Why Does The Shroud of Turin Still Exist?

In an imaginary “ranking” of Christian topics that elicit the most fervent discussions, Jesus Christ is No. 1. But near the top is the Shroud of Turin — believed by millions of Christians to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. This “ranking” was inspired by you — Townhall readers who wrote over 500 impassioned comments in response to my July 21 piece, “Shroud of Turin: New Test Concludes 1988 ‘Medieval Hoax’ Dating Was a Fraud.”

I purposely read all your comments to gain insight into my role as an adviser and fundraiser for a groundbreaking exhibition about the Shroud of Turin at the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C. This spectacular museum, among the largest and highest rated in the city, is located only three blocks from the Capitol. And just prior to the January 20, 2021, presidential inauguration is when this high-tech Shroud exhibit is scheduled to open.

Threaded throughout hundreds of your responses about all aspects of the Shroud was one overarching theme summarized by these three comments:

“Anyone who requires physical evidence to underpin their faith doesn’t understand the concept of faith.”

“JESUS CHRIST died for all. HE is what is important. Making such a fuss about this piece of cloth is a distraction from HIS work of SALVATION.”

“I respectfully submit that the only ‘relic’ which really matters is the one which was left us on that first Easter morning: The tomb is empty! He is Risen! He is Risen indeed! Alleluia!”

Of course, “He is Risen” is also the foundation of my Christian faith, (made slightly more complicated by having been born Jewish). But I feel compelled to discuss and explore the comment that reads in part, “…such a fuss about this piece of cloth...”

And my response is simple: The Shroud of Turin exists because HE exists. An answer that echoes what God said to Moses, “I Am Who I Am. Say this to the people of Israel: I Am has sent me to you” (Exodus 3:14).

Thus, the existence of the Shroud of Turin raises two questions that I will attempt to address: First, what exactly is the Shroud? And second, a deeper dive into “Why does the cloth exist?”

The Shroud of Turin is a 14.5-by-3.5-foot linen cloth with a linear front to back mirror image of a crucified man. The Shroud has the distinction of being the most studied artifact in the world, yet the cloth’s numerous mysteries remained unexplained by modern science.

At this moment the Shroud lies in a fireproof box in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, as it has continuously since 1578. (But secretly relocated between 1939 and 1946 when Italian authorities feared Hitler was seeking possession.)

Among Shroud historians, there is no dispute that in 1352, over 200 years before the Shroud was housed in Turin, Geoffrey DeCharney displayed the cloth in Lirey, France marking the beginning of the Shroud’s documented "modern" dating.

There is also much circumstantial Shroud evidence through art, artifacts, and coins that pre-dates 1352. Moreover, scientifically verified botanical evidence found on the cloth in the form of pollen, dust, flowers, and even the weave and type of linen traces the Shroud back to first-century Jerusalem.

The cloth with its mysterious properties has survived wars, invasions and the ravages of time including numerous fires — most recently in 1997 at its home cathedral in Turin.

Most harrowing was the 1532 fire in Chambéry, France. Miraculously the entire cloth was not destroyed but left those distinctive linear markings along both sides of the Shroud that we see today. Hard to imagine, but the linen cloth was stored in a silver box, folded in 48 layers, when drops of molten silver burned through the cloth’s outer folded edges.

The point is, against all the odds, the Shroud exists. And, as stated earlier, because He exists. There is also a significant Bible-based reason found in the Gospel of John known as “Doubting Thomas” (John 20:24-31).

But first, a “guest” who will explain this passage needs a proper introduction:

It turns out that the many Townhall readers who commented about not needing the Shroud’s “physical evidence to underpin their faith,” represent a large swath of Christian believers. I learned this when asking Russ Breault— my fellow Shroud exhibit team colleague, and a world-renowned Shroud expert and speaker — if he had experienced similar attitudes after over 30 years of hosting his popular “Shroud Encounters” to sell-out crowds.

“I get that statement all the time! When someone says, ‘I don't need the Shroud for my faith,’ I usually say, ‘That is fantastic! But that doesn't mean the Shroud was not meant for someone else.’ ”

Breault continued: “In the Doubting Thomas story, Jesus pronounced a blessing on those who ‘believe yet have not seen,’ but Jesus did not condemn Thomas for his unbelief. In fact, a week after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared a second time, and the first person he spoke to was Thomas, who was not there to witness Jesus’ first appearance. Jesus then quotes Thomas' words back to him, ‘Thomas, thrust your hand into my side and place your fingers into my nail wounds and be not faithless but believe.’

