It was posted on Halloween, I believe.
the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition.
From scripture alone, we have both assurances regarding the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church; for the latter see Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32. But the Church, in the persons of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and the clergy that copied, edited and canonized it produced the New Testament to begin with. You cannot put the product before the producer.
Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible
But no one forces you to become Catholic; further, if you hold heretical doctrines of Protestantism, we ask you to leave (see Trent). So, no, the teaching of the Magisterium stands or falls on the merit of its content. This is, incidentally, no different than the authority of the scripture: many people read the New Testament and believe it, others read it and don't. Some read it and riducule it. Infallibility is not the same as coercive power.
The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine...
That seems self-contradictory, is it not? That is what canonization means, establishing of the Divine origin.
Annalex: the [Holy] Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.
Daniel: What magisterium?
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church made a determination to include the Septuagint in her liturgy; Luther later questioned the Deuterocanonicals. These are magisterial acts of the Church, or in case of Luther, an attempt to act as magister. In the case of the New Testament, the Holy Apostles and the Evangelists wrote it under divine dictation not as freelancers but as founders and bishops of the Church, claiming rightly the status of messengers of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; 2 Peter 1:16, Jude 1:1-3).
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a “proper definition” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insistenting they are Scriptural
Well, indeed, -- but the Roman (as well as Eastern) Catholics never say that these doctrines automatically derive from the scripture alone. Surely you know that there is no shortage of non-Trinitarian communities of faith that all, -- at least those that came into existence after the Reformation -- claim direct and clear scriptural proof of their heresies. In the case of the Scripture alone, the burden is on the adherent of this strange doctrine to prove it from scripture alone. There is not similar burden on the Catholic Church that has divine authority to explain the scripture.
The “Jesus only” hermeneutic is a fallacious
I don't know what "Jesus only hermeneutics" is or why it is fallacious. We certainly can assume that Jesus encouraged or directed people to write down things but we do not have a scriptural evidence of it, and we do have a scriptural evidence that Jesus established the Church as authority on his behalf (Mt 16:18, 18:18, Mt 28:20, Jn 20:21-23).
Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)
The error in this statement is "only", and that one comes without a scriptural corroboration.
who needs to move.
No one: the Orthodox Church is essentially Catholic as it is. They have some problem with us, we do not have a problem with them.
was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values
On "social justice", perhaps. On life and family, the Catholic Church is staunchly conservative. Which other community of faith teaches that contraception is mortal sin or marriage after divorce is impossible?
if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?!
Yes, he would be. There is a lot wrong with John Kerry, including his defiance of Catholicism, but Catholicism in itself, and to the extent that he believes like a Catholic, is not one of those things.
I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy — and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment
Yes, of course. But those who vote for pro-death politicians do so against the will of the Catholic Church.
almost month-long thread
It was posted on Halloween, I believe.
Then it may be about time to try to wrap it up and give more attention to other threads and posters.
the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition.
From scripture alone, we have both assurances regarding the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church; for the latter see Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32.
We do, but extrapolating a perpetuated Petrine papacy and formulaic assured infallibility to that office is Rome's interpretation of them, and was a later development, refuted by Scripture and history, and the authority of said interpretation effectively rests upon itself; that her interpretation is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria. This does not mean a church cannot speak infallible truth, but the formulaic assuredly infallibility of Rome is the issue.
But the Church, in the persons of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and the clergy that copied, edited and canonized it produced the New Testament to begin with. You cannot put the product before the producer.
God produced it, and the instruments of Divine revelation are to be subject it. God first revealed Himself to man, and confirmed the faith and holiness of those believed Him, and ensured it would be passed on and become written, and which became the standard by which later men and revelation would be tested by, but at no time did Scripture establish a perpetrated formulaic assuredly infallibility, but God preserved the faith amount a remnant by raising up and confirming certain men from outside those who sat in Moses seat.
As for product versus producer, the stewardship=infallibility principle would require submission to the Jews who consistent to your statement “produced” the “product” but were manifestly not infallible interpreters of it. Roman Catholic apologists do claim the infallible magisterium follows the Jewish magisterium. And the latter lost it due to disobedience to what was written, and God can raised children of Abraham from stones. (Mt. 3:9)
Scripture is the only objective authority which were are assured is 100% inspired of God and thus alone is assuredly infallible, and which Jesus reproved those who (were explicitly affirmed to have) sat in Moses seat by, as they supposed they could teach contrary to Scripture.
