Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

(I certainly didn't make it.)

Didn't say you had, #35-36 made that implication.

"Catholics" (implying "Catholics in general") make that claim, yes?

Around here, it isn't the first time that has been implied. During the course of Catholic history, many of its leaders have made statements which far exceed the directions of the Lord in #36, making binding statements concerning the authority of the Catholic church that exceed those directions from the Lord.

I'm always disturbed when Catholics read "apostles" and automatically replace it with "Catholic Church".

That's an interesting fact about your psyche, but I'm not sure how it bears into the point at hand... since people [depending on the person] can be disturbed by good or by evil--by truth or by falsehood.

Can you name any other Christian Church (aside from the self-identified Catholic Church) which has been in existence since the time of Christ? I don't.

Yes, Jesus gave authority to the apostles. This does not mean that authority passed onto the catholic church.

That's a bit like saying that authority was passed to all the senators and representatives, but not to congress...

Matthew 10:1 "And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction."

Did this authority get passed on? What pope, catholic bishop or priest can heal "every disease and every affliction"?

Scripture (and common sense) tells us that some such abilities are intrinsic to the Church's nature, while others are not; some are passed on by definition, and others are given to individual persons at need, according to the Will of God. Mark 16:17-18, for example, says the following:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.

So... unless you're in a Pentecostal snake-handling group (would I be correct in assuming that you're NOT?), you and I can both agree that Mark 16:17-18, while it certainly sounds universal and unqualified (i.e. it sounds as if it applies to ALL who believe), is obviously not meant to apply to all believers... and our interpretation of Scripture must reflect that, in order to be right. (In fact, Scripture and Church history are replete with examples of those who were unharmed by poisonous snakes [e.g. Acts 28] and poison [St. Benedict, St. John, etc.], and who cured the sick by laying hands on them [e.g. St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Martin de Porres, etc.]; the Scripture is satisfied, since it never said that ALL would have such ability).

Case in point: how do we find out whether to interpret Scripture as "includes all" vs. "there are exceptions"? We need to look outside of Scripture in order to do so... to the Church Whom Christ established as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15).

So which authorities given to the apostles passed on to the catholic church? Clearly not all. (See above)

I never said that "all" authority was delegated to the Apostles; in fact, I said the very opposite (i.e. NOT all). I'm merely refuting the silly and wrong idea that NONE of Jesus' authority was delegated to the Apostles.

Other than catholic say-so, why should we believe that any special apostolic authority passed from the apostles to the catholic church?

Because Jesus said so (Matthew 16:18-20, Matthew 18:18-20, John 20:23, 1 Timothy 3:15, and all of Church history which shows a continuous/unbroken Church--complete with hierarchy and liturgical structure and self-understanding as the universal [Catholic] Church of Christ), and because Scripture and history affirm it. When Judas fell away, his position was not "wiped out"--another was chosen to take his place... so it's obvious that Apostolic authority can (and MUST!) be passed on to successors. Apostolic succession involves an OFFICE (i.e. new members can take over when old members leave)... or, if you like the King James Version, it gives an even stronger term: "and his bishopric let another take". The Apostles were clearly the first bishops, and the office of bishop (i.e. bishopric) is clearly passed on to successors... and it'd be pointless to do so without passing on the authority which makes the "job" possible.

Clear observation of what I see posted by FRoman Catholics daily.

...but no logical/rational reason, then?

For papist doctrine? None.

John 20:30-31
Acts 17:11
Galatians 1:6-9
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Revelation 22:18

Okay... you're going to have to unpack those, for me. How do any of those teach "sola Scriptura"?

(While we're at it: what definition of "sola Scriptura" are you using? I've heard lots of them on FR alone... many of them contradictory.)

I see: so you believe (like most strawman Caths) that SS must mean that this was a historical constant?

When you say "this was an historical constant", to what are you referring?

And that it means that nothing else is to be used in determining Truth on faith and morals?