At this point, Thomas — forever known as "Doubting Thomas" — makes the strongest profession of faith in the New Testament saying, "My Lord and my God." Then Jesus pronounced a blessing on those who can believe without seeing. So we are blessed if we can believe without seeing, but we are not cursed if we can't get there without some additional evidence.

Therefore, perhaps the Shroud is a silent witness to the world offering all of humanity the same opportunity Jesus gave to Thomas. In some proverbial sense by looking at the Shroud, we too can thrust our hand into His side and place our fingers into His nail wound and find our faith in the process.”

If blessed with great faith, you are free to ignore or downplay the image on the Shroud showing Christ’s great suffering and victory over death. Yet, take comfort in knowing that the Shroud is there to supplement or reinforce the faith of others while potentially witnessing to the ever-increasing number of Doubting Thomases found throughout the world.

In the end, I believe that the Shroud exists as proof of God’s greatest gift to mankind —the Lord Jesus Christ — who lives and reigns forever and ever. Alleluia!

First, I am not sure what you mean by this:

You quoted "Jesus Himself is a Sign.(Matt 24:40; Luke 2:12 ; Luke 2:34)." ... and then

"A physical sign...To the Old Testament Jews who were looking for their Messiah...They required a sign...We Gentiles do not require a sign."

Since you just confirmed that Jesus IS a sign--- and then you added, "We Gentiles do not require a sign," you seem to be saying that Gentiles do not need Christ Incarnate.

Astonishing, if that's what you mean. But is this what you mean?

Second, you state,

" Perhaps it's hard for you to imagine a person becoming a Christian without the physical evidence that Jesus existed that your Church claims to have in its possesion..."

In my case--- and in the case, I daresay, of the vast majority of Catholics--- this is entirely wrong.

I have never seen, heard, or touched any physical evidence that Jesus existed. I think extremely few have ever done so.

I'm suitably appreciative, I think, that Matthew and John were eye witnesses, Mark was apparently writing the memoirs of Peter (an eyewitness), and Luke assured Theophilus that he was drawing from eyewitness accounts.

That strikes me as very strong.

Equally strong is the whole process of the writing, copying, collection, verification, canonization, preservation, dissemination --- the historically verifiable, step-by-step chain of custody --- which has through nigh unto 100 generations conveyed the Scriptures to us, from the earliest (about 45 AD) until this very day.

In addition to all that, I am VERY interested in other elements of standard historic evidence. These are:

contemporary and near-contemporary non-Bblical authors who verify Jesus’ life and ministry (like Josephus, Tacitus, and the Babylonian Talmud)
confirmation in archaeological discoveries; and
the coherence of NT accounts with 1st century history.

But as for some special trove of physical evidence in the exclusive possession of the Catholic Church --- what are you speaking of? relics? ---- no, not at all. I know of no relic which has persuasive evidentiary power.

So, no.

I thought you'd want to know.

No, we don't need Jesus standing physically in front of us in order to believe in Him --- not do we have to believe in fragments of relics; although they may have genuine devotional significance, they generally have little to no forensic value.

However, evidence is not to be treated with indifference. Paying close attention to objective evidence is a big element in what is rightly called "justice." No one who is indifferent to evidence can be thought to be a just judge.

That's why evidence of miracles, for instance, is needed to verify miracles. The Church rightly takes what you could call a professionally conservative stance toward purported miracles. Medical verification, for instance, for reported cures, is not to be underestimated. And as for visions --- it's always necessary to rule out the possibility of fraud, delusion, deception, and honest mistakes.

As you know (if you've been reading his thread):

The Catholic Church has never officially recognized the shroud as an official relic of Jesus Christ. The Church has long held that the Shroud is an aid to devout veneration, in bringing Our Crucified Lord graphically to our minds --- whether it is an authentic relic or something else.
NO Private Revelation (which would include visions, locutions, the provenance of relics, etc.) is "de fide".
Even if a Private Revelation is deemed worth of credence---I repeat --- it is not an part of the Deposit of Faith or a source of new revelations of doctrines necessary for salvation.
All the Vatican recognition means is that
1. There's no evidence that the purported visionaries, or whoever, were not credible witnesses, e.g. they were not known liars, drunk, delusional, drug-addled, paranoid-schizophrenic, threatened/blackmailed, paid off/profiteers, morons, etc.
2. Nothing in the purported Private Revelation" contradicts Catholic Faith and Morals, e.g. the Vision didn't say 'Hi, I'm the Fourth Person of the Trinity," "Girls who wear Bloomers are going to Hell," "Marx was Right and Lenin is His Prophet", "Jesus hates the Catholic Church," "No dancing, no beer"; "Reduce your Carbon Footprint," "Adore Me, I am Aphrodite in a Nightie," or any such nonsense;
3. To the extent that it upholds the traditional doctrine (e.g. Mary says, "Do whatever He tells you"), and it helps people to repent and believe the Good News, or inspires people to dedicate /rededicate themselves to Jesus Christ Our Lord, it's to be valued as an aid to devotion.

