Replies

▀ Rather, what is most manifestly and unequivocally clear is that the One True Church® simply cannot be the church of Rome, as its very foundational premise for its authority is contrary to Scripture, as is its gospel and many of its teachings.

So say you. I, with millions of other Catholic for the past 2000 years, have found the teachings of the Catholic Church in complete agreement with the Scriptures.

Which proves what? Mormons claim to find their teaching and understanding of history to be consistent Scripture as they operate under the same sola ecclesia premise. Once you submit to Rome, you are called to see all teachings of the Catholic Church in complete agreement with the Scriptures, as per sanctioned Catholic teaching, as said and shown.

No wonder you can see, among other things unseen in the NT church , multitudinous prayers being made to and heard by a distinct class of believers called "saints" in Heaven, even though only God is shown to possess that Divine ability and function in Heaven, and is the only one whom the Holy Spirit ever inspired and recorded prayers to in Heaven out of the approx. 200 in Scripture.

And also as said, you are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but RCs have and example much liberty to compel Scripture to support Rome. All of which is an argument against Rome.

▀ Nor did it preach or manifest the Lord's supper as being the source and summit of their faith around which all revolved, with NT ministers distinctively titled “priests” turning bread and wine into human flesh as the means of gaining spiritual and eternal life by physically eating, all of which is demonstrably foreign to Scripture.

From the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr (around A.D. 155):...

Which affirms what I said, as this is not even Scripture, but tradition — which still does not provide unanimous consent” for Rome's teachings, and can vary on the meaning of Real Presence, and Justin see different interpretations, including that of Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57). Or that at consecration, though the elements are no longer common bread and wine, they do not lose the nature of being bread and wine.

However, what matters is that the literal understanding contradicts Scripture which only speaks of spiritual nourishment as being by hearing/receiving the word of Christ, not even physically eating anything, much less human flesh and blood:

“If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Colossians 3:16)

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts. (Jeremiah 15:16)

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)

That Martyr and others (from the quite limited writings we have from so-called “church father's”) believed this among others is no surprise, as it is another example of erroneous understandings otherwise God-fearing souls can have, which even if not necessarily salvific errors, are usually due to perpetuating a line of tradition over what Scripture contextually teaches in its totality. Worse, they can even compel Scripture to conform to it.

A clear example of this is the perverse reasoning of no less a scholar than Jerome in laboring to justify his imbalanced tradition of celibacy versus marriage.

The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we [priests] must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray...Now a priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage.

The skewed conclusion of Jerome is readily apparent in the light of the fact that marital relations are not the only things that may distract from prayer for a time, but eating, driving, shopping, also may. Thus to be consistent, Jerome's logic is that a minister (which are never called priests as a distinct class) cannot eat or drink, or engage in any like physical activity, or that marriage and family is such a superfluous thigh that the dedication of a minister must of a necessity exclude it. Yet while celibacy certainly is advantageous to that, that marriage is by normal necessity excluded is just the opposite we see in Scripture.

In which celibacy is a gift that not all have, and thus in contrast to being a normative requirement for NT clergy, it was normative for both elders/bishops as well as apostles to be married - and was even invoked as a positive preparation — and those that were celibate were free to marry. (1Tim. 3:1-7; 1Cor. 9:5)

Yet in further seeking to use Scripture to support his skewed view of marriage, Jerome next invokes Genesis 2 and 7, incredibly arguing,

"This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. (Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Cps. 7,13,16,33; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)

Thus by such reasoning, the Lord sent out unclean disciples, and the two olive trees Scripture (Zech. 4:11; Rv. 11:4) were also.

Similarly, Augustine held a perverse view of marital relations, believing that Heb. 13:4 only means the marriage bed is not defiled if fornication and adultery or relations without the intent to procreate is avoided, and that marital intercourse could not be engaged in without sinful passions, though these were excused for Christians. (On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvi.v.xxvii.html )

Similarly, Tertullian argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death,

“will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,” partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. (An Exhortation to Chastity, Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.vi.ix.html)

Yet Scripture does not teach martial relations requires sinful passion, and positively affirms martial relations even apart from the context of procreation. (Prov. 5:15-19; Sos. 4:1ff; 7:1:-10)

This is one of the earliest post-biblical Christian writings and shows what was already established Christian practice and belief.

Which again shows how quickly the prophecy of Paul began to be fulfilled of men “speaking perverse things” others would follow, (Acts 20:30) even if these men were not apostates themselves, but influenced by such and be part of the beginning of the deformation of the NT church.

At one time most of the visible church was in the error of Arianism, but while that was largely overcome in time, other errors remained.