By "it", do you mean "sola Scriptura"? Your comment is rich in pronouns, and not so rich in antecedents... :)

And that it negates the magisterial office and its Scriptural authority?

(?!?) Pardon? What on earth are you talking about?

And that the sufficiency aspect only refers to its formal aspect?

You really need to supply some context for these comments; it's reading like a raw copy/paste from a completely different conversation!

And that if souls are to ascertain the veracity of teaching by searching the Scriptures then it turns every man into being a pope?

This is still a bit vague, but... I'll give it a go.

If anyone presumes to interpret Scripture for him/herself, and assumes that they are incapable of error (either universally, or even "only in important matters") when doing so, it could be said that that person is arrogating to him/herself a power which God has entrusted to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church... and to the Pope, in particular. In that limited sense, the answer to your question is "yes".

And do you deny as that as progressively written (God giving more grace), Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced?

I'd need you to define your terms before I could answer that; some of those statements are so painfully vague that they could mean almost anything.

Ah. So you accept the Book of Mormon, then?

And that common men discerned both men and writings as being of God, without an infallible magisterium, and essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation? And which thus provides for a progressively established canon?

To the extent that I can figure out what you're saying: no, that didn't happen. When the Councils of the Church discerned the true books of Scripture, they did so in and through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church... and they did so infallibly. To suggest that such a process could have been done by "sola Scriptura" is patently absurd.

And that the Cath alternative to SS is what the Bible manifestly teaches, in which the church and what it says is the supreme law (sola ecclesia), under the premise of (conditional) ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility?

Forgive me, FRiend, but... that's not even a complete sentence. Could you please re-word that?

And that (as RCS state and argue) this is necessary for souls to correctly know what Scripture consists of and means?

First: where on earth are you getting this? What source are you using? Are these from some sort of formal Church documents, or are you manufacturing this on teh basis of what you've thought and heard about Catholics? Right now, I'm having a fiercely hard time understanding you; these sentences (or fragments) are--forgive me--anything but clear.

And under that premise it is impossible for Scripture to contradict what (at least) the supreme magisterium promulgates as Truth?

It is impossible that Scripture and Church dogma could contradict, yes.

And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching on faith and morals by examination of warrant for such (for that reason) - at the least for "infallible teaching." For to do so would be to doubt the infallible claims of Rome for herself, and thus "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS)

First of all: you know that this was a papal encyclical addressing the French law which expelled Christianity (in its entirety) from the public sphere? Second: the comment which you quoted refers to the fact that only the Magisterium has the charism of infallibility, with regard to matters of faith and morals; all other persons and/or groups are subject to possible/probable error, when trying to interpret the Scriptures or Church Tradition or Church dogma. All those who claim that individuals somehow "can interpret any and all of the Scriptures rightly for themselves" are relying on wishful thinking.

And that RCs are to render religious assent (excluding public dissent) even to papal social teaching, such as Laudato si', or that they are to do what evangelicals do in examining the warrant for such obedience?

That is completely incorrect. Catholics are obliged to honor the pope, and they are obliged to assent to all Church dogma; they are not required to assent to every comment which drops from the mouth (or the pen) of the Holy Father. The Pope can be as fallible as anyone else, when not speaking "ex cathedra" or speaking a previously-defined truth; no Catholic is obliged to agree with (or assent to) the Pope's speculations on non-faith/non-moral issues such as so-called "global warming", and such.

These are questions you need to answer for your "not even close" denial.

I'd like to answer more... but I'll need you to clarify what you mean, first. Could you re-word, and/or illuminate your comments with examples of what you mean?

Didn't say you had, #35-36 made that implication.

No, they didn't. Salvation made the (true) claim that "all authority" had been given to Jesus (a direct quote from Matthew 28:18-20), and he made the (true) claim that Jesus gave His authority to the Twelve. Nowhere did he say that ALL Jesus' authority over EVERYTHING was given.

