Which means nothing, as Rome claims to supremely infallibly and authoritatively determine what is from God, including what is Scripture and what He means, as according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
In other words, She has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.Thus Rome is effectively and functionally the supreme and autocratic authority on truth. Do you disagree?
Thus Ligouri states, God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution… The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it.” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2. http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt
An adherent of sola scriptura (SS) must establish his truth claims on Scriptural substantiation, which is what the Lord and His apostle did, and cannot claim assured infallibility as if he were a little pope. Only in Rome does can a individual claim to be infallible - the supreme example of elevation of an individual moral.
Jesus Christ began to build His Church before one word of the New Testament was written down, and that Church obviously did NOT have a New Testament to use as an authority at that time.... and the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church in her teachings ever since, just like Jesus Christ solemnly promised.
So are you saying being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of the promises of God means this instrument must posses assured infallibility and authority. And that those who dissent from it are not to be followed?
That Catholic Church which Jesus Christ built is NOT based on the traditions of men -- that is utterly false, no matter how many times you choose to repeat it. The Catholic Church which Jesus Christ built is based on the Holy Teachings of God, given to men.
Again, the fact is that as Rome claims to indisputably determine and define the Holy Teachings of God, and what mere traditions are, and cannot be corrected by others based on Scripture, as the Lord and His apostles did to the Pharisees, (Lk. 7:2-16) who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity above that which was written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) Thus Rome is the supreme and autocratic authority, no matter how many times you choose to deny it.
The Scriptures are very important, but they only contain a small smidgen of what God has done, and what God continues to do.
The marginalization of Scripture is consistent with the exaltation of Rome in sola ecclesia, yet in contrast, the Lord established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, 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, etc.)
For in contrast to mere tradition, 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)
Some of Scripture first existed in oral form, but part of its establishment was upon conformity to what was written, whereas Rome's amorphous tradition is oral, and remains oral, out of which she channels doctrines which are not found in Scripture, such as PTDS , as this thread has revealed.
John 21:25 explicitly states that Jesus did many other things that were NOT written down, and that all the books in the world would likely not be able to hold all of them.
Indeed, and we know this by Scripture, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) and SS does not claim all that can be know is written, but Scripture is the established assured word of God, by which all truth claims are tested, and provides, formally or materially, all that is needed for faith and its fruits.
You also said in an earlier post (#788) that Patrick Madrid tries to sound like an evangelical by quoting so much scripture. With all due respect, BALONEY! Rather, Patrick Madrid sounds like a Catholic.
Not baloney; he sounds like a Catholic trying to be like an evangelical. It was Rome which hindered literacy in Scripture among the laity for hundreds of years, until after the Reformation (and invention of the printing press which Rome could not control).
Having gone to many thousands of different Protestant services for many years, I can tell you without a doubt that Catholics typically hear many more readings from the Scriptures in their Masses than Protestants do in their typical services.
Your claim is suspect.
Until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and today this is still not much. “At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts.” (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm) While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, only going to Mass will not give one a functional knowledge of Scripture. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle (based on stats from last source)
And you are talking to a former RC who served as a lector and CCD teacher, and knows how RCs get bits of the Bible in Mass, with its truncated readings.
The Daily Mass on EWTN
So how many RCs go to daily mass? Want some stats on what manner of fruit Rome overall produces, versus Evangelicals (even in the latter day apostasy of the church)
(Remember that dishonesty comes from Satan.)
Indeed. Your "proof" that using the Bible like Madrid is a Catholic pratice rests upon them going to daily masses, and which is a minute percentage of RCs, and ignores the fact that they come in almost last in Bible reading, versus evangelicals. Ask random RCs to even name their favorite Bible verse and you usually get a blank stare And very very RCs will attempt to use the Bible to prove doctrine, which is just as well when it comes to traditions Madrid attempts to support.
I have to sign off now, but I hope you get a chance tomorrow to start watching those Daily Masses
Why would i want to return to Babylon? I was manifestly born again while still an RC, and stayed as a weekly attendee for 6 years (in the Catholic NE, while being fed spiritually via evangelical preaching on radio) , and know the profound difference btwn institutionalized faith and that seen in the church of the living God.
That's interesting because we have other sources posted here that say the supreme authority for Catholics is either the pope or the "Church".