I hope you find this helpful.

Just means that Scripture is sufficient for knowledge of salvation, infallible, and the supreme authority in matters of faith.

Huh, what a night.

Anyway, I finally have a chance to respond.

Beyond my original response which you found so insulting.

I agree that Sola Scriptura as you defined it is *largely* accurate.

Sufficient for [doctrinal] knowledge of Salvation, sure.

Infallible? Mostly: but in the sense that you have the passages in Proverbs which say back-to-back "answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes; answer not a fool according to his folly lest you become like him"...trying to interpret that literally leads atheists to chortle. I suggest that those two lines were a rhetorical device known as paradox. There are known issues with translation, e.g. the sculptures of Moses with horns because one of the bible translations got a word wrong (IIRC it was something like "glory" or "radiance" but got transcribed or translated as "horns".)

Contrary to Bart Ehrman, these are not faith-killers.

And, there are passages where St. Paul comes out and says, "Hey guys, I'm writing this, not the Lord; these other sentences, however, ARE the Big Guy Upstairs talking, so listen up!"

Quibbles, but minor, included for the sake of avoiding later nitpicks.

The big controversy (well, ok, two of them) on Sola Scriptura is:

1) Supreme Authority in matters of faith.

Catholics say, nope, no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20); and this is consistent with the real-life development that some Protestant groups break down into smaller and smaller splinter groups over increasingly miniscule points of doctrine. You can find a humorous account of this kind of thing in Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon Days in the chapter "Protestant."

The Protestants tend to quote 1 John 2:27, implying as it were the priesthood of all believers; and of course the famous 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

A few points.

First I don't accept 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as relevant, nor as dispositive of the issue.

Why?

Because it says "all Scripture is inspired by God."

It DOES NOT say "Scripture is the only thing inspired by God, and will remain forever the only thing inspired by God."

Second, I find it odd that the Protestants don't even consider the possibility that 1 John 2:27 might be a *corporate* guarantee. (Looking at BibleHub, https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/2-27.htm, I find that the "you" in that verse is *plural 2nd person*...How that necessarily guarantees an *individual* anointing, I'm still not sure of.)

Then, there are instances, both in the life of Jesus, and elsewhere in the Gospels, and in the various epistles, where it is clearly implied or stated, that the revelations of the Holy Spirit to the church, are meant to be ongoing over time. This does not mean that the cross and the Resurrection are overthrown, or usurped; but that God intends for His church to fight Satan in this world; and for that, additional help, prayers, guidance, and instructions are forthcoming. ("I will not leave you orphans.") 2) If the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, why do so many Protestant churches deviate from it (e.g. divorce, gay marriage, ordination of women, women praying without their heads covered, rejecting the Biblical gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which are explicitly covered in the New Testament)? For the Catholics -- one analogy would be that the Spirit is living and active, and many of the "empty rituals" were once living and active, and the Spirit has moved on. They are still imbued with Spiritual power for those who engage in them in faith (and, in some cases, may retain "cleanliness" and power to ward off Satan anyway); but many people do them as "vain repetitions". That does not however, imply that "vain repetitions" is all that they ever were. If one actually reads the writings of some of the Saints, it is striking how much they have in common even with the Pentecostals in their devotion to Christ and waiting for and obeying the rhema of the Holy Spirit. And the signs and miracles following.

And a great many of the doctrines taken for granted by Protestants, were hashed out with blood, sweat, tears, and fervent prayers, over centuries, by the Catholic Church. To say nothing of saving the West from Islam. Not just the Crusades: the Muslims almost overran *VIENNA* (you know, cultured central Europe, the home of countless composers and artists and such)...long after Shakespeare, after Luther, and less that 100 years before the Constitution was signed. They were saved by a Catholic Prince from Poland, Jon Sobieski.

That being said, it is odd that one of my favorite pieces of music is a progressive rock album entitled Sola Scriptura, on the life of Martin Luther (it even trashes the 1400s-1500s Popes explicitly). Here's the song about Luther and the Wittenburg Door:

The Door, Live (warning: blistering guitar solo).

