"Fully acceptable" does not mean that you believe the scriptures to be infallible. In fact, it sounds like a very half hearted response. If my wife got all dressed up and asked me how she looked and I said that she was "fully acceptable", I'm sure she'd slug me.
Your wife is not God. I hope however that you do not tell mine that in person and I will not tell yours that either.
I mean that Scriptures are only meaningful with the interpretation of the Church. The case of the Eunuch is most telling.
You stated in post 2093 the scriptures are not infallible or inerrant. The Church states they are. Would any decree coming from Rome be unacceptable? You are endangering your own soul and in peril of being anathematized.
Negative. I stated that they were not infallible. And I will say that just like the Eunuch, without the Church to interpret, it is as meaningless to anyone as it was to him.
I'm really not trying to put you on the spot. I'm simply pointing out that Catholics really no longer believe the scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. They do not follow the teachings of the early fathers. You are not the first that I've brought up the infallibility of the scriptures to, but you're at least reflective enough to answer this rather interesting question. Most Catholics just clam up. This is an illustration of how one of many doctrines of the Church has changed over the last 500 years.
Scriptures cannot be infallible. Their interpretation can be and is under the Church as Scripture itself illustrates. Do you realize that every major heresy of the first millennium can be defended directly from Scripture - admittedly snippets, but so are many current beliefs.
Catholics should think hard and long about what they actually believe, the inerrant scriptural teachings or someone telling them what to believe.
Even the NT shows the subordination of Jesus to the Father, and without John, almost no indication of the divinity of Jesus - only the status of a super David - the man. Paul did not preach the Trinity in his letters. It is in the Church - who wrote, harmonized, chose and kept publishing and interpreting the Scripture that we must put our trust.
For clarification, are you saying that the RCC does not hold Scripture to be infallible in its original mss (as do most evangelicals)?
Do you realize that every major heresy of the first millennium can be defended directly from Scripture - admittedly snippets, but so are many current beliefs."
So the abuse of something invalidates its authority, or those who effectively or formally presume a doctrinal authority superior to it, but it validates one who uses it in asserting that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined criteria? By what means are we to ascertain that Rome is the One True and infallible Church?
Now, Mark, you have been corrected on this many times. Here is just ONE verse that Paul wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Does that sound like "trinity" to you? You want me to post the other ones or do you still have them from the LAST time we discussed this?
Thank you very much. Your's is not a unique view in the Church. I hope some will realize how much error Rome is teaching these days and how far the Church has moved from it's foundation.