Catholic Cardinal: No Obligation to Follow a Pope Who Betrays the Church [China]

A circular argument. Your appeal to purported Scriptura Sola is in vain, for it is not supported by Apostolic Tradition.

Wrong and absurd. That which is wholly-inspired of God is the authority to which the apostles invoked as validation, and is the only substantive body of Truth they affirmed as being wholly inspired of God, which was established as such before there was a church of Rome. And thus your claim for "Apostolic Tradition" must itself be subject to Scripture.

(Sola Scriptura isn't even supported by Scripture.)

That is not necessary here, as Scripture Prima would suffice, but SS is certainly supported, as Scripture alone being the standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced, as the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth, and sufficient in its formal and material senses combined, and with writing being God's means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:27;Deuteronomy 10:4; 27:3; 31:24; Isaiah 30:8; John 20:31; Revelation 20:12,15) Thus the church was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus Rome's the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

Out of the 1st-2nd century book-bazaar of purported scriptural books written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, you wouldn't even know how to pick out the 27 books of the NT were it not for Apostolic Tradition and, of course, the "custom of the Church". Apostolic Tradition is the source of the NT canon.

Wrong. Common souls discerned both writings and men of God as being so before there was a church of Rome. But therefore based upon your reasoning then Jewish Tradition is equal to Scripture, with the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture being the sure authority on what Scripture means. Thus they were to be followed rather than itinerant preachrers of the sect of the Nazarenes, who established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation.

The way God worked was to first reveal Himself and Word in a very limited but profound manner to a very limited amount of people. But when deciding to reveal Himself to a nation corporately, He gave the Law in writing (Gn.-Dt.) by a most manifest man of God. Which body, besides direct communication in wholly inspired writing, placed in writing what was of God that was passed on orally, in effect sifting out the chaff from the oral stream, and placing it in a wholly inspired preserved form. And which preserved written body became the manifest standard for obedience and testing Truth claims. It was not the hearing or oral tradition that caused the king to rent his clothes, and heart, and caused a revival.

And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses... And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes....because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book (2 Chronicles 34:14,19,21b)(I should have such a heart.)

To which body more wholly inspired words were added, some directly into writing, and others preserving what tradition was of God, but recording it (and sometime even expanding or recasting what was said verbatim, as seen by duplicate accounts) as wholly inspired of God, thus in totality being a superior form. Thus we are assured what parts of oral tradition (in which form both wheat and chaff grew together) were of God (such as perhaps the name of Jannes and Jambres: 2Tim. 3:8) by their inclusion in wholly inspired written preservation.

And which writings (as with men of God) were recognized and established as being of God essentially due to their unique and enduring qualities and attestation, with, as with men of God, this being more readily apparent with some than with others.

And thus it was not Jewish oral tradition that the Lord rebuked the devil and leaders by, and established His Truth claims, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

For Catholic oral tradition to be equal with Scripture then what they say would have to be wholly inspired of God, and even then it would be subject to testing by the established wholly inspired body of Truth, the Scriptures.

Instead of Scripture even having its primary supreme status however, neither it nor her claimed "Apostolic Tradition" is the supreme authority and basis of assurance of Truth. For instead it is Rome herself, who claims one cannot assuredly ascertain what Scripture consists of and means except by her, as the historical steward of Divine revelation, which is contrary to how the church began.

But since 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.

It's like that Old Time Religion. Good enough for Athanasius, good enough for Jerome, good enough for the "custom of the Church", good enough for me.

Really? Then you should agree with Athanasius and Jerome who rejected apocryphal books that Rome later decreed were indisputably part of the canon.

The Catholic Encyclopedia had therefore apologetically stated,

Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome. Athanasius of Alexandria was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Your appeal to purported Scriptura Sola is in vain, for it is not supported by Apostolic Tradition.

So; Apostolic Tradition trumps scripture.

OK...

(Sola Scriptura isn't even supported by Scripture.)

