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 have a few minutes.”
I understand; near constant attendance to this forum should not be expected.
“if you are implying that I verified that it was an authentic Catholic phrase or teaching you are more than wrong.”
It was never my argument that it was a phrase, but that it accurately describes Rome’s position.
“This [obedience] does apply to all official Catholic teaching.”
I was referring to the differences between the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, and between sacred assent (precludes the possibility of faithful dissent) and ordinary assent (includes the possibility of limited faithful dissent in non-salvific areas). Here is Catholic explanation of such: http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm.
Of course, as said before, there is no infallible list of all infallible doctrines, and much has not been infallibly defined, leaving much to fallible conclusions.
“Scripture came through Tradition.”
It is true that Scripture is the part of tradition that is known to be 100% inspired of God, and the canon serves to confirm that, while making tradition to be of equal authority with it defeats that distinction and essentially adds to the canon. But let me also state that sole Scriptura does not negate the use of tradition, but makes infallible Scripture the infallible rule of faith for the Church and ultimate authority.
“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 am telling you that any arguments must be able to demonstrably withstand Scriptural scrutiny by even the laity (Act 17:11), as the apostles could. What you have asserted elsewhere and implied is that implicit trust in Rome is required, and thus to search the scriptures is not really needed to know this for certain. The Pharisees had a like Roman presumption (Mk. 7:6-13), which leads to men teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
“Everyman a pope obviously does not work.”
And everyman under the Pope allowed such things as the Crusades and Inquisitions (and current widespread Catholic Bible illiteracy), under a church state that used the means of the Empire, but which carnal means of warfare and civil rule over those without are clearly disallowed for the church (Mt. 22:21; Rm. 13:1-6; 1 Cor. 5:12, 13; 1 Pt. 2:13, 14).
But Sola Scriptura is not making every man a pope, as the Pope operates as head of an autocratic magisterium
that in reality authorizes itself, as she claims sole authority to infallibly define what Scripture fully consists of (which took approx. 1500 years), as well as tradition, and to infallibly interpret both. In contrast, those under sola Scriptura must be able to demonstrate the Scriptural worthiness of a doctrine, relying upon an infallible source, not a supposed infallible man. And it is by such as “prove all things” by that which is proven, with consistent surrender to Christ, that the church has and will endure.
In addition, seeking to convince the laity (regarding the supremacy of Rome) based upon reasoning with them out of the scriptures (Act 17:2), the best you can hope for is a fallible conclusion. Yet the preaching of the Lord and His apostles appealed to human reasoning, with all it’s inherent risks, manifestly presupposing that lovers of truth would be convinced by the Scriptures (Mt. 22:29-46; Jn. 5:39; Acts 2:14-35; 7; 17:3, 11; 18:28; 28, etc.), as well as powerful supernatural attestation (Jn. 14:11; Rm. 15:19).
“I used to be a Protestant..”
That is rather broad, but when and how were you born again?