The source you use is from a dissident Jesuit priest who is strongly against many of the teachings of the Catholic Church. (Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3673
Do you really think it is honest and ethical to use a source who is highly suspect due to being against the organization he is reporting on? That is like asking President B.O. to tell us the truth about Conservatives or about the Bill of Rights, or like you daniel1212 getting your job application references or your mortgage application references from your worst enemies.
I would strongly suggest you look eleswhere for your statistics, if you really want an accurate, honest assessment.
- - - - - - -
"So how many RCs go to daily mass? Want some stats on what manner of fruit Rome overall produces, versus Evangelicals (even in the latter day apostasy of the church)"
Remember, daniel1212, that (of course) Protestants don't have daily church services. But leaving that aside, your fixation on numbers is analysis based on, pardon the expression, a crock of nonsense. Using that same logic, you would have to say that Jesus Christ Himself was a complete failure, as most of the people alive in His days of walking in the flesh in the Holyland rejected Him. Only a small minority of the people accepted Him and His Holy Teachings.
The same can be said today. The vast majority of people alive today are NOT Christians of ANY kind. Does that somehow prove that Christianity is wrong? ("By their fruits..." does NOT mean "By their comparative numbers..." -- think about the wide gate and the narrow gate...)
- - - - - - -
"And you are talking to a former RC who served as a lector and CCD teacher, and knows how RCs get bits of the Bible in Mass, with its truncated readings. "
Well, being a lector, you did some Mass readings, just like the "Scribes" and "Pharisees" did Scriptural readings in synagogues when Jesus walked in the flesh in the Holyland.
As such, you should be aware that there are many more readings done during a Mass than are done during typical Protestant church services. And you would have to be aware (if you were paying attention during Mass) that the rest of the Mass is simply saturated with Sacred Scripture, including the Lord's Prayer, the multitude of Scriptural references during the various prayers and forms of Consecration before communion, etc. (And you would HAVE to be aware of the great reverence Catholics show to the Scriptures, unless you weren't paying attention. I'm sure you will agree that denying that would be VERY dishonest. Anyone who cares to can independently check that for themselves by simply watching the Daily Mass on EWTN, or by reading the daily Bible readings as posted every day by FReeper "Salvation", and see for themselves just how "truncated" they really are.)
Now of course there is no way to determine how many Bible readings are done in the various Protestant denominations (other than direct observation), or how much of a percentage of the Bible they really read over time, because the denominations are all different, and there are no good statistics for "Protestants" as a whole, so you cannot really compare, except by direct observation, which I have done extensively for some of those denominations.
(Remember also that statistics often just lie. Just observe what the mainstream media and the democrats constantly do with statistics, so you don't want to wager the fate of your soul on some highly questionable statistics. And if you do really believe them, I have a nice parcel of water to sell you in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.)
- - - - - - -
"...and which is a minute percentage of RCs, and ignores the fact that they come in almost last in Bible reading, versus evangelicals. Ask random RCs to even name their favorite Bible verse and you usually get a blank stare And very very RCs will attempt to use the Bible to prove doctrine..."
Satan knows the Bible much better than you do daniel1212, and he could run circles around you giving Bible quotes, so don't feel too much pride there.
Also, remember that most of the original 12 Apostles Jesus picked were NOT Scripture scholars, but mere laborers and peasants. Most likely most of them could not quote Scriptures with alacrity like Paul could. (And, remember too, not one of those original 12 Apostles knew one single line from the epistles of Paul when the Chruch was first formed by Jesus Christ.) God will not judge people based on how close they come to having Satan's superior Scriptural knowledge, and, thank God, He will not consult you when He conducts His judgments.
- - - - - - -
"Why would i want to return to Babylon? I was manifestly born again while still an RC, and stayed as a weekly attendee for 6 years (in the Catholic NE, while being fed spiritually via evangelical preaching on radio) [Jimmy Swaggart?], and know the profound difference btwn institutionalized faith and that seen in the church of the living God."
Have you ever seriously considered how extremely significant and sobering some of the differences between various Protestant denominations and groups really are?
For example, some Protestant denominations strongly believe in "once saved, always saved", and some other Protestant denominations strongly believe that "onces saved, always saved" is completely, 100% wrong and completely false, delusional, and dangerous.
If the latter group of Protestants is right, the former group of Protestants is in some deep, deep trouble, and it behooves the latter group of Protestants to strongly WARN the former group of Protestants, or the salvation of their souls may be in deep, deep jeopardy (based on those completely irreconcilable differences). Don't you agree?