tell me this, are you fallible or infallible when YOU DECIDE WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY?"
LOL, i asked a simple question and of course, NO ANSWER IS GIVEN. old habits never die.
LOL?You are the one who is a laughing stock, as apparently, like certain other Roman Catholics have admitted, and like car thieves who have a hard time finding a police station, you apparently cannot/will not actual read any or much of an answer that refutes your assertions and the premise behind your polemical queries, or actual interact with such, but again and again just make the same arguments which likewise have been refuted before. Indeed “old habits never die.”
the Catholic Church is what it is since Jesus can’t lie. as St Augustine observed, he would not believe the Gospel were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.
Do you realize how absurd that is? You again are engaging in “argument by assertion,” which premise (that Rome is the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus) is based upon Rome's self-proclaimed assured infallibility, by which she infallibly conforms whatever she want to support her.
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...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, 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. http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt)
And contrary to you, for what its worth, Augustine also remarked, "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12)
now i answered all your questins, let’s see if you can return the courtesy:
NO, as unlike me who has answered multitudes of yours, you did not actually answer all 4 questions asked of you after ignoring them first, as you escaped answering “What is the basis for your assurance that Rome is what she claims?” by responding, “i have no idea what “ROME” is,”' which insolence simply testifies to your aversion to actually engage in meaningful exchange. But to be consistent, make sure you never refer to American policy by saying “Washington says,” and perhaps forbid the self referencing use of “the church of Rome” by your own CCC (834)
So what is the basis for your assurance that the church of Rome is what she claims?
Do you even believe Protestants can be saved if they do not convert to Rome?
i am sure Protestants will be saved, if they hold to the Catholic Faith.
the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ on earth.
So now you understand what “Rome” represents. And your answer means they cannot be Protestant, and thus (as suspected) you deny Lumen Gentium of Vatican Two which provides for Protestants being saved without converting, and in so doing you provide another example of the disagreement in Catholicism even over the teaching of an ecumenical council, even while you trumpet Catholic doctrinal unity.
Are you part of the SSPX schism, or just another Roman Catholic exercising private interpretation of the Vatican?
the Orthodox have Apostolic Succession, they believe the Catholic Faith.
Yet as said, their Apostolic Succession results in substantial and other differences from yours, papal infallibility no less, and even a different canon, while as said, under the Catholic model of sola ecclesia, which Rome shares with cults, are the worst aberrations.
i am not infallible about anything and i have no idea how many infallible pronouncements there have been.
Thus you made a fallible decision to submit to an assuredly infallible magisterium (which has infallibly declared herself to be so), and while you must give full assent of faith to all the decrees of such, you cannot even tell what they all are, and use fallible human reasoning to interpret such and other teachings, and disagree with other Catholics about them.
are you infallible when YOU decide what the Scriptures teach?
Again, do you have reading or comprehension difficulty in seeing my answer, that “the answer to your question is no, not as being assuredly infallible as in the impossibility of erring (though even a pagan can speak Truth: Acts 17:28), as we cannot presume more than what Scripture affirms,...
Instead, what Scripture teaches it veracity based upon conformity with Scripture in text and in power, and thus the church is built ...
or are simply unwilling to actually see and deal with the problems with your polemic?
since the Scriptures do not contain a table of contents, on what basis do you decide which books are canonical and which are not?
As said, “the N.T. church was established upon Scriptures that were already authoritative, due to its Divine qualities and attestation, which in principle enabled the establishment of a canon,” meaning that writing wer established as Scripture without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and that the canon we hold to was established the same way the books of the O.T. were established by the time of Christ, as being the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced, as the assured Word of God, with their establishment being upon the basis of their Divine qualities (including internal conflation and complementarity) and supernatural attestation, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119; Heb. 2:3,4) which basis (as said) is how the Lord Jesus established His claims, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)
And which, as with true food, was recognized as being Divine by those who were born of them, which ecclesiastical consensus is how your brethren the Orthodox hold truths as being established. Conciliar decrees, as right and helpful as they can be, are not the reason for the enduring popularity of the 66 book canon, but this is due to its Divine qualifies and attestation (including through manifest men of God who believe it), that progressively distinguished these Heavenly “classics” from uninspired works. More here on this.
what year did first 66 book Bible first appear on earth and who compiled the 66 books together?
