[daniel1212]

Jumping in here, are you saying than an infallible office was necessary for writings to be established as Scripture, and that being the steward of holy writ and having historical decent a such renders one to be so, and that all those who do not have sanction by them are renegades?

Also, what is the basis (Scripture, etc.) for your assurance that Rome is the one true church?

Thanks.

[BlueDragon]

I've seen the maps of the minefields. A few items can never make it through without triggering chain reaction "explosions" which blow certain little extraneous items to kingdom come. But they'll just pick themselves up like it never happened, eyes slammed shut, mind closed upon the perfection and presumed infallibility of Romish edict.

As usual, much support for those particularly Romanist views come by way of argument of assertion, as has long been the case. Though there can indeed be found support for certain peculiarities from 4th century and onward writers, going backwards in time from there to the actual time of the Apostles can be seen to be increasingly problematic, the closer to Christ we travel.

I was just reading again Farber's The Difficulties of Romanism

in which he defines the term he uses, Romanism, itself. I am much persuaded by his treatment not only of that, but of pretty much all the rest, difficult as it is to digest, lengthily written as it is in early 19th century style, albeit fairly repetitive throughout (as is the case with many scholarly works), it is still quite clear.

Here's an excerpt from the book found elsewhere which is a short treatise sourced from the larger Difficulties work. In the main, what appears below is largely footnote [from page 6]:

I would bring here more, but it appears they have a way to limit image transfers.