The RCC claim to producing the Scriptures relies upon her premise to be the New Testament church, the certainty of which claim is based upon her premise to infallibly interpret history, tradition and Scripture. In providing an “infallible” compilation of Scripture for herself, she could ratified a collection of what had been overall established as being such, but as said before, the majority of Holy Writ was recognized as being without an infallible magisterium.
In addition, Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was penned, with some dissent existing through the centuries and right into Trent, even among some of the best scholars as concerns certain books, such as Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin (among others) writes. While apparently what Trent ratified was not exactly the same canon a what was affirmed by such councils as Carthage and early lists which RCA sometimes assert where infallible.
Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible
But no one forces you to become Catholic; further, if you hold heretical doctrines of Protestantism, we ask you to leave (see Trent). So, no, the teaching of the Magisterium stands or falls on the merit of its content. This is, incidentally, no different than the authority of the scripture: many people read the New Testament and believe it, others read it and don't. Some read it and riducule it. Infallibility is not the same as coercive power.
The claim to the infallibly of the teaching of the Magisterium is not subject to establishment due to its qualities, and or that she is attested to being God's supreme infallible authority due to things like the ground opening up and swallowing all her opponents, but it rests upon her claim that whenever she has or ever will speak within a certain content and scope then she is infallible, making her decree to be infallible to be infallible. We can assent that Rome spoke infallible truth in the Nicene Creed, but not that did always did or always will whenever she speaks according to her formula.
The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine...
That seems self-contradictory, is it not?
At any time a writing becomes established as Scripture, then it becomes the standard by which all is judged, and while Rome makes tradition equal to it, she effectively makes herself the supreme authority, yet she does not have an fallible list of all infallible teachings, or of all tradition, nor had she an assuredly infallible list of all books until 1546.
That is what canonization means, establishing of the Divine origin.
No, as said, Holy Writ becomes effectively established as being such like a true man of God does, by heavenly qualities and Divine attestation, which conforms and complements that which God had prior established by His power. Such is the kingdom of God. (1Cor. 4:20)
Annalex: the [Holy] Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.
Daniel: What magisterium? Most of the Bible was from the Jews, writings being established as Divine apart from an AIM, and even then a large portion came through prophets who reproved the official magisterium, and whose authority did not essentially rest upon hereditary formal conference as with the Levites, but by Divine attestation, and were subject to death for abusing their authority....
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church made a determination to include the Septuagint in her liturgy; Luther later questioned the Deuterocanonicals. These are magisterial acts of the Church, or in case of Luther, an attempt to act as magister. In the case of the New Testament, the Holy Apostles and the Evangelists wrote it under divine dictation not as freelancers but as founders and bishops of the Church, claiming rightly the status of messengers of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; 2 Peter 1:16, Jude 1:1-3).
This does not change the fact that again, while the teaching magisterium and conciliar decrees are helpful, writings were recognized as Scripture without it, while again, Rome's claim to be the 1st century church is based upon her premise that her interpretation of Scripture and history is infallible, and that formal decent confers authenticity.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of Sola Scriptura yet if Sola Scriptura were the true rule of faith, it itself would logically have to be in the scripture.
And it is, as it being the only objective authority which is wholly inspired by God, while it materially provides for the church. And while oral preaching could also be the word of God (and in the informal sense can be today in preaching its truths), yet examining it by the Scriptures is commended, and the Scriptures are abundantly used to examine and establish teaching and persons by. Yet the canon being closed, to hold any body of revelation to be equal with it is to essentially add to the canon, while again, no complete list of all tradition exists, or infallibly defined doctrine.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a “proper definition” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insisting they are Scriptural
Well, indeed, -- but the Roman (as well as Eastern) Catholics never say that these doctrines automatically derive from the scripture alone. Surely you know that there is no shortage of non-Trinitarian communities of faith that all, -- at least those that came into existence after the Reformation -- claim direct and clear scriptural proof of their heresies.
Actually, “non-Trinitarian communities of faith” such as the LDS, the WTS and fundamental SDAs, etc., typically manifest, like Rome, a reliance upon an authority, a person or office which effectively presumes supreme infallible interpretive authority, and often require implicit trust in them and sole allegiance to their particular org. The more they do such the more extreme they tend to be. In contrast, churches which manifest they rely upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant and hold to shared core Truths which result in regeneration and interdenominational fellowship, have been foremost defenders of the core truths we both agree upon, and which were formalized in an earlier age with Scriptural validation. But due the their holding to supremacy of Scripture, these “Biblicists” likewise contend against teachings of those of Rome or cults which fail of Scriptural warrant.