However, while you can believe in the Real Presence and yet be saved if holding to the gospel by which one is born again and their heart is purified by faith in the gospel of grace, it is incontrovertibly evident that Jn. 6 is not speaking about literally consuming human flesh to obtain spiritual and eternal life, which the literal interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54 requires. Instead, it is consistent with men being “bread” for Israel, and drinking water being the “blood” of men, and the word of God being “eaten,” (Num. 14:9; 2 Samuel 23:15-17; Jer. 15:16) which the kosher apostles were familiar with and understood the Lord by, rather than unquestionably engaging in endo-cannibalism.

Despite many other disputes in the early church, this belief was not challenged until the Reformation in the 16th century.

Rather, it remains that is manifest by reading Acts and the rest of the NT, which interprets the gospels, that the Lord's supper was never preached and practiced as being the source and summit of their faith around which all revolved, with NT ministers distinctively titled “priests” turning bread and wine into human flesh as the means of gaining spiritual and eternal life by physically eating, all of which is demonstrably foreign to Scripture. It is as invisible as the Roman papacy, and reformation, while incomplete, was necessary due to the incontrovertible deformation of the NT church.

Wrong. There authority was more than just referring to Scripture. If what you say were true then they could not have authored new Scripture. Their authority was such that what they wrote was received by the Church as Scripture.

Wrong conclusion based on superficial and fallacious reasoning. I did not say all their authority was due to just referring to Scripture texts, that it was based upon Scriptural substantiation.

The reason for their authority being such that what they wrote was received by the Church was because it of the established authority of Scripture which confirmed it, as per conformity in text and in power and in principle. Upon which the church began.

Nor does this even militate at all against adding to what was written, any more than prophets could not add more conflative and complementary revelation to what Moses provided.

From the beginning of written revelation — given under a man whose authority was unmistakably supernaturally manifested to be of God, and which consequently further affirmed the faith of Abraham and his God which Moses upheld — then Scripture became the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as the assured Word of God, which again, is abundantly evidenced. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

In the case of Mark and Luke it was the correspondence of what they wrote to the oral proclamation of the Apostles. The proclamation of the Apostles was not merely dependent of then existing Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament); it was something new.

Wrong conclusion, as what was New was established upon the Old. “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2)

The Lord established His truth claims upon existing Scriptural substantiation, thus upon which the church began. Yet the Lord promised He had many more things to say unto them, (Jn. 16:12-15) of which Paul would be the main instrument for, relating to the theology of the gospel, and mystery of the kingdom of God, and the church and of predestination and the end times. (Lk. 8:10; Eph. 5; 5:25-32; Rv. 1:1ff) Which revelation had to be conflative with and complementary to the established revelation of Scripture, which itself promised this further revelation which depended upon the OT, and was explanatory of it. And like as past men and writings essentially became established as being of God, so would the new writings of the NT.

In its written form it became Scripture but this happened only because it was received by the Church.

Rather, you have the cart before the horse, as the reason their was a church was because Scripture preceded it as the assured Word of God and supreme standard for testing and establishing truth claims.

In turn, the written form of NT revelation progressively became established and accepted as Scripture because of its foundational Scriptural substantiation, NOT because either the prior revelation or the newer was declared to be so by a infallible magisterium.

Established by whom? The Church! Otherwise who would have the Bible to be self-authenticating which is a circular argument.

It is not circular, as the issue is basis for the establishment of writings of God among those whom they addressed, which was not by a “who” but by a what. That being Divine qualities and attestation, by which men of God were likewise established, though rejected by the magisterium.

“And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24)

And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:69)

These believed these person were of God due to Scriptural evidence, though John and the Lord Jesus and apostles were opposed by powers who were supposed to ratify it.

For writings to be established by infallible church decree, it must first be itself established as possessing assured infallibility by the prior established authority its message was based upon, that being infallible Scripture, which writings were not established by an assuredly infallible magisterium. Nor was the establishment of additional writings essentially due to that. Those who “ate” the word found them to be, as Jeremiah, the rejoicing of their hearts and alive and prophetically true, etc. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

The authority and teachings of those who sat in the seat of Moses themselves themselves had to rest upon Scripture as supreme, thus the Lord reproved them by Scripture as being supreme, and Scriptural substantiated His claims, though they rejected Him.

By arguing writings must owe their establishment as being of God to the infallible church, then the circular argument is yours, for if Truth is established upon the premise of the authority of the church, then it means that the Truth that Rome is the One True Church® is due her infallibly saying she is. Whereby you have assurance. And indeed, as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

In the end, the Protestant claim that they teach the true Word of God fails because, without a divinely established Magisterium, the only thing that we can have assurance of is the ipsissima verbra of Scripture. Anything else to to add to Scripture.

▀ That is absurd, for it remains that according to this logic, no one could have assurance of any Truth prior to the church, including that a prophet of God really was so, including John the Baptist, and that the Scriptures that the Lord invoked in substantiating His claims were Scripture, and consequently that the church was true!

