It is very interesting that both Protestnts and Catholics immediately jump to the dietary laws when they discover a Christian follows God's Holy Law. Nobody ever says that adultery, theft, murder, honoring parents, or coveting are no longer sins.
A8: You are the one who brought in 1 Tim 5:19 in response to my answer to your original question at the beginning of this dialogue.
Yes, I brought up the sripture. Praying for someone is always a good idea. But why can't you tell me if you can accuse your clergy and kick them out of the church or not?
Why do you think that 1 Peter 5:1 nullifies Matt 16:18? Peter is indeed a fellow elder (and a fellow Apostle), but he also has a unique authority as shown more specifically in Matt 16:18, both as the rock on which the Church is built, and as the possessor of the keys.
Following your logic, Peter is Satan as well as the foundation of the church.
Mat 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."
Now, are you telling me that Jesus put Satan in charge of the church?
You can. Why do you think you can't?
Ok, so what happens when laity accuse clergy of sin in the Catholic Church? Here is your answer.
It is a moot point because the Old Covenant context and the New Covenant context are distinct. Now we have a Magesterium gifted with the "charism of truth" (to quote from Irenaeus). If we assume that that we must on our own as individuals (apart from the Magesterium) figure out who is 'anointed' or 'divinely inspired', we are loading a false claim into our methodology, namely, the false claim that "there is no Magesterium graced with the charism of truth".
Where is the term Magesterium found in scripture? What scripture, what command of God tells us this? Who is Iraneus? Can you really tell me the sum of the scriptures is "trust the church, not the Word of God"?
Catholicism believes and teaches all of this. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
1679 years of Church history.
A8: Do you follow the Old Testament dietary laws? (No pork, shrimp, clams, oysters, lobster, etc.) (Leviticus 11)
KSUA: It is very interesting that both Protestnts and Catholics immediately jump to the dietary laws when they discover a Christian follows God's Holy Law. Nobody ever says that adultery, theft, murder, honoring parents, or coveting are no longer sins.
Notice that you didn't answer the question. You claimed that the law of God is "100% moral", and then you evaded the question when asked whether you consider the OT dietary law to be normative today. If you don't believe we should keep the OT dietary laws, then there is a contradiction in your theology between your notion that we don't need to keep the OT dietary laws, and your claims that "the Law of God is 100% moral" and "There is only one Law of God" (#1323).
-A8
I never said I couldn't tell you. We can (and should, though with humility and caution, and by the appropriate means) bring to light serious sins committed by the clergy. In fact, we have a duty to do so, out of love for them and for the holiness and purity of Christ's Church.
Following your logic, Peter is Satan as well as the foundation of the church.
No, the premise of your argument is mistaken. That *doesn't* follow my logic. When Jesus refers to Peter as a rock, Jesus isn't confusing Peter with a dense inanimate homeomerous chunk of earth. Jesus is using the term analogously, showing the *functional* role that Peter and his successors would have in the Church. But when Jesus says "Get behind me Satan", Jesus isn't saying that Peter is Satan. Jesus is not confusing Peter with the angelic prince of darkness. Jesus is speaking to Satan (and Peter) at the same time, rebuking both of them. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus thinks Peter *is* Satan. But Jesus definitely says that Peter is the rock (i.e. the foundation stone) upon which Jesus will build His Church, and to whom Jesus gives (vs. 19) the "keys of the kingdom of heaven".
Where is the term Magisterium found in scripture?
Right next to the word 'Sabbatarian'. :-)
There are many terms in theology that are not found in Scripture.
What scripture, what command of God tells us this?
All the Scriptures and commands of God come to us through the Magisterium. That is why the question itself is strange. Jesus did not write any books. He ordained Apostles with the authority to rule the Church and forgive and retain sins (Matthew 16:18-19; Luke 10:16; John 20:22-23); these Apostles ordained bishops (cf. Pillipians 1:1; 1 Tim 3; Titus 1:7) to govern the churches in the various cities. Bishops were instructed to ordain successors (2 Tim 2:2) through the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) with the prayer of consecration. The books of the New Testament were written by Apostles (or others under their supervision), and were over time collected, identified, preserved, copied, and canonized by the bishops.
Here's the definition of 'Magisterium' in the Catholic Catechism: "The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals."
Who is Irenaeus?
Bishop of Lyons, c. 180 AD. You can read more about him here.
Can you really tell me the sum of the scriptures is "trust the church, not the Word of God"?
The Magisterium does *not* say that the sum of Scripture is "trust the church, not the Word of God". It would most definitely reject such a statement. One does not have to choose between trusting the Magisterium and trusting the Word of God. Only by trusting the Magisterium can we trust that we have the Word of God. The two necessarily go together.
"For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustine
-A8