>Scripture tells us God’s church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.>
This is your defense? All you are doing is requiring unsubstantiated faith in Rome’s supremacy.
>Do you hold Boniface Ramsey as infallible?<
No, but you rely upon your fallible understanding of 1Tim. 3:15 to counter my requiring proof from that body of literature which, unlike the church, and the church of Rome, is explicitly declared to be wholly infallible. (2Tim. 3:16)
As for 1Tim. 3:15, this proof texts requires other texts for interpretation, (see response in post 96 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2404901/posts?page=96#96). “Pillar and ground of the truth” does not make it the truth, much less qualify only Rome as the church referred to, or place the church beyond reproof at any time, even if she declares herself so.
>Is it logical to you that God’s church, being the bulwark of truth, would sanction an activity or teaching that is contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord, which are true?<
Yes, as history shows and as Israel, to whom (unlike Rome) Scripture expressly states were given stewardship of the Scriptures existing then, did teach for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mt. 15:1-9) But God always preserves a remnant - including using real prophets types who are usually rejected by the established Majisterium - and which stand in contrast to the vast multitudes of religious professors.
That the church is to defend the truth is sure (Jude 1:3), and God does preserve the the true believers, which constitute the church, in essential faith, but the issue is whether one formal church in particular can declare that it is infallible when it speaks under certain conditions, which fits the condition in which it declared itself infallible, and under which condition it renders that its interpretation of why it is infallible, to be itself infallible. And thus by such it disallows itself from being wrong. Not only does this apply to its interpretation of Scripture, but to terms such a “unanimous assent of the fathers.” In addition, its history of an already problematic “unbroken succession” of popes, includes those who Scripturally would not even qualify as church members. As said before.
>It is arrogance to think God’s word is wrong in teaching that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.<
No, it is arrogance to suppose this refers to Rome, and its self-proclaimed supreme powers which you rely on, and that it cannot teach falsely, despite the evidence. You are going in circles.
>That’s assuming that the members of His Church are bound to the man-made tradition of Sola Scripture as applied to a truncated version of Scripture.<
No, even holding simply to prima Scriptura, and requiring Scriptural proof for doctrines, as so many of the early fathers, is enough to refute the idea that a practice (praying to angels, Mary, etc.) is unwarranted and unScriptural. But as all proofs contrary to Rome MUST be dismissed due to her requirement of sola ecclesia then no proofs are sufficient.
>It’s [priestly celibacy] not a doctrine of the Church, it is a voluntary discipline.<
I stated that it was church law, and while it is voluntary to be a priest, what i stated was that it is required that all the priests have the gift of celibacy, exceptions for converts understood, but which is not supported by Scripture.
>That’s your interpretation.<
As is Rome’s interpretation to the contrary. Now lets act more like noble Bereans and search the Scriptures to see if this is so, and require Rome to act like Jesus and the apostles and substantiate this by Scripture, and appeal to human reasoning. (Mt. 12:3-6; Acts 18:28:23; 2Cor. 4:2) But that would make Rome subservient to the Scriptures. As it is, you cannot show me anywhere that bishops and elders were not the same, as Titus 1:5-7 shows, Elder denoting the dignity, and bishop the duties of his office.
>The Church was and is inspired by God. Scripture is a tradition from that Church.<
As with Israel, the church exists by faith in the truth, all of which is tested by the Scriptures, as seen therein. And while, like Israel, the word of God was expanded thru it, and is expounded by it now, yet like Israel, it is subject to that which it written, and cannot add unScriptural doctrine, and is not infallible. And unlike the natural branches, the church is not bound to one particular formal organic union, nor is its authenticity based upon “correct” lineage, but demonstrable Scriptural faith.
If your solution to these problems is to require a prior assent to Rome’s supremacy, as your responses show, as private interpretation is disallowed, then you have nothing. to add.
By “unscriptural,” I assume you mean that which contradicts Scripture. How does praying to Mary or angels contradict Scripture? Praying to either is a form of asking them to pray for us as we would ask a friend to pray for us.