Note the clear, unqualified assurance given in Ephesians 2:8-9. This, alone, is all I need to know regarding Salvation. Can anyone improve on it?
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast”.

Tell me why I need a pope, and all that fine embroidery and gold. Why should a presumptive human head of the church of Christ on earth undertake to emulate the materialistic trappings of earthly princes of the middle ages?

Those were all Catholic Churches. There werenâ€™t any other churches until Luther did his thing.

....Dream on. If they were Catholic Churches it would have been evidenced in what Jesus said to the seven Churches. They were each a Church unto themselves as far as their organization, not of course as far as The Spirit and Body of Christ is concerned. Each one answered to The LORD as an individual Church. They obviously did not answer to Rome or Jesus would have given the message to Rome as the authority to pass onto the subjected churches. He gave His messages for the seven Churches to St. John, not a pope. This is so obvious to any thinker who isn't deluded by their own desire to believe something other then revealed truth.

Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses etc. are all thoroughly convinced that their organizations are the only ones. To break from them is exceedingly hard for their adherents. Beware Catholics are also highly convinced of the correctness of their doctrines and organization. Nobody but them is right and one must go to the CC to please God. Thinking it so doesn't make it so. Us who do not belong to the CC are free to go to any Church that we believe adheres to Scripture. We are not glued to one forum. Our faith is in Christ and not in a Church, not even His Church which is His body. Jesus' requirement is that we worship Him in Spirit and Truth, not that we belong to any particular group. We don't have to belong to a particular group because we know we belong to Him and He most definately knows we are His.

Same problem she has.

and he made the (true) claim that Jesus gave His authority

When you say "this was an historical constant", to what are you referring?

I thought that was obvious, meaning in the span of express Divine revelation.

And that it means that nothing else is to be used in determining Truth on faith and morals?

By "it", do you mean "sola Scriptura"? Your comment is rich in pronouns, and not so rich in antecedents... :)

Yes, SS was the subject, and as RCs often present SS as meaning that, thus "it" refers to that subject.

And that it negates the magisterial office and its Scriptural authority?

(?!?) Pardon? What on earth are you talking about?

A standard RC objection, that under SS its every man for himself, making them little popes, that it negates magisterial office and or its Scriptural authority. Glad if you knew better than that.

And that the sufficiency aspect only refers to its formal aspect?

You really need to supply some context for these comments; it's reading like a raw copy/paste from a completely different conversation!

Since you took it upon yourself to boldly declare the Bible doesn't teach "sola Scriptura", anywhere. Not even close" then we must presume you understand it and examined the arguments pro and con, but thus far apparently you are not not familiar with the debate. If you do not even know what formal versus material sufficiency is, among other things, then you can hardly deny what you do not understand.

And that if souls are to ascertain the veracity of teaching by searching the Scriptures then it turns every man into being a pope?

This is still a bit vague, but... I'll give it a go. If anyone presumes to interpret Scripture for him/herself, and assumes that they are incapable of error (either universally, or even "only in important matters") when doing so, it could be said that that person is arrogating to him/herself a power which God has entrusted to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church... and to the Pope, in particular. In that limited sense, the answer to your question is "yes".

Good, as that is not what SS means, as while RC argue that SS makes every man a pope, they cannot claim ensured personal infallibility whenever they speak according to a certain scope and subject criteria, nor can any office as per Rome, as that is a novelty which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. Caiaphas does not equate to that.

Instead, Scriptural substantiation as the basis for veracity is the only basis we can appeal to.

And do you deny as that as progressively written (God giving more grace), Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced?

I'd need you to define your terms before I could answer that; some of those statements are so painfully vague that they could mean almost anything.

What is so incomprehensible about what i said?

Ah. So you accept the Book of Mormon, then?

How could you come up with that conclusion? Rather, due to the authority of Scripture then the BOM is exposed as demonic, and much Cath teaching as false.

