what can i say but, REALLY? try as i might, and believe me i have tried, this post in a bunch of incoherent thoughts all thrown together. just one sentence is 108 words long and contains 10 commas!! Hemingway could not write a coherent 108 word sentence, and you my friend are not Hemingway. no wonder you have problems with Catholics ( and i am sure non-Catholics as well ),
What you can you say? If what you see is “unrelated thoughts thrown together” then you cannot tolerate extended reasoning (despite some extra commas) and should stick to preaching to your choir. For the reality is that the issues dealt with here (basis for authority, establishment of Truth, etc.) requires a depth of reasoning and theology, and extensive examination and analysis for those who search out a matter as the noble Bereans did. But which you show a superficial appreciation of, which is not surprising for those who just let Rome make the conclusions, and then mainly make repeated polemical questions and assertions that have been answered and refuted.
And besides pleading verbosity and incoherence, which i will let others judge, what you should admit to is that the lack of perspicuity you protest against is actually what the very magisterium you attempt to defend has exampled so much of.
I have here before me just one of the many examples of the plethora of papal prolixity, an encyclical (QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, POPE PIUS Xl ,MAY 15, 1931) of over 20,000 words, with more than one paragraph of over 400 words, and at least one sentence of over 90 words, and which also abounds in punctuation.
In addition are the pronouncements of the nearly 300 so-called popes through the centuries. "Alexander III is said to have issued thirty-nine hundred and thirty-nine decrees and Innocent II over five thousand." (General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 42; H.A. Ayrinhac, Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1969). That is your church.
Then there is Vatican Two, of which some Catholics say,
Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents.
The definitive texts are for the most part compromise texts. On far too many occasions they juxtapose opposing viewpoints without establishing any genuine internal link between them. . — http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
Furthermore is the perspicuity of certain writings of church “fathers.”
As for non-Catholics having a problem with my writing (which could use improvements), i will let the often compliments speak for themselves, to the glory of God.
now that i have that off my chest, i will try and respond to whatever i think you weretrying to say ( i will be ignoring the cheap insults, they really don’t reflect well on someone who claims to follow Christ )
You mean my calling your feigning ignorance of what “Rome” refers to as being “insolent?,” seeing as you clearly evidenced you know what it meant, but by which response you left the pertinent question unanswered, after having had ignored others (which you have here as well) and neglected to interact with the arguments against your polemic. But that is following Rome.
1. i am glad you admit to being fallible, so your OPINION on Scripture and $1.75 will buy me a cup of coffee.
Thank you for effectively admitting that all you have done is made a fallible decision to submit to a self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium, and while i denied assured infallibility, and what you ignore is that i affirmed that one could know and show Truth from the assured infallible Scriptures, as this is what it shows, not perpetual, assured formulaic infallibility a per Rome.
2. the basis for my belief in Jesus Christ and His Church is FAITH. i realize it is a gift from the Holy Spirit and the natural man therefore can not understand Spiritual truths.
Faith based on what? It cannot be Scripture as that would make you as a Protestant, nor can you claim to have made an infallible decision to submit to her (or be infallible in interpreting her.)
No wonder this question was left unanswered, for if indeed you are answering it, then your basis for assurance (that Rome is what she claims to be) is implicit faith in her, as you can only have assurance of Truth by submission to her. And which again, is based upon her autocratic assertion of herself as being worthy of such faith according to her interpretation, which alone can be correct in any conflict, and around and around she goes.
Faith in such is not a gift of the Holy Spirit, but is indeed foolishness.
3 i am astonished about your statement that the Church was built on the Scriptures.....you have it all backwards. The Church for most of the Apostolic Age had the OT and some books of the NT at certain times. probably for the first 10 to 15 years of the Church, there wasn’t any NT and the Church spread all over the known Roman world by PREACHING. The Church PRECEDED the NT, not vice versa.
Despite your attempt at argument by outrage, the clear and substantiated FACT is that the N.T and its recorded preaching therein and the claims of Christ and the church itself were established upon Scripture, in text and in power, thus warranting faith, by which the Body of Christ has its members. For faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) which the Scriptures assuredly are, and preaching is proved by it. (Acts 17:11)
What you should be astonished at (if you actually read them is) the abundance of Scriptures i provide which substantiate this, and that Scripture was the standard for obedience and for testing and establishing Truth claims, and which the NT examples and continued, and by which principle the church grew.
Thus Scripture PRECEDED the Church, not vice versa, enabling faith, Christ Himself establishing His claims upon it. The church thus also became an instrument for additions to the then- established Scriptures, not as a project of a Roman magisterium, but as individual holy men of God wrote what became progressively manifest as being Scripture, in conflation with and complementarity to the Scriptures that preceded them.
