Rome's errors. But perhaps that use is what you advocate.
However, the absence of an infallible magisterium simply does not mean that every Joel Osteen, Rev. Al Sharpton; Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or Steelfish must be allowed to go on unopposed, and in fact your magisterium is quote ineffective in combating such (a pope even affirming Billy Graham), but it has been fundamental evangelicalism which most powerfully condemned such.
Go check out the large number of Protestant denominations that says scripture allows for married gay and lesbian pastors. Which is actually an argument against you and for Bible Christians, since those liberal denominations are typically the closest to Catholicism, while those who most strongly hold to the authority of Scripture testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs and more values, in contrast to your brethren overall, those whom Rome treats as members in life and in death.
Thus your every point is fallacious, while as recent threads attest, your church is a mixture of variant interpretations on who valid popes and what teachings are so, and their meaning. Come to think of it, perhaps you would answer the avoided question, as to whom was the last valid pope?
You couldn't be more wrong!
"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin
"The Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard."- John Calvin