And in reality, both Rome and the LDS operate under sola ecclesia, thus they are the supreme authority on what constitutes Truth, autocratically validating themselves.

And that common men discerned both men and writings as being of God, without an infallible magisterium, and essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation? And which thus provides for a progressively established canon?

To the extent that I can figure out what you're saying: no, that didn't happen. When the Councils of the Church discerned the true books of Scripture, they did so in and through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church... and they did so infallibly.

Wrong, as under that premise no writings or collection of books could be held as being the authoritative word of God before Rome, or without an infallible canon. Instead, since infallible souls discerned both men and writings as being of God, based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, thus the NT church began.

And that the Cath alternative to SS is what the Bible manifestly teaches, in which the church and what it says is the supreme law (sola ecclesia), under the premise of (conditional) ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility?

Forgive me, FRiend, but... that's not even a complete sentence. Could you please re-word that?

It is a complete sentence based upon the presupposition from which the rest proceeds from, that the Bible manifestly teaches the alternative to SS, which is described (and confirmed by papal teaching). If you cannot comprehend such argumentation then why are you making polemical assertions?.

And that (as RCS state and argue) this is necessary for souls to correctly know what Scripture consists of and means?

First: where on earth are you getting this? What source are you using? Are these from some sort of formal Church documents, or are you manufacturing this on teh basis of what you've thought and heard about Catholics? Right now, I'm having a fiercely hard time understanding you; these sentences (or fragments) are--forgive me--anything but clear.

As i am getting from Catholic teaching such as RCs look to for their claims, then it appears you are unfamiliar with them. For consistent with your denial that hat common men discerned both men and writings as being of God, without an infallible magisterium, Dulles states,

People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief.â€ - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, â€œMagisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,â€ p. 72;

And as the CE states,

.the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

And Providentissimus Deus:

the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.â€

For RCs see common men as discerning both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium as allowing for valid dissent based upon Scriptural substantiation which dissent from their sacred mag. they disallow.

It is impossible that Scripture and Church dogma could contradict, yes. '

Which is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. For 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.

"the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS)

First of all: you know that this was a papal encyclical addressing the French law which expelled Christianity (in its entirety) from the public sphere?

Which does not mean that you do not have to render religious assent to it.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

Second: the comment which you quoted refers to the fact that only the Magisterium has the charism of infallibility, with regard to matters of faith and morals; all other persons and/or groups are subject to possible/probable error, when trying to interpret the Scriptures or Church Tradition or Church dogma.

Says where? Not in the context, which is actually broad and without any conditions. And other papal teaching by the same Pius X as set forth by RCs themselves applies this submission broadly.

when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey â€“ that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

I addition there is Pius XI:

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

And as regards bishops:

to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

But you decide what is valid teaching require assent based upon your judgment. A Protestant in essence.

All those who claim that individuals somehow "can interpret any and all of the Scriptures rightly for themselves" are relying on wishful thinking.

Which is another strawman of SS. No wonder you deny it is Scriptural. No, a SS cannot claims he can assuredly interpret any and all of the Scriptures rightly, which would be going beyond even being a pope, but it does presuppose that they can in general ascertain the veracity of Truth claims based upon the degree of Scriptural warrant, with the core Truths having the most warrant, and contention for them. Thus evangelicals have historically contended for the Truth we both concur on as well as against inventions of Rome.

An alternative is to argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, excluding any valid dissent, at least publicly, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

nd that RCs are to render religious assent (excluding public dissent) even to papal social teaching, such as Laudato si', or that they are to do what evangelicals do in examining the warrant for such obedience?

That is completely incorrect. Catholics are obliged to honor the pope, and they are obliged to assent to all Church dogma; they are not required to assent to every comment which drops from the mouth (or the pen) of the Holy Father. The Pope can be as fallible as anyone else, when not speaking "ex cathedra" or speaking a previously-defined truth; no Catholic is obliged to agree with (or assent to) the Pope's speculations on non-faith/non-moral issues such as so-called "global warming", and such.