But the most applicable song for *this* thread, is this ballad:

(no title, but I think it's called "Make Us One")

I think that the best Scripture of all, is Romans 14. ("Welcome the one whose faith is weak, but not for quarrels...and he will stand, for God is able to make him stand." It is a call for mutual forbearance and humility. Good night. :-)

My definition is accurate in the sense that the definition is accurate. Whether sola scriptura as a philosophy has merit, we’ll discuss... tomorrow.

Minor points before I go to bed. I’ll read deeper in the morning, Lord willing.

1: Infallible does not mean literal. Many of the authors used rhetorical devices common in their day, as well as devices common in our day such as metaphor, symbolism, and common sayings.

It’s still the Word of God, and God does not lie. It’s still directly from the pens of the Prophets and Apostles, and they were instructed directly by God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

If anything is in contradiction to Scripture, it’s in contradiction to the Lord himself.

2: The problem with corporate interpretation like Roman Catholicism does is that if one error gets into the interpretation there is no chance for correction. And if the leadership of that group becomes corrupt, there’s no way for the rest of it to correct them.

Unless you are to declare the leadership permanently infallible, which I don’t think you want to do. Roman Catholicism doesn’t have a very good track record in maintaining incorruptible clergy, unfortunately, and many times in history, dissent and even power struggles were typically dealt with... brutally, as the Huguenots and Templars might tell you.

3: Finally, just because ‘splinter groups’ form doesn’t mean that we aren’t unified in Christ. Roman Catholicism rites have more differences between them than most Protestant denominations.

1: Infallible does not mean literal. Many of the authors used rhetorical devices common in their day, as well as devices common in our day such as metaphor, symbolism, and common sayings.

Infallible implies "not self contradictory." Hence my side topic on Proverbs.

There are any number of heresies which *were* rooted out. A lot of the phrasing in the Creeds is to deal with them.

Incidentally, your point leads to the other issue. Who does or did decide what is Scripture? In order for "Scripture interprets" Scripture to work one first has to know what is and what isn't Scripture. And a lot of American Evangelicals seem to be of the bent "The Bible in King James English just like Jesus spoke" (facetious on purpose). They don't realize that the Bible was selected -- and again, many ancient codexes rejected -- by the early, you guessed it, Church meeting in councils.

Unless you are to declare the leadership permanently infallible, which I don’t think you want to do.

Ex cathedra is quite limited. Did God protect the Church from error far enough along to choose the 'real' Scriptures from all the fakes and wannabees? He *had* to, in order for the infallibility of Scripture to hold up.

And if He did it that far, did His arm suddenly get tired so He had to quit around the year...(pick a date, you get the point).

As it is, I take it that the Church as a whole is protected from error by God; consider it analogous to the garbage collection feature in Java where one doesn't quite know the timeframe at which empty pointers get swept away.

There were corrupt Popes; multiple claimants who "excommunicated" one another; Venn diagram overlaps between Church and State where the Church was used in political maneuvering; and yet...the faith endures, and continues to pass down the Scriptures and the teachings of the Saints and Church Fathers.

Finally, just because ‘splinter groups’ form doesn’t mean that we aren’t unified in Christ. Roman Catholicism rites have more differences between them than most Protestant denominations.

Uh huh. An old problem, that. See 1 Cor 3:4. Paul saw it as a problem; and I think it's ironic in the light of that passage, that there are Protestant denominations named after influential humans (Wesleyans, Calvinists, Lutherans...)

Pray for unity and reconciliation.

There's an old joke, about an older man and woman driving in the car, and she complains, "You never put your arm around me in the car anymore."

He replies, "I'm in the same place I always was. You're the one who moved away." :-P

But to hear some Evangelicals talk, you'd have thought the Catholic Church was a dangerous new heresy, instead of being rooted in 2000 years of history.

If the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, why do so many Protestant churches deviate from it (e.g. divorce, gay marriage, ordination of women, women praying without their heads covered, rejecting the Biblical gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which are explicitly covered in the New Testament)?

And the same questions can be asked of Roman Catholicism.

Why does Rome allow divorce? They just call it annulment.

Gay marriage? Rome has an even bigger problem in their priesthood they continue to cover up. Why is this allowed to continue?

Women praying with their heads covered? I seriously doubt you can find a Roman Catholic church that does this.

Rejection of the gifts of the Spirit? Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Ordination of women? Yes, sadly there are denominations that are allowing this, wrongly I might add. But right now your denomination is beginning discussions of this.

Speaking of ordination, Rome forbids its clergy from marrying citing "tradition" for their rationalization of this deviation from Scripture.

Of all the errors of Roman Catholicism this is one of the easiest to point out.

