Replies

>those to whom Scripture is entrusted are infallible, and must be obeyed.<

“Once again I must point out that seeing that you obviously have a totally flawed understanding of infallibility why would I even consider anything else that you say?”

How is that flawed?

“You just have to assent to it and obey. Get it? It is what we do before God, we say yes and we obey.”

I do get it (though this does not apply to all levels of RC teaching), and which confirms my prior statement.

“the Catholic Church not only claims that it is the ultimate earthly authority, it IS the ultimate earthly authority because it is led and protected by the Holy Spirit sent down at Pentacost.”

I obviously am familiar with that claim, and one of my responses was that “the Catholic doctrine of a perpetuated Petrine papacy [which is foundational to your claim] critically fails to possess the explicit and implicit substantiation that the Holy Spirit is faithful to provide for other major doctrines of like critical nature.”

“I had never heard the phrase either but this site was interesting. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a29.htm";

Thank you for providing a respectable Catholic source that confirms this is an accurate term. For all intents and purposes, what Rome is asserting is that those to whom the word of God comes have autocratic authority over it, and based upon her interpretation of Scripture, she has the sole authority to infallibly define what is Scripture and it’s meaning, as well as to effectively add to it by making church tradition of equal authority to it.

My brief response to this is that i fully agree that God established His enduring church (Mt. 16:18), and that it does have the powers from Christ the Scriptures ascribe to it (Mt. 18:18), and that He did establish ordination of Bishops/elders (same office) and deacons (Tts. 1:5-9; Heb. 6:2; Acts 6:2-6), but not a successor to Peter, and that the pastoral office functions as teachers and overseers to whom obedience is enjoined (1 Tim. 4; Heb. 13:17). And which is manifest in Bible believing churches,. And that God used holy men to penn His Scriptures (2 Pet. 2:21, 21). The differences are that the same class of revelation (the Scriptures) manifest that both those who give the word as well as it’s preservers are subject to it (Mk. 7:6-13), and that even the preaching of the very apostles had to be able to withstand Scriptural scrutiny by common men who were lovers of truth and the Scriptures, and who are commended by the Holy Spirit (Acts 17:11).

And that while there was an oral tradition, if it was wholly inspired then this would have been written down as was the Biblical manner (Ex. 17:14; Dt. 31:24; 1 Sa. 10:25; Jer. 30:2; 45:1; 51:60), and included as Scripture, which is the only class of revelation that is explicitly declared to be wholly inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). And the canon being closed, to make another stream of revelation equal to is essentially adding to the canon.

And while this does not mean we cannot not refer to history, or that God cannot speak to us today (which evangelicals believe), it means that such must be subject to the codified word of God, the Scriptures. And it here that the case for the foundational perpetuated Petrine papacy it wanting, as well as for doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary (etc.).

“And that while there was an oral tradition, if it was wholly inspired then this would have been written down as was the Biblical manner”

Profoundly devastating to your own case. Christ lives. Christ spoke and interacted enough to fill volumes, yet it is not written down. You’re claiming Christ’s Life is only contained in the Bible. Your Christ is a dead Christ, mine lives. Through His Life, Tradition, the Bible, and His Church that he founded for us.

Protestantism has tradition right at its core. The canon of Scripture is itself a tradition nowhere established in the Bible. It’s a church tradition. Protestants are in the position of having its primary authority not being able to justify its own existence.

I have a few minutes.

More on the site I linked. It sounded just as I stated, interesting. It was written by a self-described Catholic, I know nothing of his credentials. As I said it was interesting, it is not some kind of Catholic phrase and Catholics don’t bandy it about. I had never heard the term until you posted it and I am often on Catholic sites. So if you are implying that I verified that it was an authentic Catholic phrase or teaching you are more than wrong.

I won’t answer your question about infallibility because there is an active thread on it and you can read it.

>I do get it (though this does not apply to all levels of RC teaching), and which confirms my prior statement.<

This does apply to all official Catholic teaching. It is all in the Catechism and yes, we must assent to all of it. It doesn’t apply to opinions from anyone, when in doubt, look it up in the Catechism.

>I obviously am familiar with that claim,...<

Please give me some examples and valid links. No pope in history has ever officially taught heresy.

What critically fails to possess and promulgate the Truth is Sola Scriptura, which is not Biblical. Everyman a pope obviously does not work. Catholics know the meaning of Scripture because Scripture was written through the Tradition of the Apostles. The Catholic Church didn’t get its Tradition from Scripture. The Scripture came through Tradition.

You think that you can make some kind of argument with your own personal interpretation of Scripture. I’m telling you that you cannot.

I used to be a Protestant, I’ve read my Bible since I was around 7 years old, I’ve read it twice cover to cover and many more times by chapter, book and verse. It was my Bible reading that led me to ask questions and it was the answers to those questions that led me to the Catholic Church.

I never thought that I’d check out the Catholic Church, I was just looking for the real deal and I found it. It took 46 years for me to come home to the Church that Jesus established and unless the “Gates of Hell”, do prevail and I find that Jesus was a liar after all, I will probably become apostate or Jewish because Jesus meant what He said or He wasn’t who He said.

I’ve read thousands of posts similar to yours and though most Protestants have good talking points their understanding is a mile wide and an inch deep.

If you would like to study the journey of a Catholic Convert, I’d suggest you read GK Chesterton. He will make you laugh but his writings are very profound and right on the money.

I’ve had a few moments to think and I would hold Paul up to you as one who misinterpreted Scripture. He was a very brilliant and religious Jew. He knew the Scripture backward and forward and yet he didn’t recognize Jesus from his very own Scriptures because, like most Jews, he had his own opinion of what the Messiah was going to be. Most of the Jews thought Jesus was going to be a warrior or a king of this world but instead He was a man who taught love above all and then gave Himself up to the cross on Calvary like a thief or a murderer when He had never done any wrong.

It took an appearance by Jesus, himself, to awaken the soul of Paul and it could happen to you too.

I challenge you to pray to God to truly open your eyes, not unto your own understanding but unto God’s will.