>That is incorrect except perhaps as meaning "every comment which drops from the mouth," which was not the argument. For as shown already, Catholics are obliged to render religious assent (which excludes public dissent), to non-fallible teaching, which encyclicals require as shown already, including those on social teaching, as such is based upon RC teaching on faith and morals.

http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html , there are three kinds of magisterial statement, three levels of authoritative teaching which establish the â€œthe order of the truths to which the believer adheres.â€[1] They are (1) truths taught as divinely revealed, (2) definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected with revealed truth, and (3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzingerâ€™s Donum Veritatis.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM: According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.

The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states, 80. In the Churchâ€™s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. â€¦ Insofar as it is part of the Churchâ€™s moral teaching, the Churchâ€™s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it. - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2037.

And it is evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy, which he presents his teaching as based upon Catholic teaching.

And HUMANI GENERI not only affirms that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters demands consent, it also teaches that if "the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."

And while Laudato si', largely serves to promote discussion, he clearly teaches that Climate Change is a reality, a global problem, as shown in this FR post..

I'd like to answer more... but I'll need you to clarify what you mean, first. Could you re-word, and/or illuminate your comments with examples of what you mean?

There should be no real need to if you are going to presume to make such denials, while by God's grace you have enough to chew on that refutes you already.

Note the clear, unqualified assurance given in Ephesians 2:8-9. This, alone, is all I need to know regarding Salvation. Can anyone improve on it? â€œFor by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boastâ€.

And note the clear, unqualified qualifier to that passage, if you look elsewhere in the Scriptures:

"But he who endures to the end will be saved." (-Jesus, in Matthew 10:22)

"But he who endures to the end will be saved." (-Jesus, again, in Matthew 24:13)

Many people might take the words of Jesus to be important... and especially so, if He says the same thing twice. This is why the Bible needs to be read in its entirety, and not simply cherry-picked.

Tell me why I need a pope, and all that fine embroidery and gold.

The two have nothing in particular to do with each other; the "fine embroidery and gold" is for the sake of giving honor to God during Sacred Worship; it's not for the sake of the pope, himself (who wears very plain clothes, otherwise).

As to the most important part of your question: we need a pope because Christ saw fit to give us one. We are humans (with bodies), not angels... and we need material things in our families (physical mother and father and other relatives), our daily lives (eating and drinking and resting on beds, etc.), and our worship (beautiful sights, sounds, things to touch, smells, etc.--hence the holy water, the bread and wine, the incense, the bells, the beautiful vestments and decorations and artwork, etc.). To think otherwise is to fall into the heresy of iconoclasm (which the Muslims embrace wholeheartedly, by the way...), among other things. In addition to the Shepherd in Heaven, we need a "viceroy shepherd" with a physical voice, a physical face, etc., who is protected by God from error when pronouncing solemnly on Divine Revelation. Any alternative leaves an "every man for himself" approach to the Faith... as the thousands of splinters of contradictory and squabbling and mutually-condemning Protestant denominations shows, quite clearly.

Why should a presumptive human head of the church of Christ on earth undertake to emulate the materialistic trappings of earthly princes of the middle ages?

You're missing the point completely. Let me quote St. Jean-Marie Vianney, a holy French priest from the 1800's (known as the "Cure' of Ars"--the Pastor of the parish at Ars, France): "The best for God; the worst for me." The holy Cure' purchased and wore the most beautiful and elaborate vestments he could find, for Holy Mass--but outside of that, he wore such a threadbare and scruffy cassock that people on the street who didn't know him were shocked (and took him for a beggar, at least once). The Pope follows the same paradigm.

Honestly... I don't know what possesses some people to insist that "authenticity and humility" must necessary result in ugly and threadbare places of worship, bereft of all ornamentation. It seems a rather cheap way to show praise to God, IMHO.

