Replies

First of all, using the words solo ecclesia is very vague and I understand that you use it so that you can build up your web of straw arguments and spin about the Catholic Church in which circular arguments can be used between your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture and your PERSONAL interpretation of Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.

Your response is another poor attempt to avoid what is evidenced by blithely dismissing such such as straw or circular arguments, when in reality it is shown that it is your version of Rome that is misleading, and which in defense of a church in which Catholics also must and do engage in interpretation of Tradition, Scripture, and of the teaching of their church itself, while the assurance of her claims relies upon circularity.

the words solo ecclesia is very vague

Which attests to a lack of familiarity with this debate, in which Sola Ecclesia is often used in contrast to Sola Scriptura for as often explained here, while under the latter Scripture alone is the supreme sufficient authority on faith and morals, by which all is judge, it being the assured Word of God, under the former the church is effectively the supreme authority.

Instead of using the term solo ecclesia ,I suggest you understand what is said in Dei Verbum in understanding the 3 legged stool of the Catholic Faith.

Sola ScripturaI is not “solo” as if Scripture was all we may use, or as if formal versus material sufficiency (which provides for the church, etc.) was all that is meant.

In addition, I did understood the premise of the so-called 3 legged stool, but your argument shows a superficial understanding of what constitutes the supreme authority, as while Rome can assert that Tradition and Scripture are what the Church looks to for doctrine, in reality the Church of Rome is the supreme authority, as these sources only constitute and authoritatively mean what she infallibly says they (as well as history) do.

For regardless of challenges, she cannot be wrong (when speaking infallibly), as she has autocratically defined that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria, which thus renders her own declaration of infallibility to be infallible, as well as whatever she may interpret for support.

Nor is the veracity of her teachings dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, nor is that allowed to give full assurance of faith, nor are the arguments and reasons behind her infallible pronouncements themselves necessarily infallible, but according to her infallible interpretation (or decree) only her supreme magisterium can be right in any conflict. And by which premise assurance is found.

Thus when faced with challenges, no less an authority than Manning states,

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.

This is certainly sola ecclesia, and which premise she also shares with cults such as the LDS who likewise “interpret” their tradition, Scripture and history, which, however contradicted, must be accepted by her adherents under the premise of assured veracity.

Reason is appealed to in making a fallible human decision to give assent of faith to Rome, and interpretation may be employed in discerning what category a teaching of Rome falls into, and its precise meaning, but once a souls believes in Rome then the Catholic is encouraged “like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,” (Vehementer Nos) and not engage in seeking after religious Truth, thus examining both sides of a question or reading much of Protestant literature. And in fact, at one time it was forbidden for such a lay Catholic (as i assume you are) to engage in debate with such a one as i, and which has its wisdom.

In Scripture however, while noble souls engage in interpretation, (Acts 17:11), no mortal or office was promised or assumed the assured formulaic infallibility of Rome, but assurance is provided upon what is written, (1Jn. 5:13) and Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims, as being the assured Word of God, (2Tim. 3:16) with souls being persuaded through “manifestation of the Truth.” (2Cor. 4:2)

As for the rest of your post,I find it odd that someone would go through such lengths to convince themselves and others of thinking they know what they are talking about.

Resorting to mind reading and your protest of the substantiation which is against your portrayal of Catholicism is understandable, while once again it is apparent that i do know of what i speak, thanks be to God (though more was learned), and which remains.

All anyone has to do is look at the first post at the start of this thread to understand the motives behind most of the responses we get when disputing "canned" replies that so often is "all they got". I really am astonished that there are some people who actually assume we can be silenced by an appeal to the "authority" of the Church and we will relent of all our objections because the Church has spoken. This "three-legged stool", that some insist is wholly logical and sufficient to address all questions pertaining to the truths of the faith, would have had to of always been there for it to be workable. Yet we know the same model was there when Jesus came and was no more effective than the one that exists today in theory.

Like you have stated before, there WAS a magesterium during the time of Christ with the Apostles, but it was that of the "Seat of Moses" and was comprised of the religious leaders within Judaism. We know that they ALSO had their "traditions" in addition to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. But this "three-legged stool" was no more the true authority than the one that claims the same role today. Just as Jesus reprimanded those leaders for imposing their traditions and authority ABOVE the word of God, so we do today as did the Reformers of yesteryear. Whenever ANY group tries to usurp the authority of God's word, God makes sure others step in and steer the ship back on course. God's word is above the mechanizations of men.

The Church is said to be the foundation, support and upholder of the truth, NOT the inventor of the truth. And whenever the truth is superseded in favor of the traditions and pride of men and the Gospel is perverted, God sends those who WILL lead in truth. That is why you and I were able to STILL hear the truth and receive it and why many here give the same testimony as we do. We are allowed this platform to speak the truth of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit is who will open eyes and hearts to understand it. That's all we can do and I hope you are encouraged to continue speaking up for the grace of God and against false teachings that lead to the broad path of destruction. Jesus got plenty of flack for doing it, we should expect nothing less.