your basis for assurance of Truth, which you are still not facing.
You invited me on this unrelated to anything thread because you wanted to discuss the statements of mine that expressed the said basis. Remember? So no, I don't think I was evading any questions. The pillar and ground of all truth is the Catholic Church (1 Timothy 3:15)
If you are puzzled why I listen to the Church but argue from the scripture, -- I believe I answered that as well: The Holy Church produced the inerrant scripture precisely because she wished to provide a set of absolutes from which to argue and understand the doctrine. So, the texts of John 6, the three synoptic accounts of the Last Supper and 1 Cor. 11 provide such purely scriptural basis for the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
you are claiming individual laity have the gift of infallibility
LOL. Two fallible men disagree. They cannot both be right. Does this mean that the one who is right is also infallible? I am right because I learn from the Church who is both infallible and right. Doesn't say anything about me. The least, wholly illiterate bungling goatherd somewhere up in the Andes cannot speak a falsehood as pertains to the matters of Catholic faith so far as she had retained it correctly; that has nothing to do with her merits either.
There is absolutely nothing in Jn. 14 about Peter or perpetuated leadership being promised assured infallibility
Read the holy Scripture every once in a while and you will discover amazing things.
"The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:17, several similar in the chapter)So the spirit is (1) of truth; (2) is known and received in the Church rather than in the world; (3) abides in the Church. That is not infallibility?
No Peter is not mentioned, because the Holy Ghost is not in St. Peter alone but in the entire Church. Of course, of Peter we also know the ability to recover from error and confirm fellow bishops (Luke 22:32), and the possession of the Keys to Heaven; but here Jesus is talking to the Church and of the Church as a whole.
the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses
What does that have to do with anything? That every heretic should also dissent every time he hears from Christ something he doesn't like?
Rome ... Rome ... Rome
What you think of "Rome" does not interest me. I would like to focus on the Holy Scripture, however unpleasant it is to you.
"communion" vs "submission"
Matter of translation and of context. Certainly, theological communion is the least requirement; we have such with the Orthodox. On the other hand, political submission -- like popes dictating to kings, -- is of course a good thing, but is not universally required. The point is that the Protestant communities of faith do good inasmuch as they speak in agreement with the Church, but not otherwise.
to place one in the kingdom of Christ or exclude on is their response to the gospel of grace, which all the church also preached
No one is arguing with that. However, at the same time:
I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
Observe: second person singular, "thou" -- that is to Peter personally. You have to read the scripture and see its authority even in matters you "dissent" about.
this works against Rome's papacy and doctrine, for this also testifies to the keys to the kingdom being the gospel, (Col. 1:13) besides that of a “pope” living as a guest in the house of a tanner [...]
The popes are there to protect the Gospel from charlatans and nothing says that popes should act like royalty; Christianity generally teaches and admires humility, even in the popes.
Peter was one who was to be publicly rebuked
But not for a doctrinal error; it was Peter who initiated baptizing the Gentiles. Paul rebuked Peter for not living up to his own doctrine. This is not in contradiction to infallibility. That there was a little mutual disagreement between Sts Paul and Peter we know. See also 2 Peter 3:16.
"The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal" ...
Good quote. So you understand now that this is spiritual authority above all else, and political authority and imperial attitude, when it accompanies the Pope at all, -- all men are different, and all are sinners, -- is secondary to the spiritual authority?
it means for Rome that the office of Peter uniquely posses assured infallibility
Not true, the Church is infallible as a whole as well.
.Mt. 18:15-20 simply is not referring to binding and loosing in doctrinal legislative action
Really? Where is that in the Bible?
loosing can refer to being “loosed from thine infirmity”
Or loosing a dog, or a belt. Words are funny that way: they can apply to many different things.
Same here i hope, after which i think little more if anything may be warranted.
You invited me on this unrelated to anything thread because you wanted to discuss the statements of mine that expressed the said basis. Remember? So no, I don't think I was evading any questions.
It developed into other aspects, while not seeing or side stepping the main issue, and then goading me for not playing into (using much time) what was at that point not the real issue, that of your real basis for assurance of Truth, and which drives and determines your assertions as to what Scripture means, yet i have engaged in Scripture meanings (again) extensively.
The pillar and ground of all truth is the Catholic Church (1 Timothy 3:15)
Indeed,. That's all it says. Using it to support Rome as being the supreme authority on Truth is reading into the text based on a pior presumption. Again.
If you are puzzled why I listen to the Church but argue from the scripture, -- I believe I answered that as well: The Holy Church produced the inerrant scripture precisely because she wished to provide a set of absolutes from which to argue and understand the doctrine.
Wrong. Most of Scripture was already est. as such before their was a church, and it based it Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as already substantiated.
It was not based upon the premise of assured infallibility of the historical recipients of the divine promises of God's presence and preservation and stewardship of Scripture.
More writings were written and established as Scripture, not as a project of a formal magisterium nor established due to being infallibly defined by it, but individuals wrote them as recording Divine acts and words and providing Divinely inspired exhortation and teaching the saints on the “whole counsel of God,” and revealing the future. These became established as Scripture like as OT writings and men of God did, essentially due to their Divine qualities and attestation, in conformity and complementation to that which was written prior.
The church of Rome is critically different, from its basis for determining Truth, as the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for the veracity of her teachings, but it is the premise of her assured veracity as the supreme authority over Scripture, and which she reduces to being one of two servants to serve her interests.