P.S. I wanted to put the proper strong accent on the final "e" in "Cure'", but the FR text editor is mangling special symbols, at the moment.

It seems you’re just in the mood to snipe; if so, then please do so with someone else. Good day, sir.

Same problem she has. "and he made the (true) claim that Jesus gave His authority"

No. If I say that I "gave my money to a beggar", it doesn't logically necessitate that I gave the beggar ALL my money (i.e. I emptied all my bank accounts, and I'm now destitute). Just so, here; nowhere did I say (or imply) that Jesus gave ALL of His authority to the Twelve... and nor did Salvation.

Thanks for your failed attempt at mind reading.

Wow. That was a more snippy, more imperious-sounding reply than I was expecting. Not sure what would be wisest to do here, and to what extent a reply would be wasted effort. I'll try at least one more time, and see how it goes...

If it clarifies:

1) I assert that "sola Scriptura" is an unscriptural innovation which only became widespread as an idea in the 1500's, largely thanks to the errors of Luther. The idea is alien to (and makes logical nonsense of) both Scripture and the first millenium of Church history.

2) I assert, among other things, that the 66-book Protestant Bible is a fragment of the true Bible: it omits seven entire books (Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees), and fragments of at least two other books (Esther and Daniel)... and that appeals to "sola Scriptura" would be crippled by that fact, alone.

3) I assert that sola-Scriptura Protestants haven't the foggiest idea how the Bible came to be, and why (i.e. the Catholic Church discerned which books were true Scripture, and which were not)... and they're left with an insoluble conundrum when asked to explain how Scripture could have decided which books were actual Scripture. It's a bit like saying that I chose my own biological father... which would be quite a trick, since I wasn't there at the time!

4) I assert that all sola-Scriptura claims of "all believers will be guided by the Spirit to all necessary truth, and all necessary true interpretations of Scripture, on their own" are pure fantasy and wish-fulfillment, having no basis in Scripture, in logic, or in historical practice (cf. the massive shattering of Protestantism).

As for a few of your specific comments:

If you do not even know what formal versus material sufficiency is, among other things, then you can hardly deny what you do not understand.

I'm familiar with formal and material sufficiency; but I'm also familiar enough with the English language to know that you jumbled it, quite badly (perhaps in an attempt to sound erudite? Or at least too hasty?). Here's your quote to which I responded:

And that the sufficiency aspect only refers to its formal aspect?

"formal aspect of the sufficiency aspect"? Clumsy, at best... since you're using the same word ("aspect") to refer to two different orders of the topic, but in almost the very same place in the sentence. Just make your point plainly, please; it's much easier.

Now, as to your question: yes, I assert that Scripture (the full 73-book canon, mind you) is materially sufficient--i.e. it contains, either implicitly or explicitly, all necessary "raw content/data" for salvation... and the Church has always taught that. I deny that Scripture (even the full 73-book canon) is formally sufficient--i.e. that it could somehow suffice ALONE for that task (without infallible interpretation, without the Catholic Church to assemble the original Bible in the first place, without the Church to implement and dispense the necessary graces to USE that content toward salvation, etc.).

Good, as that is not what SS means, as while RC argue that SS makes every man a pope, they cannot claim ensured personal infallibility whenever they speak according to a certain scope and subject criteria, nor can any office as per Rome,

If I take your meaning correctly (and I'm not at all sure I do, since you're talking with a curious sort of idiom, using words in odd ways which neither logic nor canonical disputes about this topic require), you're saying that "Catholics have the same problem with interpreting pronouncements of the Magisterium--i.e. they'd need to be infallible in and of themselves so as to be assured not to misunderstand/distort promouncements (including Scripture interpretations) from Rome". Am I reading that correctly?