Peter, (you remember him...right?) was married as were a good number of the disciples/Apostles.

Paul outlined requirements for men to serve and among these was the requirement of one wife.

Clearly the early church had no problem with their leaders being married.

But Roman Catholic "tradition" says otherwise.

When Christians reject Roman Catholic "tradition" as being equal to Scripture you can point to this as one of the reasons why we do.

It argues for sola scriptura as being the ultimate lens through which all beliefs are filtered.

**************

All that said there are a lot of areas that Roman Catholicism has departed from the faith in.

Mariolatry is the biggest.

The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, church documents calling Mary a "co-redemptrix", "mediatrix", "Queen of Heaven", approval of apparitions claiming to be Mary that require Roman Catholics to wear scapulars to avoid the eternal fire, are all in contradiction of the Scriptures.

Yet everyone one is allowed under the auspices of "tradtion".

2.Nothing in the purported Private Revelation" contradicts Catholic Faith and Morals, e.g. the Vision didn't say 'Hi, I'm the Fourth Person of the Trinity," "Girls who wear Bloomers are going to Hell," "Marx was Right and Lenin is His Prophet", "Jesus hates the Catholic Church," "No dancing, no beer"; "Reduce your Carbon Footprint," "Adore Me, I am Aphrodite in a Nightie," or any such nonsense;

Roman Catholicism does have and allows and sanctions the nonsense of the apparitions claiming to be Mary and the non-Scriptural statements they've made. This has already been shown to you numerous times regarding the apparitions.

*****************

The apparition claiming to be Mary who gave the scapular with the promise "anyone dying in this habit shall not suffer eternal fire."

A prayer offered while holding the Scapular is as perfect as a prayer can be. It is especially in time of temptation that we need the powerful intercession of God’s Mother. The evil spirit is utterly powerless when the wearer of a scapular faces temptation, calling upon the Holy Virgin in this silent devotion.

True devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary consists in three things: VENERATION, CONFIDENCE AND LOVE.

By simply wearing the Scapular, we can tell her every moment of the day that we venerate her, love her and trust in her protection.The Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel has promised to save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment.

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

*********

Right there are four lies that are contradiction of Scripture.

NO WHERE in Scripture is a promise ever made that wearing a man-made piece of cloth can save you from the eternal fire. NO WHERE. To believe that is idolatry and a departure from the faith. A number of your fellow Roman Catholics on these threads have admitted to falling for this lie. I hope you're not one of them.

Only faith in Christ and Christ alone can save you....nothing else.

NO WHERE in Scripture are we to "venerate" or have "devotion" to Mary.

We are to love the Lord God with all of our heart, soul, mind and body.

NO WHERE in Scripture does it teach that holding an idol like the scapular is a "perfect prayer" or that it is what we are to appeal to in times of spiritual warfare. NO WHERE.

Jesus taught the disciples how to pray with the Lord's prayer as a model. I guess He left out something.

Paul, in Ephesians 6 gave us the things to do in spiritual warfare....which is daily.

NO WHERE in Scripture are we ever directed to appeal to Mary in matters of prayer or anything else for that matter.

*******

We can examine the apparitions at Fatima, Guadalupe, etc and we will find lies mixed in with some truth.

The apparitions stand in contradiction to Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism sanctions and allows these lies to be believed.

There is a distinction to be made between Sacred Scripture and the Bible. Namely, that Sacred Scripture consists of all inspired writings, and that the Bible is merely the official collection of these inspired writings into one definitive list or tome.

And so what other wholly God-inspired writings are there according to Roman Catholicism (which differs somewhat in this regards from Eastern Orthodox) or Ultra Sonic 007?

, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the Apostles, and the interpretation of the Church, to which the Apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [

And so just where do you see that the teaching office of the church is opposed to SS?

"It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - Westminster Confession XXXI)

to which the Apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

Scripture can be destructive to one's salvation if you interpret it wrongly. Hence the need for a Divinely-authorized teacher, that Christ would be with until the consummation of the world.

Scripture can be destructive when leadership effectively makes what is says to be the supreme law, as in Catholicism, and wrongly teaches it, as in Catholicism. And just where do you see:

1. Ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome promised and essential in Scripture for providing and preserving Truth and Faith?

2. That ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office is essential for anyone to know what is of God, from men of God to writings of God?

3. The Roman Catholic church in the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed, which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. In which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest.

And while I am at it (pardon any redundancy), 1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings await the church and require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and sure record of what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards sources of express Divine revelation, and which materially provides for such things as were listed above?
11. What wholly inspired oral source has spoken to man the public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.