The 39 book O.T. is the Jewish canon of antiquity, as the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms, while evidence of a settled 27 book canon dates to at least the 4th century, and which became the canon of consensus early on in the Reformation, while it took Rome over 1400 years (1546) after the last book was penned to finally provide an infallible, indisputable canon, with doubts about some books existing right into Trent, and whose canon may not be exactly the same as early ones such as Hippo.
Of course, establishing writings as being Scripture does not render one the assured infallible interpreter of it, or do you think otherwise?
can you name one Christian that believes what you do about baptism and the Lord’s Supper from the 2nd or 3rd century?
Who cares? Scripture is what matters. Did the so-called church “Fathers” all agree with Rome on infant baptism or that of heretics, or with Rome and each other on multitude other things? Does Rome or you actually interpret Scripture according to the “stipulated “unanimous consent” of the fathers?, or must try to reconcile differences through the theory of Development of Doctrine? Do your brethren the EO's agree with Rome in what the CFs taught. Do you even have an infallible list of all the CFs? Do you even have most of what they wrote?
From your own brethren:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.(http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
Rather than Rome being the supreme rule of faith, the supernaturally established Scriptures are, being the part of Tradition that has been established as the assured word of God, and which warns about “traditions of men” and unwarranted teachings being made into doctrines, when Scripture is the supreme authority then it allows correction of errant traditions, and thus the Lord corrected the law of Corban, etc. by Scripture, but instead, Rome has made herself the supreme authority and thought of men above what is written, (contra 1Cor. 4:6) and thus she has perpetuated their errors.
"And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. " (Mark 7:2-3)
"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. " (Mark 7:8)
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. " (Colossians 2:8)
Thus the real questions are, where in Scripture do we actually see infants being baptized, versus repentant faith being actually requisite, and those who were baptized being actually being called believers wherever much detail is provided?
And do we see souls being forgiven and regeneration before baptism? (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9)
And where in Scripture do we see the Lord's words at the last supper theologically explained as being transubstantiation, in contrast to eating and drinking being metaphorical, and the Lord's supper commemorating His death by an act of unselfish communal sharing, in recognition of each other as being His body, as 1Cor. 11:17-33 contextually teaches.
And where do we see believers manifestly having life in them by physically eating Christ, rather than by believing the words of the crucified Lord, (Acts 10:43-46; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) or of Jesus living by the Father — which is how He said believers would live by Him, (Jn. 5:57) — by physically consuming His corporeal flesh and blood, versus living by His word, (Mt. 4:4) which was the Lord's “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
You can argue the contrary, but which only further shows how Catholics must force texts to conform to there carnal theology.
And also refuted is the RC premise that being the steward of Scripture and recipient of promises of guidance and perpetuation and having historical decent requires or equates to having assured infallibility.
Those who desire to can see answers and refutations to many more of your questions and assertions which you asked me here and below, which further testifies to a cultic devotion to Rome and inability or unwillingness to engage in objectively examination and exchange.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2297#2297
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2373#2373
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2866#2866
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2935#2935
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 ), who can understand the run on sentences that veer left, right and upside down, with an untold number of unrelated thoughts thrown together. this post is proof quantity is no substitute for quality.
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 )
1. i am glad you admit to being fallible, so your OPINION on Scripture and $1.75 will buy me a cup of coffee.
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.
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.
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.
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? the Septuigant, which was the Bible of the Apostles, contained all the books in the Catholic Bible.
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.
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. 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. 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!
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.
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.