Supposing that I *did* understand you correctly: there's a crucial difference you're overlooking. If you're claiming, "Catholic teaching suffers from subjectivity, too, because the hearers of Magisterial teaching are fallible!", then I'd answer: that's true... but not nearly to the same extent, and not nearly on the same order, as Protestant "sola Scriptura" efforts, for at least three reasons:

1) We have a living person (or persons) whom we can ask for clarifications, if we misunderstand something from Rome; we cannot, however, "ask" the Bible to clarify whether our given understanding of a passage is right or wrong, since it does not "speak", as such.

2) Sola-Scriptura Protestantism contains outright logical contradictions (i.e. one or both MUST logically be false) within itself. Seventh-Day Adventists believe that worshiping on Sunday (or any day except Saturday) is the "mark of the beast" and worthy of damnation; the vast majority of sola-Scripture Protestants reject that idea totally. Who's right? Both appeal to Scripture "alone". Sola-Scriptura Lutherans believe in regenerative Baptism for the removal of Original Sin (and any actual sin), even for infants; most Evangelicals reject that idea as a pernicious error. Which "sola Scriptura" position is right? No... since there are no internal contradictions within Catholic dogmatic teaching, Catholics have an infinitely superior advantage.

3) Scripture itself--the principle that "anything not in Scripture is not binding on the Christian conscience" and "Scripture alone is the norm by which all salvific matters are to be judged"--is nowhere to be found in Scripture. All the "classic attempts" to show some sort of "sola Scriptura" (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, etc.) are wild stretches of passages which don't come close to proving what Protestants wish them to prove.

as that is a novelty which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

Given that "sola Scriptura" itself is an unscriptural (and therefore self-contradictory) novelty propagated by Luther and co., that's a rather ironic thing for you to say.

Caiaphas does not equate to that.

(?!?) "Caiaphas"? Who on earth was talking about Caiaphas? Are you getting messages mixed between FR and your iPhone messages, or something? :)

As an aside, re: your comments (which sounded oddly snide and self-congratulatory) about my alleged unfamiliarity with the topic/debate: I assure you, I've debated this issue for the better part of 25 years (reaching back to the old .usenet forums); the mere fact that I don't find your writing to be clear is an indication of my view of your writing, not of any familiarity with the topic (or lack thereof). In short: any suggestion that "I'm not familiar with the debate", simply because I find your previous post to be murky and disjointed, would be rather self-serving (if not arrogant).

...and thank YOU for your failed attempt at whistling for the mods to cover for you! Do anti-Catholics on FR ever get tired of doing that?

Again with the personal attacks.
Do FRoman Catholics ever tire of that?

Sure that’s it. That must explain why the Catholic church feels free to add to salvation requirements and require all to subject themselves to Rome in order to be saved. The Vatican’s residents through the years act like they have all of Christ’s authority else why these proclamations in opposition to God’s recorded Word?

Wouldn’t it be nice if both sides tried to find some good in the other one?

I’ve been on both sides. I am Roman Catholic though I come from a Lutheran background.

My two big pet peeves are: 1. Converts to Catholicism who now cannot say enough bad about Protestants and 2. those who have left the Catholic Church who can’t bash Catholicism enough. (e.g. “I spent 35 years in the Catholic Church before finding Jesus”)

I still greatly admire my Lutheran Church and am very thankful for all the wonderful instruction I received in my youth at my rural Lutheran church.

I have done a lot of reading about Sola Scriptura and believe that Catholics and Lutherans are not as far apart as one might think. (Can’t speak for other Protestant denominations). Luther himself believed in church authority but felt that scripture trumps all else. However, it seems evident that private interpretations of scripture have brought disunity to the Body of Christ. This is why I stay with Catholicism which admittedly has a checkered past.

But I will say this: In the process of my conversion to Catholicism, I was thrilled to find some many wonderful Christians. And also very encouraged to hear priests give homilies straight from the Bible.

I beg of my Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ to open your minds. And above all, speak the truth in love! (Something I regrettably fail at too often)