You secondary source is scripture. Your primary source for belief is the RCC as evidenced by the reliance on RCC catechism not scripture.
I confess; it was I who brought in Roman Catholic Catechism
:)
Sad thing is that I did it to prove the catechism was wrong. The Scriptures prove it... Yet, somehow it was me that was confused —apparently.
This goes to prove your point: scripture takes a back-seat to tradition. Funny that the Scriptures which so many Roman Catholics here claim was provided/written by the RCC are so blithely ignored when it proves their teachings to be falsehoods.
Hoss
Try this:
You secondary source is scripture. Your primary source for belief isPaul is clear that some, not all, are teachers. The necessary implication is that the rest are students. It sometimes seems that some refuse the rule of pupil, with the attendant advantages of pedagogues and pedagogy, and insist on hacking their own way through the forest.the RCCyour own personal interpretation as evidenced by the reliance onRCC catechismyour own researches and conclusions not scripture.
So one COULD view the "reliance" on the catechism and the hermeneutic proposed by the Catholic Church as obedience to Scripture, since we who approach things that way are acknowledging the student role Paul says we have.
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Have you even read all the posts?
Do you even care what is actually written?
I began with Scripture and related my understanding of the doctrine in my own words.
The catechism was brought into the discussion by someone else, who used only a portion of the relative entry to try to sensationalize what he was saying.
I merely offered the complete entry to rebut him, not to support what I have been saying.
This type of debate is childish. Respond to reality and not the strawman you set up to knock down to chalk up points with your cohorts.