That silly Jesus!

He should have mentioned the TRADITION of the Fathers a LOT more often than He did!!

NIV Matthew 2:5
"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

NIV Matthew 4:1-11
1. Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
2. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
3. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
4. Jesus answered, "It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "
5. Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.
6. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "`He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' "
7. Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
8. Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
9. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10. Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: `Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "
11. Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

NIV Matthew 11:10
This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'

NIV Matthew 21:13
"It is written," he said to them, "`My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a `den of robbers.' "

NIV Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him.

NIV Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "`I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'

NIV Mark 7:6-7
6. He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
7. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

NIV Mark 9:11-13
11. And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
12. Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?
13. But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."

NIV Mark 11:17
And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations' ? But you have made it `a den of robbers.' "

NIV Mark 14:27
"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: "`I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'

NIV Luke 1:1-4
1. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

NIV Luke 4:17-19
17. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18. "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,
19. to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

NIV Luke 7:27
This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'

NIV Luke 10:26
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

NIV Luke 18:31-33
31. Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.
32. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him.
33. On the third day he will rise again."

NIV Luke 20:17-18
17. Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ' ?
18. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

NIV Luke 21:22
For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

NIV Luke 22:37
It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

NIV Luke 24:44-47
44. He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
47. and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

NIV John 2:17
His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."

NIV John 6:31
Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' "

NIV John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

NIV John 12:14-16
14. Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15. "Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt."
16. At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

NIV John 15:25
But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: `They hated me without reason.'

NIV John 20:30-31
30. Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

NIV Acts 1:20
"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "`May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "`May another take his place of leadership.'

NIV Acts 7:42
But God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: "`Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel?

NIV Acts 13:29
When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.

NIV Acts 13:32-33
32. "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers
33. he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "`You are my Son; today I have become your Father. '

NIV Acts 15:15-18
15. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16. "`After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
17. that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'
18. that have been known for ages.

NIV Acts 23:5
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: `Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.' "

NIV Acts 24:14
However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,
and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

NIV Romans 1:17
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

NIV Romans 2:24
As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

NIV Romans 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

NIV Romans 3:10-12
10. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11. there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

NIV Romans 4:17
As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

NIV Romans 4:23-24
23. The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone,
24. but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

NIV Romans 8:36
As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."

NIV Romans 9:13
Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

NIV Romans 10:15
And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

NIV Romans 11:7-10
7. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened,
8. as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."
9. And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever."

NIV Romans 11:26-27
26. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

NIV Romans 12:19
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

NIV Romans 14:11
It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"

NIV Romans 15:3-4
3. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me."
4. For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

NIV Romans 15:7-12
7. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.
8. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs
9. so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: "Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name."
10. Again, it says, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."
11. And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples."
12. And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him."

NIV Romans 15:21
Rather, as it is written: "Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand."

NIV 1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

NIV 1 Corinthians 1:31
Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

NIV 1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" --

NIV 1 Corinthians 3:19-20
19. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" ;
20. and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

NIV 1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

NIV 1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:7
Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry."

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:11
These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

NIV 1 Corinthians 14:21
In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:54
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

NIV 2 Corinthians 4:13-14
13. it is written: "I believed; therefore I have spoken." With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak,
14. because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.

NIV 2 Corinthians 8:15
as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

NIV Galatians 3:10
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

NIV Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

NIV Galatians 4:22
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.

NIV Galatians 4:27
For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."

NIV Hebrews 10:7
Then I said, `Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.'"

NIV 1 Peter 1:15-16
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

NIV 2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

NIV 1 John 2:12-14
12. I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
13. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father.
14. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply.

These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the conspiracy or coverup.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

How to spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Elsie, much as I appreciate those many and beautiful verses and the lovely type font colors as well, none of them says or even implies "Scripture Alone"

And we only have those verses because we have canonical Scripture --- via Apostolic Tradition.

