Replies

“Very true is not what RCs argue, but that the RCC only is what can determine and establish what is and what is not of God. You disagree? …Rome, as she can decree something as infallible Truth even if it is not taught in Scripture - as long as it does not contradict Scripture “

Correct. The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16).

“… do you hold that a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance? And that on the basis of historical descent Rome is that incontestable authority. This is what i see you arguing, but need to know if it is.”

I thought I had answered this. To clarify, Yes. However, I’d qualify that The Catholic Church is Christ instituted as stated in the Scripture from the mouth and authority of Jesus Christ. If you do not agree, please explain specifically, what you disagree with on this matter. So, this authority comes solely from Scripture and Jesus Christ, but is confirmed with historic accounts of deference to Peter and his successors.

“That is kind, but this testifies to the lack of unity in Rome, as others even here disallow such a former RC as myself can be a Christian, based on their understanding of Rome.”

If you believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, you are a Christian brother of mine. The Catholic teaching on this is clear. I’m curious for you to expound on this comment.

In an effort to keep this focused and discuss the above in more detail, I have not responded to your voluminous objections to Catholic Doctrine. We can come back to each point of doctrine, regarding Mary, Communion of Saints, Priests, Infant Baptism et al. Let’s do them one or two at a time at your choosing.

I’ll disappoint both my Catholic brothers and Protestant brothers on Mary. I do believe the Catholic teaching regarding Mary is correct. I do honor and venerate Mary. But, I’m way to ADHD to concentrate on Jesus and Mary, lol. I simply don’t have a devotion to Mary as many Catholics do. There is so much to take in regarding Christ, His teaching and the Church He commissioned.

And therefore Scripture could not be established as it was befroe Christ, and according to Rome's interpretation of of tradition and Scripture and history, according to her interpretation (or decree) can be correct in any conflict, and only by her sanction can anything have valid authority. By such you have assurance.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare 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.

I thought I had answered this. To clarify, Yes. However, I’d qualify that ...

Your s qualification that "a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance" is based upon Scripture and history, but your understanding requires and is based upon what the magisterium spoken of.

Perhaps you are advocating objectively searching the Scriptures, as if it were the supreme authority, in order to ascertain and have assurance of the truthfulness of Rome's claims, leading to assent Rome as the supreme authority and means of assurance of truth, rather than objectively searching the Scriptures as the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. Which it is abundantly evidenced to be,

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

However, under your Roman model for indisputably determining which writings and men are of God, so that what it rejects must be rejected, since history shows it being the steward of Scripture, etc., then the church itself is rendered invalid, as it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) . (Romans 9:4-5)

And rather than assurance of truth being upon the premise of an infallible magisterium, assurance that an itinerant preacher, rejected the valid magisterium, was the Christ and the basis upon which the church was founded, was upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (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.) And which led to both division and unity.

However, I’d qualify that The Catholic Church is Christ instituted as stated in the Scripture from the mouth and authority of Jesus Christ. If you do not agree, please explain specifically, what you disagree with on this matter. So, this authority comes solely from Scripture and Jesus Christ, but is confirmed with historic accounts of deference to Peter and his successors.

"this authority comes solely from Scripture and Jesus Christ..." is open to interpretation, even from your brother in the Eastern Orthodox. You may be persuaded that Scripture and history makes the Roman Catholic Church the one true church, but this is based upon your own fallible human reasoning, which places you on the same basis for determining truth as us.

Instead, your basis for assurance of truth rests upon the premise of the assured infallibility of the Roman Catholic, who has declared that she is the one true and infallible church.

If you believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, you are a Christian brother of mine. The Catholic teaching on this is clear. I’m curious for you to expound on this comment.

I will keep you in mind next time a RC, describes all Protestants as "absolutely alien to Christianity," as "a bizarre and false religion," who "completely reject Christ," etc. as has been said here, besides other invectives.

n an effort to keep this focused and discuss the above in more detail, I have not responded to your voluminous objections to Catholic Doctrine. We can come back to each point of doctrine,

Which were a result of your not directly answering the simple questions as your basis for assurance of Truth, but posting things subject to dispute as if this was your basis. If you want to argue based on evidences, we can do that, but as what you seek to prove needed to be established, which isn not simply the need for a magisterium, but sola ecclesia with an infallible magisterium, and that Rome is that.

Now you are really an exception, but actually it is Catholic teaching - and what Catholics teach with sanction or without censure - that is the problem. You should know that nothing is allowed by Catholics that takes away from the demigoddess status afforded the Mary of Catholicism , who parallels Christ in multitude ways, such as being sinless, a perpetual virgin, already crowned, as the Queen of the Universe, and Queen of Heaven, who seems to have the same power as God, and whose words are like commands to God, and that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, the dispenser of all grace, and who also suffered for our sins as co-redemptrix, who saves us by her merits, and gives us her flesh to eat, and who is formally the Mother of God, etc. None of which is the teaching of Scripture. But which is what happens when a church presumes it is the supreme authority on Truth, and makes nebulous oral tradition equal with Scripture, channeling it into doctrines.