I see you and your fellow buffoons rail on about the lack of legitimacy of Catholic teaching predicated upon nothing other than your own individual infallible interpretations of Scripture. It brings to mind an argument articulated by the late Cardinal Gibbons.
First Catholics are told that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on any man, especially a Catholic one. But if God could make mere men the instrument by which he revealed the infallible Word, why is it impossible to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter?
Next we are told by Protestants that an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. That then begs the question of whether your interpretation of the Bible is equally infallible. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and by extension for every other reader of Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny the Pope and the Magisterium. On what basis or what knowledge do you deny to them what you claim for yourself? And how do you rationalize the many differences in interpretation among and between the various Protestant sects and denominations?
On the otherhand, if you are not infallibly certain that you have properly interpreted and understand the whole Bible then what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?
Standing applause.
You have hit the nail square on the Protestant thumb.
About the only thing that I can add is that the Church chose Scripture to begin with - the choice of the OT (Septuagint) and the NT rests with the Church - guided by the Holy Spirit, not any Tom, Dick or Luther regardless of how infallible they deem themselves.
And just think of the books that were thought of as Scripture - we know of about 80 Gospels or so - and which versions of each book were to be chosen? Each book had to be hand copied - and the copyists were not always the most faithful to the originals.
There are many out there that believe that Jesus carried a KJV (1611 of course) around with Him and taught in English. I have run into a few and have done my best to disabuse them of that notion (if English was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for immigrants - so I have been told).
Actually, rather than parroting a refuted RC polemic, if you had read and been able to comprehend what i wrote in this thread, then you might have understood how truth is established, which is not by Rome’s self-proclamation nor simply someone claiming they are infallible.
The modern-day Berean cannot claim either, but can only point them to the only material authority that is wholly inspired of God - which is not a perpetual promise that a pope will be - and seek to persuade them by manifestation of the truth.
Which is not the same as the implicit assent to your supreme magisterium you must require in order to have assurance of truth.
Or rather, the last thread we exchanged upon.
So, you want to resort to juvenile name-calling? Buffoon?
Forget it. I’m not going to go around and around with a bunch of Catholic adherents to their man-made traditions. That’s a useless endeavor, and I have better things to do.
Good evening.