You're strenuously refuting something I didn't say. I wrote:

"You wouldn't even know how to pick out the 27 books of the NT were it not for Apostolic Tradition and, of course, the "custom of the Church". Apostolic Tradition is the source of the NT canon."

You responded:

"Wrong. Common souls discerned both writings and men of God as being so before there was a church of Rome.">

I didn't say a word about the "Church of Rome," and using such a term is tendentious on your part, since I have never belonged to, or defended an entity called the "Church of Rome". Perhaps you mean the "Diocese of Rome." Goodness knows what you mean.

Those "common souls" you refer to were living the Gospel before the Gospels were even written, before there was a NT "Scriptura," and before Peter and Paul ever got to Rome.

I don't think you *mean* to distort what I said, but actually, the "common souls" you refer to, are the body of the Church considered as a whole: the Church Cata Holos.

Which existed before Rome and before the written Gospels.

I mentioned St. Jerome in my last volley because he referred to the Church "cata-holos," NOT to the Pope, when he finally decided to include the disputed 7-book Deuterocanonicals in his translation of the OT, despite his scholarly opinion to the contrary.

He didn't rely on his scholarly opinion.

He didn't get orders from the Pope.

As he said in his reply to Rufinius --- "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?".

So he estab;ished the criterion by which the canon would be settled: not his own judgment; nor some scholarly consensus; nor "orders from the Pope"; nor the judgment of Jews: but rather, the judgment of the Church.

He acknowledged the books that were actually in liturgical use in the churches,

"So; Apostolic Tradition trumps scripture."

No, you're wrong, and that's a category mistake. Apostolic Tradition can't possibly "trump" Scripture because Scripture is, itself, a major part of Apostolic Tradition.

I didn't say a word about the "Church of Rome," and using such a term is tendentious on your part, since I have never belonged to, or defended an entity called the "Church of Rome". Perhaps you mean the "Diocese of Rome." Goodness knows what you mean.

Don't play semantical games with me. It seems quite evident from past posts that you know that "Rome" is shorthand for the Roman Catholic Church, and "Roman" is a specifying term that has been used by popes or spokespersons, and your protest is a poor substitute for an argument.

Those "common souls" you refer to were living the Gospel before the Gospels were even written, before there was a NT "Scriptura," and before Peter and Paul ever got to Rome. I don't think you *mean* to distort what I said, but actually, the "common souls" you refer to, are the body of the Church considered as a whole: the Church Cata Holos. Which existed before Rome and before the written Gospels.

Actually, it means before the the Lord Jesus was incarnated, and therefore He could invoke the Scriptures as the only authoritative body of writings.

I mentioned St. Jerome in my last volley because he referred to the Church "cata-holos," NOT to the Pope, when he finally decided to include the disputed 7-book Deuterocanonicals in his translation of the OT, despite his scholarly opinion to the contrary. He didn't rely on his scholarly opinion. He didn't get orders from the Pope. As he said in his reply to Rufinius --- "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?".

Yet,

Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version.

I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?

See more here, rather than RC propaganda. A decision by local councils would not qualify as the "judgment of the church." Though he apparently translated apocryphal books which were included in at least most copies of the Vulgate, yet that does not mean he changed his opinion, or that the status of these books was all settled, and his notes that excluded apocryphal books continued.

In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther.

No, you're wrong, and that's a category mistake.

You appear to have made a logic mistake: "...Scripture is, itself, a major part of Apostolic Tradition.

If it is a part then it is necessarily LESS than the whole; thus it get's trumped by your Traditions.

Matthew 15:1 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

[ The Tradition of the Elders ] Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,

Matthew 15:2 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.”

Matthew 15:3 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Matthew 15:6 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.

Mark 7:3 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders;

Mark 7:5 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”

Mark 7:8 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”

Mark 7:9 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!

Mark 7:13 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”

Acts 6:14 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us.