In contrast, the church being an entity that is and will ever be perpetually assured infallible whenever it speaks on faith and morals, with the veracity of such not being dependent upon Scriptural warrant (Rome's decrees may presume such, but the reasons and arguments being her infallible decrees are not even assured infallible), is unknown.
4. “ the Scriptures were already authoritative, due to its Divine qualities and attestation......” LOL, they were authoritative because the Church testified of them. millions of people read them and don’t see any Divine qualities or attestation, it is the Holy Sirit who gives the Spiritual eyes to the Church.
That is absurd. Though ignored or dismissed by you, as said, most what we hold as Scripture was established and authoritative before the church even existed, (Lk. 24:44) and did not require an assuredly infallible magisterium to be so. The magisterium can and is to recognize and affirm both true men of God as well as true writings of God, but they are so regardless, being manifested by their Scriptural qualities and attestation, thus John the Baptist, Christ, and the church were of God even though they were rejected by the magisterium. (Mk. 8:31) And the same essential cause behind the establishment of Old Testament books provided for the recognition of a canon, in the light of no more being of their quality. The fact that the lost reject them no more impugns their Divine inspiration than their rejection of Christ negates His claims, but who was believed on before their was a church in Rome due to His Scriptural qualities.
5. the same Church that picked the 27 book NT canon, also chose the 46 book OT canon. why look to the spiritually blind Jews who rejected Christ to determine the OT canon?
Consistent with your superficial reasoning that we should not follow Jewish canon because they rejected Christ, we should also reject other things of Jewish origin.
Yet Catholic argue that since we accept the NT books and the Trinity, etc., then we should accept all Rome teaches (under the premise that she provided these), but which logic would require we submit to the Jews who gave us most of Scripture and moral laws, etc.
As it was under the Jews that most of Scripture came and was established as being so, and as the RC argument is that those who were the stewards of Scripture and recipient of promises of Divine guidance, and had the valid claim to historical decent, are the infallible doctrinal authorities (who cannot be wrong as they define what it right), then the disciples should have assented to the elders of Israel.
Meanwhile, why look to Rome which tortured and killed theological opponents who could not submit to her in good conscience?
The reality is that even Balaam spoke truth, but truth is judged by a transcendent authority which has been established as being wholly inspired of God, which is Scripture. Men can dispute some of what it means, as they can some of what Rome has said, as well as things she has failed to address, but as shown by the manner by which souls came to “know” Christ was who He claimed to be, assurance of truth is not by assent of faith in men as being infallible, but is realized in the light of evidence, "not handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2)
the Septuigant, which was the Bible of the Apostles, contained all the books in the Catholic Bible.
More or less, for as you should know (as my link provides), the versions of the Septuagint vary much, and it cannot even be established that the LXX of the first century contained the apocrypha (no Septuagint manuscripts earlier than the fourth century are known that contain the Apocrypha), while even early ones that did also lacked books or contained book Rome rejects. Thus if the LXX is to be followed, Rome is wrong.
For many reasons (though Jamnia is uncertain) the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha.
The earliest Greek manuscripts date to the time of Augustine, whose influence is reflected in the codex manuscripts. In addition, none of the Greek Manuscripts contain all the Apocryphal books. No Greek manuscript has the exact list of Apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent (1545-63)
All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.
LXX manuscripts do not all have the same apocryphal books and names.
The manuscripts at the Dead Sea evidence no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period. . More.
Many of the fathers of the early church excluded or spoke out against the Apocrypha, either as Scripture or as worthy to be read in churches.
“manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.” (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church)
In the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
Also,
The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382.
In addition, the Palestinian Jews of the early Christian era rejected the Apocrypha, and it was their tripartite canon that Lk. 24:44 indicates the Lord used. And while a book being referenced in the NT or its absence is not a sure basis for all of it s canonicity, despite its over 250 quotes from the the Old Testament, the NT virtually ignores the apocryphal books. Moreover, if the presence of a book among the Dead Sea scrolls attests to canonicity, this would also support the inclusion of other extraBiblical books discovered at Qumran (there were hundreds or fragments of books).
6. the first 66 book Bible appeared in the 16th century, so i guess 500 years counts as “enduring popularity”? the Reformers removed books from the Bible they inherited from the Church, the Church never “added” books to the Bible.
If the Jews held to a 39 book canon, which evidence and the CE supports (many books being counted as one), and the 27 book cannot was established early, then math tell us that it was far earlier than the final indisputable canon of Rome. And as it was not thus settled until the year Luther died, the Reformers cannot be charged with rejecting an infallible canon. Not that what Rome says matters, and if this were a big issue then you would be attacking the EOs and other Catholics whose canon also differs, but you do not.
Meanwhile, we have at least as much assurance of the nature of this canon as RCs may of a complete canon of all the infallible pronouncements of their supreme authority, and which then must be interpreted to varying degrees, and is incomplete, while non-infallible teachings may contain errors.