Again you are ignoring the significance of Pentecost. Prior to this God sent his Spirit in an extraordinary manner to particular individuals with specific revelations. Thus we have Moses and the prophets. With Pentecost, however, the Holy Spirit has been sent to reside permanently in the Church. And unless you claim to share with the prophets this extraordinary gift, neither you nor any of the Protestants have any claim to any greater authority to understand and interpret the Scriptures than any Catholic.

That argument manifoldly fails, as it remains that your argument is not that the New Covenant provides a more sure basis for assurance, but that without a divinely established Magisterium then one cannot have assurance of Truth. And which to be consistent, logically does not simply apply to what Scripture means, but what is Scripture.

However, as said, since the church began with souls recognizing both men and writings of God as being so, and having assurance of Truth, all without a assuredly infallible magisterium, then it follows that a church which is based upon the premise that she, as being that supreme authority, is necessary to assuredly know what Scripture is and means, cannot be the One True Church® she declares she is.

Furthermore, it was not due to the Spirit being manifest in an extraordinary manner to particular individuals with specific revelations that the people themselves had the discernment to recognize this attestation as being of God, though that made it more apparent. Yet the people held John as a prophet even though he did no miracles, but it was the prior established revelation of the Scriptures that they judged this man in the desert and the itinerant Preacher by, while Gentiles recognized the apostles as being of God due to their Scriptural power and virtue, in conformity with the light God gave them, which in essence corresponds to Scripture and is judged by it.

Moreover, if you want to argue that assurance of Truth under the OT was due to certain individuals in whom the Spirit dwelt, then that still does not mean an assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary, as they were not. But it means Rome must have what they did.

We ourselves do not claim the same degree of attestation (or assured infallibility) for ourselves, but must rely upon manifestation of the Truth, which yet sees “the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen,” (Mk. 16:19) in accordance with the supreme standard for Truth, the Scriptures.

In contrast, it is Rome which requires the like degree of attestation as Moses and the prophets, and more, since the greater the claim, then the greater the corespondent attestation is warranted, and she claims to declare Truth by fiat, with her papal assured infallibility not even resting upon the premise that the supporting reasons being them are themselves infallible. But her doctrine is that whenever the office of the pope defines something on faith and moral for the whole church, then it will always be infallible.

Which goes beyond even that of the claims of any prophet or apostle, yet as said, she utterly fails of both the requirements and manner and degree of attestation by which the apostles continually validated and commenced themselves as being apostles.

May that yet be much more the reality among all who name the name of Christ and have His Spirit, including me.

Frankly, I find Protestant teachings to be at complete variance to what the Bible actually says...

This is excepted, as your first statement was that you find the teachings of the Catholic Church in complete agreement with the Scriptures, which is demonstrably untenable, nor is what it believes constituted by what it professes, but by what it effects and does, which overall remains fostering liberalism. But you may have your opinion, as long as it does not conflict with Rome's.

And Protestants operate under the preconceived premise of "faith alone" and force there understanding of Scripture to agree with it. They are just bound to their traditions as Catholics and also subject to discipline if they depart. How long would a Protestant minister be tolerated teaching the Catholic understanding of Scripture before he would be shown the door? Would I be welcomed to be a regular preacher at your church?

Which affirms what I said, as this [the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr] is not even Scripture, but tradition…

But it is a witness of what the early Christians actually believed. We will not find this disputed for 1500 years until Martin Luther.

… and can vary on the meaning of Real Presence, and Justin see different interpretations, including that of Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).

You completely misunderstand Jurgens' footnote. Here is the passage in which the footnote appears:

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished (20), is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus.

The footnote that you mention (20) refers to the clause:

… and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished…

This is a subordinate clause in the passage. In the original Greek:

ἐξ ἧς αἷμα χαὶ σάρχες χατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν

In the Anti-Nicene Fathers it is rendered thus:

… and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished …

This footnote is not referring to the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Indeed, the reality of this latter change is the point that Justin is trying to make, comparing it to Jesus taking on flesh and blood in the Incarnation. Notice the argument of Justin if the main clause is highlighted, allowing us to skip over the two subordinate clauses:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, IS the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Which again shows how quickly the prophecy of Paul began to be fulfilled of men “speaking perverse things” others would follow…

And thus you would have the entire body of Christians forget the truth for 1500 years until a minority of believers rediscovered the truth. And are we to believe that the truth was so completely forgotten at such an early date that there is no record of a protest against it.?

No, this is the literal understanding of Scripture. It is the Protestants who must spiritualize this and many other passages to force the Scriptures to match their preconceived idea of "faith alone".

The authority of which Scripture? The gospel message is something that goes beyond the Old Testament, being a new revelation by God. In cannot be the New Testament since the authority of the apostles predates their writings. No, the Church, having been established by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles, was active and alive before the writing of the New Testament. The writings of the New Testament were founded upon the proclamation of the Church, not the other way around.

No, it is you who have it backwards. The Church finds its beginnings at Pentecost, before the writings of the New Testament.