1 Corinthians 11:2 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

[ Head Coverings ] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

Galatians 1:14 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

Colossians 2:8 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

[ Warning against Idleness ] Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

1 Peter 1:18 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers:

King James Version (KJV)

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

New International Version (NIV)

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

TRADITION!!

Scripture IS less than the whole. Oral tradition (the rest of it) is ALSO less than the whole. It's logical. Where Scripture is S, Oral tradition is O, and Tradition is T:

S + O = T

S is less than T

O is less than T

Please don't get this mixed up with small-t tradition, which could be very good, true and beautiful, but not divinely inspired: bequesting your great-grandma's wedding ring.

I’m not Catholic, but I have, over the years, told 2 or3 Catholics about priests historically having been married, and they look at me like I’m crazy. The only benefit I can see for non-married priests, is that the church would have to pay them a living wage if they were married. The Bible says, “it is better to marry than to burn”. And what’s even worse, men who become deacons have to swear not to remarry if their wives die. What is the point of that? Even the Bible says a bishop should be the husband of one wife. Apparently, they’d rather cut off their nose to spite their face, as short of priests as they are. And now that they accept Episcopalian and Russian Orthodox, those priests are allowed to marry. Oh, well, as I said, I’m not Catholic, but things like that don’t make sense to me.

Excellent!

I catch heat for it, but I don’t think it’s natural for a man to go throughout his life without marital relations

"you know that "Rome" is shorthand for the Roman Catholic Church"

Oh for pity's sake, of course I know that. Please tune up your irony detector. The point is, the term "Church of Rome" is not the way Catholics refer to themselves, but is a tendentious way for polemicists to insinuate that the Catholic Church "equals" nothing but Rome, tout court. False. The Catholic Church predates the Diocese of Rome by at least a generation, and will still exist even if Rome were wiped out by a nuke (no doubt one named Abd-Allah or Shaitan.))

Please vet your writings, as I try to vet mine, to delete gratuitous insults like calling a careful consideration of the meaning of words, "semantic games." Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong, but at no point am I playing games. If you have no respect for the integrity of the discussion, it will be pointless for us to continue.

And here's the exact point in context: Jerome did NOT refer to the Pope or the "Church of Rome" or rabbinical practice or even local councils when he said, in the context of forming the Canon of Scripture, "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?" By this he meant the books which had been received and accepted and used for liturgical reading in the churches, would be acknowledged as the Canon.

It's not "proven" by scholarship, by rabbinical preference, by local councils, by the Pope. It's "proven" -- this is his criterion --- by the customs and practices of the churches. What they actually do.

It's true this didn't "nail in" Septuaginta Sola or the disputed Seven. Far from it. (If I gave that impression, I was mistaken.) My point was, that the custom of the churches is the criterion.

You had no comment on the eye-glazing list of 65 would-coulda been Biblical Books listed at #20. I included the Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard translation as an illustration that, among some, the dispute over the canon has never been settled.

T'hell with "the custom of the churches" these guys know what the Real Scripture is, and it's not what the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been using for 2000 years.

"In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries"

Absolutely true. And not just "right into Trent," but right into 2106.

The only legit way to resolve it, though, is via "the custom of the churches," since we still believe that the Holy Spirit would not let "the churches" continue without a canon of Scripture for centuries. Nor was the Church without a canon until 1563 (Council of Trent) or KJV 1640 (the edition which finally and definitively excluded the even Deuteros) or 1987 (when George Howard finally gave us the True Scripture by translating the Shem Tov Gospel into English!)

I personally believe that in this matter of the Canon the Holy Spirit guided the Church better for 1700 years than did the Anglicans from the 17th century until now.

I don't prefer the 1640 Anglican canon, but if you do, fine. But you can't prove it by "the custom of the churches."

2106=2016

..although the disputes will probably go on until 2106 or until the Lord comes again, whichever comes first.

Another problem with the "Church of Rome" moniker, which is a term that Catholics don't use of themselves, is that it rhetorically excludes the other 21 churches of the Catholic Church: Catholic Copts, Melkites, Maronites, Chaldeans, etc.