In the case of the Scripture alone, the burden is on the adherent of this strange doctrine to prove it from scripture alone. There is not similar burden on the Catholic Church that has divine authority to explain the scripture.
Indeed they must be subject to Scripture as the supreme judge, being warranted and conformable to it, and thus the concurrence in shared core truths spoken of, while the aberrant tend toward elitism, and assume supremal authority over it by Divine authority, and require implicit submission, all of which they share with Rome.
I don't know what "Jesus only hermeneutics" is or why it is fallacious. We certainly can assume that Jesus encouraged or directed people to write down things but we do not have a scriptural evidence of it, and we do have a scriptural evidence that Jesus established the Church as authority on his behalf (Mt 16:18, 18:18, Mt 28:20, Jn 20:21-23).
It means only what Jesus personally said is authoritative. We see much evidence that writing revelation down was the norm, which is why we know the church was established by God, whose members affirmed this word was from God, and as it is, then it is the only objective source which is assuredly infallible, and does not support Rome's claim to perpetuated formulaic assuredly infallibility. God knows how to preserve the faith by raising up men to correct those who presume too much, as the Jewish magisterium did, and as Rome has done, but like the Jesus, she persecutes those who dare to do so.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)
The error in this statement is "only", and that one comes without a scriptural corroboration.
Thus you deny that only the Scriptures are assuredly the word of God (which of course, is meant the formal sense)? Thus rather than judging all by the Scriptures, you presume Rome is the supreme judge, promulgating teaching which need not be established by Scriptural warrant.
who needs to move?
No one: the Orthodox Church is essentially Catholic as it is. They have some problem with us, we do not have a problem with them.
This is rather imaginary. While Rome can define that “that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff," (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Bull promulgated on November 18, 1302) to even include Protestants (even if you may not), the refusal of the Orthodox to ascribe the full primacy of the Pope in the Roman sense (despite their present degree of concession), as well as papal infallibility, Mary's IM, etc. is a problem with Rome.
was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values
On "social justice", perhaps. On life and family, the Catholic Church is staunchly conservative. Which other community of faith teaches that contraception is mortal sin or marriage after divorce is impossible?
This was not speaking of official statements, as conservative as they sound, but what is overall effectually conveyed and fostered, and in that case your assertions of overall greater support for moral values over her evangelical counterparts is a consistent myth, especially on birth control. And the and the granting of annulments and the breath of criteria for such fail of Scripture warrant, and potentially means multitudes of married Catholics never really were.
if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?!
Yes, he would be. There is a lot wrong with John Kerry, including his defiance of Catholicism, but Catholicism in itself, and to the extent that he believes like a Catholic, is not one of those things.
Incredible. Even a living dog is better than a dead lion. (Eccl. 9:4) Besides that such would most likely mean a real Christian Kerry, you sound increasingly like a sedevacantist, who reject post Vatican Two changes (and i think they have some historical warrant), in which baptized Prots are overall regarded a separated brethren, “who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities.”
The latter term used in distinction to churches “in the proper sense,” such as Orthodox, though by Baptism they are incorporated in Christ and have a certain communion with Rome, albeit imperfect, with the Church. (Dominus Iesus)
Also answer clearly my previous question whether you favor a Roman Catholic monarchy in the US, and as you are a fan of the inquisition, what should they do with Protestants, and if the use of physical punishment of those who doctrinally disagree with Rome was right.
I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy — and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment
Yes, of course. But those who vote for pro-death politicians do so against the will of the Catholic Church.
Which openly liberal politicians rarely see any real discipline, which conveys to other members that what is critical is that, despite all the promotion of Catholics about believing in works versus those sola fide types, what really matters is dying in the arms of Rome, versus a manifest conversion by faith resulting in works thereof, such as vast multitudes of conservative worshipful evangelicals (though i wish we all were more so) have realized through the centuries, after departing from Rome, but which you must oppose in loyalty to a particular church, which is sadly largely a dead lion.
Among other corrections that should have made if i proof read it more (sorry),
“while the teaching magisterium and conciliar decrees are helpful, writings were recognized as Scripture without it,”
the last word was supposed to refer to an assuredly infallible magisterium.
Eccl. 12:12