Replies

"Hmmm... Choices, choices, choices...Do I trust an historic philosopher regarded as a brilliant ontologist whose writing to this day are still used in theology and logic courses throughout the world...or...a former Catholic nun who wrote an essay four years ago, and who apparently has an axe to grind?"

Neither. Rely on the Word of God.

'Now we [God's elect individuals / The Bride of Christ / The invisible universal church of God] have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God' (I Cor. 2:12).

1 John 2:27

Romans 8:28-30; 9:11-13; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4-6

John 6:65

BTW, I'm curious. If Rome cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning, can you explain how that does NOT make tradition a superior authority to Scripture?

And since Rome claims infallibility for itself, can you explain how that doesn't make the Scriptures ultimately irrelevant.

Friend, may I respectfully say that you have some serious study to do. Your arguments are tired and long disproven. At the risk of violating Matthew 7:6 -

John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" The Word is not just the contents of a book commonly known as the bible. The New Testament is a collection of works, written a couple decades after the founding of the Church, that aided the early Christians in their practice of Chistocentric catholic religion.

BTW, Rome is a place. A place cannot make infallible proclaimation. Infallibility is a doctine bounded in the vicar and only under specific bounds. Your straw man is indicative of either an elementary level of understanding or purposeful misrepresentation.