Typical Roman style, but decreeing it is so will not work here. It does not change the entire sense of the passage for which i invoked it, and you have not shown it did. For as i said, "Manning is indeed essentially claiming that antiquity is what Rome says it is, which is what i invoked it for."
What Manning said FIRST is: “And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive.” Thus, you are claiming Manning said there was no antiquity to the Church when he in fact just got done saying the Church’s teachings were primitive.
Vladimir, it was Manning, not I, who stated "I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness," and anyone should be able to understand that he was not denying the church actually had antiquity, nor did i argue he was, as i understood what he was saying, which is that in a real sense it has no antiquity as it "rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it..."
Therefore, under this premise, he argues that the Reformers cannot be right. And thus his statement supports my statement which i applied it to, that history is what Rome says it is, as she alone is her own interpreter, not that Manning claimed Rome actually has no antiquity.
You are attacking me for making an argument i did make, and as if i was the one lacking discernment and misrepresenting things, and suppose someone may think Manning is denying his church actually has any antiquity. Sorry, but i assume readers use more objective reasoning than you showed in zealously protecting Rome. Nor did i purposely leave out any of Manning's words in order to teach what you attack me for. But i will include more the next time, and am sorry if you misunderstood it. .
Here is a test, based on the below quote i invite any Prot readers (since they are the stupid one according to vladimir) to tell me if they really think Manning is actually saying what vladimir presents me as having him say, that his church has no actual antiquity, rather than that in a real sense it has none as Rome rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.
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.
What I’m trying to figure out here guys is how and why we should care about the “history of the RCC” other than to show that it’s not aligned with what scripture teaches.
“You are attacking me for making an argument i did make,”
So, would you rather someone attack you for an argument you did not make? Sorry, I didn’t attend a government school. You’ll have to explain to me what you’re trying to say because you’re not making any sense.
“Vladimir, it was Manning, not I, who stated “I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness,” “
Again, you did not post what else Manning said:
“And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive.”
I pretty much ignore the insults as feeble gasps of a dying argument, but I'll give it a try. I read that just as you presented it, daniel1212. It's pretty obvious that some of the dogmas and doctrines that the Roman Catholic Church had adopted by the time the Reformation began had NO ancient witness, NO scriptural basis and NO "unanimous consent of the fathers" to rely upon. That is the EXACT reason why Newman invented the Doctrine of Development in the first place. He had to think up some way to explain that what they claimed they believed and taught (what was always and everywhere believed) was undeniably false. The acorn growing into a mature oak tree was one of the metaphors he created to explain how the church needed to figure it all out over time.
That the Roman Catholic did not need to rest on antiquity, but instead could base his faith on whatever his infallible magesterium told him was the rule of faith, was seen as the way out of the legitimate and truthful charge of the Reformers. If the Catholic's faith rests upon his Church's "own supernatural and perpetual consciousness" rather than what was always and everywhere believed from the start, then this was all the wiggle room they needed to settle the issue (or so they erroneously thought).