Although numerically far in the minority, they are relevant to the historic "early church" discussions because so many of their communities were founded so very early, i.e. during Apostolic era. And some of them were outside of both the Roman Empire (West, under Rome) and the Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire East) and thus their customs and canons cannot be assumed to have been driven by empire-politicked councils or edicts.

I can hardly blame you for pretty much excluding them from discussion, since most U.S. and even European Catholics remain practically unaware that they have millions of fellow believers who are not themselves part of the so-called "Roman" Catholic Church.

(Even the term "Roman Catholic" originated as a derogatory label deployed by the Anglicans to legitimize their own use of the term "Anglo-Catholic" over and against that "foreign" Church loyal to the pope of Rome.)

Anyhow, the existence, heritage and testimony of these Eastern Churches is essential to the Catholicity of the Church as a whole. Their spiritual patrimony derives directly from the Apostolic Tradition.

Another reason to hope they are not all annihilated by ISIS. Seriously, at present their situation is grim. Your prayers are solicited.

Oh for pity's sake, of course I know that. Please tune up your irony detector. The point is, the term "Church of Rome" is not the way Catholics refer to themselves, but is a tendentious way for polemicists to insinuate that the Catholic Church "equals" nothing but Rome, tout court. False. The Catholic Church predates the Diocese of Rome by at least a generation, and will still exist even if Rome were wiped out by a nuke (no doubt one named Abd-Allah or Shaitan.)) Please vet your writings, as I try to vet mine, to delete gratuitous insults like calling a careful consideration of the meaning of words, "semantic games." Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong, but at no point am I playing games. If you have no respect for the integrity of the discussion, it will be pointless for us to continue.

What is this? In response to your statement "you wouldn't even know how to pick out the 27 books of the NT were it not for Apostolic Tradition and, of course, the "custom of the Church (emp. mine)," and your list of competing books, I pointed out that i could not, since common souls discerned both men and writings of God before there ever was a church of Rome you asserted "I have never belonged to, or defended an entity called the "Church of Rome," as if it is not the Roman Catholic church which asserts she is The Church which provided this custom.

In response you asserted, I have never belonged to, or defended an entity called the "Church of Rome". Perhaps you mean the "Diocese of Rome." Goodness knows what you mean, only to know admit "of course I know that" Rome refers to the Roman Catholic Church.

Thus my refutation remains, as does my statement that the term "Roman" is a specifying term that has been used by popes or spokespersons:

the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing -- Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis [a lie]

[Pope] Pius...each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the Holy Roman Church uses. http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm

“By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.” - Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208

the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, - Exsurge Domine1 promulgated by Pope Leo X against Martin Luther

Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559: ...in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us

QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE, 4 July 1570... establishing the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church,

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208: ...the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.”

Papal Bull Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV, 1441: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church,

Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved? A. There are several. They cannot be saved.... - Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine For the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools (1875); with imprimatur) ;http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/02/absurdity-of-separated-brethren.html

The Protestant goes directly to the Word of God for instruction, and to the throne of grace in his devotions; whilst the pious Roman Catholic consults the teaching of his church, and prefers to offer his prayers through the medium of the Virgin Mary and the saints. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

we are fairly certain today that, while the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term, they were, nonetheless, ‘Catholic,’ (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology)

As far as the term "Church of Rome" is not the way Catholics refer to themselves, they do argue that was their preeminent church, and JP2 celebrated the union of the Greek-Catholic church of Romania "with the Church of Rome," (https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20000720_unione-romania-roma.html) and Francis (in trouble again) said that a cardinal is "incardinated into the Church of Rome," but what of it? Am i do respond "Goodness knows what you mean" to a RC who refers to us as "Prots," or Protestant rebels?

