[boatbums]

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.

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).

[daniel1212]

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.

More precisely, she rests upon her esoteric understanding of antiquity. Rome dismisses any claims that any of its doctrines are not according to Scripture, and history and tradition, by claiming only she can rightly interpret them.

Remember that while RCAs debate Scripture in seeking to support their traditions, yet they are not to engage in objective examination to determine the truth, and conclusions contrary to Rome that are derived by this means are disallowed, as the only interpretation of Scripture (or tradition and history) that is allowed to have authority is that which Rome gives.

Scripture is not the basis for their assurance of the veracity of such, but the premise of Rome's veracity is, and their goal is to bring you to forsake Scripture as your supreme standard, and instead submit to Rome regardless of the lack of Scriptural substantiation.