So ultimately it comes down to a matter of scriptural interpretation doesn’t it?
Does one accept the teachings of the Catholic Church with its 2000 year history, the traditions accepted by the early Church Fathers, the doctrine of the Eucharist as analyzed and established through the centuries by eminent theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict as well as several leading Protestant theologians who have converted to Catholicism, the lives of saints, martyrs, and stigmatists who have lived and practiced the Catholic faith, and a faith with a consistent Credo that has spread to the four corners of the world
or
do we accept the mudslide of eclectic interpretations offered by every Tom, Dick and Harry, and pastor of every corner street Foursquare Church, street preachers like the Grahams, Schullers, Jim Jones, David Koresh’s; Jimmy Swaggarts, TD Jakes’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, or for that matter any person who cracks open the pages of the Bible and purports to offer a definitive interpretation, or like many of the mainline Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian Churches whose pastors may be married homosexuals and lesbians, because of what “they” believe is “their” interpretation of the Bible.
The question answers itself.
You have have ignored all three of my responses to you and their questions, and instead blithely engaging in the same specious polemic and its false dilemma instead, and instead blithely engaged in the same specious polemic and its false dilemma .
Some advocate of scholarship.
But to clarify, is your argument that we must follow the historical magisterium and the lettered, or even that an infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, so that there can be no valid dissent from it, even on the basis of Scriptural substantiation.
And which model precludes Mormonic types etc., or a church in disarray and its people confused, and which is the only alternative if one rejects the Roman model?
Or do you want to equivocate and move the goal posts? Its your argument so you must defend it. Try to answer this time.
You’re still posting on this?
About 50 posts ago your post hit the canvass and the 10 count was given.
“So ultimately it comes down to a matter of scriptural interpretation doesn’t it?
Does one accept the teachings of the Catholic Church with its 2000 year history, the traditions accepted by the early Church Fathers, the doctrine of the Eucharist as analyzed and established through the centuries by eminent theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict as well as several leading Protestant theologians who have converted to Catholicism, the lives of saints, martyrs, and stigmatists who have lived and practiced the Catholic faith, and a faith with a consistent Credo that has spread to the four corners of the world
or
do we accept the mudslide of eclectic interpretations offered by every Tom, Dick and Harry, and pastor of every corner street Foursquare Church, street preachers like the Grahams, Schullers, Jim Jones, David Koresh’s; Jimmy Swaggarts, TD Jakes’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, or for that matter any person who cracks open the pages of the Bible and purports to offer a definitive interpretation, or like many of the mainline Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian Churches whose pastors may be married homosexuals and lesbians, because of what “they” believe is “their” interpretation of the Bible.
The question answers itself”
Best reply of the month. But common sense is not in abundance when some have been brainwashed against Catholicism since birth.