So, the texts of John 6, the three synoptic accounts of the Last Supper and 1 Cor. 11
I have already refuted this attempt to employ Scripture to support your tradition, but the issue remains that Scripture cannot be the real basis for your assurance of doctrine, as that sanctions the evangelical use of human reasoning in objectively examining evidence to determine the veracity of Truth claims, versus relying on a supposedly infallible magisterium. Which is why souls followed an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and which magisterium rejected Him as having no valid authority. (Mk. 11:27-33)
Instead, your interpretation of Scripture is driven by the premise that the Latin church (Rome) is infallible, and thus Scripture (etc.) only authoritatively means what she says it does or what supports her. And thus a RC is not to “consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it,” “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else” (John H. Stapleton, Henry G. Graham), and so much more as previously supplied.
Thus you go on to say, or confess,
I am right because I learn from the Church who is both infallible and right,.
Therefore you admit your claim to veracity is not really because objective examination of Scripture concludes this, and is the basis for veracity, but instead you assert Scripture supports the Church as both infallible and right because she defines herself as both infallible and right. Based upon this you may try to argue that Scripture provides warrant for deciding (using unreliable fallible human reasoning), to submit to Rome as the infallible magisterium, and who provides your assurance, but the reason you hold Scripture itself as having any weight is because Rome has decreed it does, and determined it supports her. Yet although this is driven by an a priori position, this is why i addressed the reasoning behind it.
For as shown, having promises of Divine presence and preservation, and being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation neither required nor equated to perpetual assured infallibility of office, which is only presumed by Rome, who is a law unto herself. And in fact often God provided and preserved Truth by raising up men from without the formal magisterium to reprove it, and thus the church began in dissent from those who were the recipients and stewards of the above. And thus even arguing from Scripture as a merely reliable historical document means one can see the assuredly infallible magisterium is not needed or promised.
Meanwhile, the principal of Scriptural substantiation requires continued manifestation of the gospel of regeneration, not by self-proclamation propaganda as being the church of the living God, and supposing historical descent supports perpetual assured infallibility, while Rome is more form than resurrection power, being overall like a dead (liberal) lion. “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.' (1 Corinthians 4:20)
• There is absolutely nothing in Jn. 14 about Peter or perpetuated leadership being promised assured infallibility
Read the holy Scripture every once in a while and you will discover amazing things.
Your recourse to this type of “spitball” simply testifies to your lack of actual support as you wrest meanings out of Scripture that simply are not there.
(John 14:17, several similar in the chapter) So the spirit is (1) of truth; (2) is known and received in the Church rather than in the world; (3) abides in the Church. That is not infallibility?
No it is not, as i showed you, and simply repeating it will not provide it. The whole organized church does not have the Spirit abiding in it, as not all are born again, including some of your popes (if any of “succession”), unless we make a mockery of Biblical regeneration. You are continually forcing Scripture to conform with Rome to say what it does not, or more than it provides.
You say no more i see that warrants more refutation till we come to,
(Matthew 16:19) Observe: second person singular, "thou" -- that is to Peter personally. You have to read the scripture and see its authority even in matters you "dissent" about.
It actually never says “thou” in the Greek, but in the beginning it says “thee” and so “thou” is later supplied, yet the power of binding and loosing is given to all the apostles in Mt. 18, and not as coming from Peter thus the unique exaltation in power is simply not there. As someone said, “ You have to read the scripture and see its authority even in matters you "dissent" about.”
The popes are there to protect the Gospel from charlatans and nothing says that popes should act like royalty;
That has not been the Roman translations as shown, and there is nothing to prevent it, but the exalted position (which allows devils to be popes) and autocratic power of the pope itself is after the world, and not after NT Scripture.
ut not for a doctrinal error; it was Peter who initiated baptizing the Gentiles
After their regeneration by faith, not for it.
"The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal" ...
Good quote. So you understand now that this is spiritual authority above all else, and political authority and imperial attitude, when it accompanies the Pope at all, -- all men are different, and all are sinners, -- is secondary to the spiritual authority?
Regardless, Scripture does not teach an autocratic exalted papacy Sovereign Caprice with all rights reigning above all with incalculable power, and can make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith, with the tribunal of God and of the pope being one and the same. All such “Whatsoever ye shall” bind or ask promises are true, but are never restricted to one person nor unconditional.
And authority to rule over those without is not given to the church, which is never seen exercising it, “for Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:12)
it means for Rome that the office of Peter uniquely posses assured infallibility
Not true, the Church is infallible as a whole as well.
You misunderstand. Peter uniquely possesses assured infallibility as a person, autocratically, without the consent of anyone, and thus is held as not being able to be disposed (without his consent.)
• Mt. 18:15-20 simply is not referring to binding and loosing in doctrinal legislative action
Really? Where is that in the Bible?
In the text, which simply refers dealing with personal offenses as i showed you, though as said, in principal it has a wider application. Don't be insolent.
loosing can refer to being “loosed from thine infirmity”
Or loosing a dog, or a belt. Words are funny that way: they can apply to many different things.
So you understand now that this refers to spiritual authority, or does that need to be explained? Don't be insolent.
This is where you have been heading as you must force all to support Rome, which is a law unto herself, so there is little sense to continue this exchange.