7. don’t worry about not being able to name any Christians in the 2nd or 3rd centuries, the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses i ask can’t either.
If you read my response you should have seen why i am not worried, while Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses operate out of the same autocratic basis for establishing authority and Truth as Rome!
the point of the question was Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and He would be with us until the end of the age. Jesus and His Church must be able to be found continuously since 33ad to the present, if someone can’t, they are following a false gospel.
I understood the premise behind your questions, but again you ignore my responses, for as expressed, this presumes the church only consists of those in Catholicism as they define it, with things not found in the N.T., church, from praying to Mary and departed saints to a separate class of clergy call sacerdotal priests, and preaching herself and and fostering faith in the church and one's merits for salvation, and promoting (in the Roman sect) an exalted supreme magistrate in Rome, and purgatory, etc., bowing down to icons, etc.
And which is dependent upon Rome autocratically establishing she that particular church, which she “infallibly” declares she is, not on the basis of Scriptural warrant, which interpretation only has authority if it is from her, but because she has infallible declared she is assured infallible.
But in so claiming to be the OTC you compete not only with the EOs which also claim,
our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ... Each of these titles is limiting in some respects, since they define Christians belonging to particular historical or regional Churches of the Orthodox communion,” (http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html)
but also every sola ecclesia cult, which, like Rome, autocratically defines Scripture and history as supporting them.
so for the Baptist, it is embarrassing not to be able to find someone who believes in “believers” baptism until the 16th century, so they say “who cares”. who cares? true Christians!
We should not be embarrassed at all to go by the assured infallible Word of God, while it is Rome how shows she need not care what Scripture actually warrants, and while her embarrassing protest essentially is, “why would people not believe us rather than what Scripture most clearly teaches, which nowhere shows infants being baptized, and that regeneration can precede that act, and instead requires repentant faith for baptism, and where anything of detail is provides states that it was believers that were baptized (and in water in the fullest accounts)?”
Moreover, it may even be doubtful whether an RC can be absolutely be certain they have validly received a sacrament at that time, as they cannot know for certain the heart of the minister, whether he truly intends to do what the church does.
In addition, considering the unScriptural views on things like marital relations that some “fathers expressed, i am not surprised to see support for traditions of men over that of Scripture.
i won’t rehash at this point the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church Fathers on baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist but may if needed to combat more false assertions.
“Roman rehash” is all there has been, but which will not convince Berean type hearts which look to the Scripture as supreme, and thus test preaching of the Word and truth claims by it, and which knows nothing of infants being regenerated (and which lacks empirical evidence) by sprinkling upon proxy faith, or prying to the departed, etc., all the while manifesting overall spiritual deadness.
finally, just let me say one of the few things the Church and the “reformers” had in common was opposition to the anabaptists and their unique doctrines about baptism, unheard of in 1,500 years of Church history.
Yes, they still had a lot of reforming to do, and still do, in getting more back to the N.T. church, and (among other things) and thus they had to learn not to deal with theological challenges by killing those who presented them. But many Roman Catholics, who (as yourself apparently) reject Vatican Two teaching, seem to yearn for the days of the Inquisitions and its means, as they cannot tolerate reproofs of the false pretensions of their church.
And then you have Roman Catholic authorities like Cardinal Avery Dulles, who affirmed,
"Vatican II adopted a number of positions which had been enunciated by the Reformation Churches, e.g., the primacy of Scripture, the supernatural efficacy of the preached word, the priesthood of the laity, and the vernacular liturgy."
Cardinal Willebrands, Paul VI's legate to the World Lutheran Assembly at Evian, stated in July of 1970 that:
Has not the Second Vatican council itself welcomed certain demands which, among others, were expressed by Luther, and through which many aspects of the Christian faith are better expressed today than formerly? Luther gave his age a quite extraordinary lead in theology and the Christian life." (http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html)
The ideas on which the Reformers built their system of justification, except perhaps fiduciary faith, were by no means really original. [even if they think all such were heretics] — Catholic Encyclopedia>Justification; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm
And the scholar Jaroslav Pelikan (who turned Orthodox) "Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity...”
"Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification."
"If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear.” "Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable"
In its decrees, Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism pp 47-52.(New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46) More:
But in the end it only matters what Rome decides Tradition, Scripture and history teach, and thus (again) the words of “Most Rev.” Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. — The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus for all the strained selective appeal to Scripture, assurance for the Roman Catholic is what Rome says, and requires all to submit to it, thus the arguments by assertion, and frustration when they objectively analyze such and find the claims and demands of Rome unwarranted. Of course, the Catholic emphasis upon psychology (Gaudium et Spes) is not restricted in practice to pastoral counseling.