And here's the exact point in context: Jerome did NOT refer to the Pope or the "Church of Rome"

Indeed, and unlike to the oft-asserted primacy of the specific church of Rome and of the pope.

or even local councils

Actually it was local custom. Other churches could and did differ. "..the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm)

By this he meant the books which had been received and accepted and used for liturgical reading in the churches, would be acknowledged as the Canon. It's not "proven" by scholarship, by rabbinical preference, by local councils, by the Pope. It's "proven" -- this is his criterion --- by the customs and practices of the churches. What they actually do.

Wrong. Jeremiah says nothing about being "proven," only that it was wrong for him to be criticized for following the judgment of the local churches, though he was critical using the version of a translator whom he regarded as heretic and judaizer (Theodotion). And what was the judgment of the churches when Jerome said,

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church"?

It's true this didn't "nail in" Septuaginta Sola or the disputed Seven. Far from it. (If I gave that impression, I was mistaken.) My point was, that the custom of the churches is the criterion.

But the point remains that the NT church relied upon the prior establishment of a body of wholly inspired writings of God, and thus by RC logic then Jewish tradition, under the leadership of the Palestian magisterial stewards of Scripture, (Mt. 23:2) is to be followed.

And as J. N. D. Kelly states,

For the Jews of Palestine the limits of the canon (the term is Christian, and was not used in Judaism) were rigidly fixed; they drew a sharp line of demarca- tion between the books which 'defiled the hands', i.e. were sacred, and other religiously edifying writings. The oudook of the Jewish communities outside Palestine tended to be much more elastic. "While respecting the unique position of the Penta- teuch, they treated the later books of the Old Testament with considerable freedom, making additions to some and drastically rewriting others; and they did not hesitate to add entirely new books to the permitted list. In this way 1 (3) Esdras, Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees came to be included among the histories, and Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon (these last three 'the Additions to the Book of Daniel'), and the Prayer of Manasseh among the poetical and prophetic books.

You had no comment on the eye-glazing list of 65 would-coulda been Biblical Books

What do you mean i have no comment? I took the purpose of your liberal list as arguing as per the above logic, and thus my "comment" was on how writings of God were established as being so, before there was any church which presumed she was essential for assuredly knowing what was of God (apostolic tradition, but means sola ecclesia).

Absolutely true. And not just "right into Trent," but right into 2106.

Wrong, as the issue was that of the canon being truly settled by the judgment of church early on, so that deviation would be censored, versus the status of some books still being a valid question among Catholics, which issue Trent truly settled for them.

The only legit way to resolve it, though, is via "the custom of the churches," since we still believe that the Holy Spirit would not let "the churches" continue without a canon of Scripture for centuries. He did not as regards "a canon," thus the NT church quote manifestly had a limited body of established texts to invoke from, but that "the custom of the churches" was not truly settled for RCs till Trent is the reality.

Moreover, Rome and the EOs differ about the judgment of the church in some cases, even slightly in the OT canon. Thus they must not be the one true church, with the feeling being mutual.

●The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)

● The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) ^

I don't prefer the 1640 Anglican canon, but if you do, fine. But you can't prove it by "the custom of the churches."

Actually, the only wholly inspired "custom of the churches" is the NT, and in comparison, doing as the noble Bereans did, it is manifestly evident that what you cannot substantially prove "the custom of the churches" in Catholicism by the wholly inspired Scripture. And which is why the post-apostolic, uninspired writings of so-called church "fathers" are given the deciding weight.

I'll be at the VA today, and at the abortion clinic vigil tomorrow. May get back to your essay by Sat.

If not, please excuse me if I find your 1900+ words impossible to read and analyze at one go.

I do think that Jaroslav Peliken put it most succinctly when he said, as regards the OT canon, that we can rely on A.D. Pharisee/tannaitic communities, councils and sources which were explicitly anti-Christian (e.g. the Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai and his successors) or we can rely on Christian communities, councils and sources.

He opts for the latter, and I find this persuasive.

Not to some people...