“The point is, everything the Church tells us you have to take on faith. If you think the Church lies to you about Mary, why do you believe the Church when she gives you the Gospel? The source is the same.”
That i think is called a genesis fallacy, that the source of a truth renders all that is says to be true, by which logic (in the above context) we must submit to Judaism out of whom the Scriptures first flowed and who were explicitly stated to be the stewards of them. (R. 3:2; 9:4)
The reality is that no where is it stated that all the church ever teaches on faith and morals will be assuredly infallible (nor that is authenticity is based upon formal historical linkage, versus Biblical faith), but only one objective source is, that being Scripture. (2Tim. 3:16)
That does not mean the church cannot teach infallible truth, and the N.T., church did, being soundly substantiated by Scripture and Divine attestation (Acts 15) and which we know because it is in the Scriptures.
But the problem is that of an assuredly infallible magisterium, which i abbreviated as AIM, in which the office has infallibly defined that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly declared (scope and content based) criteria. Which renders its declaration that it is infallible, to be infallible, as well as (in the eyes of some) the interpretation of whatever sources it invokes in support of it. By which autocracy they are immune to examination, and thus RC’s are discouraged to do as the Berean’s did in order to ascertain the veracity of is promulgations.
But which authority the Pharisees could have justified its Korban rule, (Mk. 7:7-13) and it is by such that Rome’s praying to saints and Mariology effectively is.
My responses here have about 1 week latency. Thank you for participating and I will get to you on your post on substance in a few days.
THANKS for the ping and for all your great posts.
““The point is, everything the Church tells us you have to take on faith. If you think the Church lies to you about Mary, why do you believe the Church when she gives you the Gospel? The source is the same.”
If you don’t believe I’m Superman why would you believe I can fly?
daniel1212: That i think is called a genesis fallacy, that the source of a truth renders all that is says to be true
But I didn't say "because the Gospel is true, the Protoevangelium of James is true" (the latter is not, I think, entirely accurate). Of course you should examine each proposition separately. All I am pointing out is another fallacy: that because the Church in one place said A and in another place said B, and B is not a whole subset of A, then B must be false. Yet that is the usual "where is that in the scripture?" line of reasoning.
the problem is that of an assuredly infallible magisterium
Yes, it is logically speaking somewhat of a problem. If Christianity were a branch of mathematics that would be a real difficulty. This is the same difficulty anyone with any kind of authority has: -- how do I know your badge is for real, officer?. As the matter stands, there is an assent of faith involved. (There is also an assent of faith involved in any geometry or algebra, but that is another topic). I believe that the Church has correctly rendered to me certain historical facts, many of miraculous nature; I also believe that the Church can lead me to salvation today dues to her unique relationship to God. Were I to discover some illogicality in what the Church porposes for my salvation, I would, no different than the Bereans' intention was, lose my faith. The teaching of the Living Magisterium is certainly open to critical review; no one is held inside the Church by force, and many indeed leave. The reason Catholics remian Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.
On the other hand, the Protestant doctrines are unbelievably distant from the Holy Scripture. How, for example, do you arrive from "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" (James 2:24) to its direct reversal? And that is not some peripheral stuff like your eternal premillenialism versus antelapsarianism (did I get that right?) struggle. This i the cornerstone of Priotestant theology, yet is does not stand a one-minute scriptural scrutiny.