Back to question #1. Christ used the word “Church” and question #2 who gets to authoritatively interpret Scripture?
"Back?" The issue is not that "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same" (Westminster), but whether the church is the supreme and (conditionally) infallible authority, and thus able to teach as doctrines such tradition of men as the Immaculate conception, Purgatory and Indulgences, papal infallibility (all of the EOs reject because they are untraditional) and Assumption.
Thus question #1 was upon what basis is your assurance that Rome is the one true infallible church, and conditionally infallible.
You seemed to affirm your basis for assurance rested upon evidence, even though objectively examining evidence, with Scripture being supreme, to determine the veracity of RC doctrine would render you reasoning as an evangelical.
You ignored your problem here and proceeded to go wityh more irrelevance and another rant, thus the basis for your assurance remains to be the issue.
If the answer as to your basis for assurance rests upon the premise of Rome being assuredly correct, for which is invoked historical descent and the "we gave you the Bible" argument, then the questions 2 and 3 are,
2. where can you show in Scripture (in condescension to me) that being the instrument and steward of Scripture and having historical descent means such steward is infallible, and,
3. that an infallible magisterium is necessary in order to recognize and establish writings as Scripture, and determine and preserve Truth, and as critical for you to have assurance.
Billy Graham? Al Sharpton? Jim Jones? Rev. Schuller, Martin Luther? Calvin? Wesley? AnaBaptists? Mormons?
This rant avoids the unity that historically made the fundamental evangelical movement the chief threat to cults, liberals and Rome, while that RCs also interpret their interpreter ending up with factions and sects, while the RC model ends up with competing claims btwn elitist sola ecclesia churches as being the OTC, and that this was not the basis upon which the church began, in the face of competing claims.
Any more rants and refusing to deal with the fundamental questions i presented will not simply marginalize you more but render further diversionary rants to be ignored
The cluster of Protestant heresies a “chief threat” to Catholicism! This is the unreal world of Protestants like you inhabit when in truth these 35,000 sects are more like varieties of wild mushrooms that grow, fade, and wither, around the great mustard tree of the Catholic Church founded by the Christ with authoritative power that was given (not to the Billy Grahams, not to the Rick Warrens; not to the Rev. Schullers; not to the Al Sharptons, not to the Jeremiah Wrights; not to the Jim Jones; not to the David Koreshs, not to the Joel Osteens, not to the Tammy Faye Bakers, and not to every corner street Pastor of your local corner street Foursquare Churches of this world to crack open the pages of Scripture and toss around their own low IQ interpretations on the “teachings” of Christ) ONLY to Peter, his disciples, and the earthly “Church” founded on the Rock of Peter with the Divine guarantee that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it.
Meanwhile the prosperity gospels are a “chief threat” to the pocket books of well-heeled low IQ congregants who flock to see these charlatans build their “Protestant” empires enrich themselves and their families. Each generation produces these scoundrels purporting to “authoritatively” interpret the teachings of Christ. This is the continuing lunacy of the remnants of Protestants now reduced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Black Churches, and very assortment of nonsense to accept gay bishops and homosexuality as part and parcel of Scriptural teaching.