Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
The Bible testifies to the establishment by Jesus Christ of a visible and hierarchical church vested with the authority to teach. If this church is not in the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church, where is it? One thing is clear is that is not any any of the Protestant churches which date from only the 16th century.
Thanks for making it clear what your argument is by your affirmations, which is what I see your church herself arguing, but by so doing you have effectively invalidated the NT church itself.
For, as per the Roman premise, if assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium, then it simply would have been impossible for anyone to have had assurance that Moses for instance, and his writings were of God, and that John the Baptist was as well, and ultimately the Lord Jesus.
Not at all. The authority of Moses is based firstly on the historical witness of the events of the Exodus. It is because of this witness that we can accept that what he wrote is divinely inspired. The same is true of Jesus Christ. We do not, at first, believe in the Resurrection because we find an account of it in divinely inspired Scripture but because of the reliable witness of the Apostles which was first preached orally. It is only because the Church first accepted this oral preaching that we can accept that the written accounts of this (by both apostles and non-apostles) can be credited as being divinely inspired. Otherwise we would have to accept the Scriptures as divinely inspired on no other basis than they seem so to me.
You are also confusing two things, what the Scriptures proclaim and what they mean. What they proclaim is only their ipsissima verb, their actual words. The meaning and significance of these words have been open to many interpretations, as the countless debates through history clearly show. In the Old Testament there was indeed no divinely established authority for their interpretation. Thus arose the role of the Scribes and Pharisees. But their attempts, like those of Protestant commentators, was only private. Then their came Pentecost in which the Holy Spirit guides and protects the visible and hierarchical church established by Jesus Christ. Thus the situation between the Old and New Testaments is radically different.
In addition, rather than an infallible magisterium being necessary to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, the fact is that both writings and men of God were recognized and established as being so without an infallible magisterium, and the Lord often preserved Truth by raising up “prophets, and wise men and scribes,” (cf. Mt. 23:34) from without the magisterium to reprove it. And thus the church began under rebels, the Lord and apostles and prophets, and thus it has continued, if not perfectly.
Not so. Since there was no Magisterium in the Old Testament--Pentecost not yet having occurred--there was nothing to reprove. The teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees was purely private, like that of the Protestants.
Every true evangelical would submit to such, but Rome is not even the running for with her “priests” (which distinctive word the Holy Spirit never calls them)…
Or showing NT pastors distinctively being titled “priests,” which distinctive word the Holy Spirit never calls them by, while presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer) denote the same office (Titus 1:5-7);
The English word "priest" is a corruption and translations of the Greek "presbyters".
priest (n.)The use of the word "priest" to also translate the Greek hiereus and Latin sacerdos results from a deficiency in vocabulary and the fact that the only priesthood that was known to the English in the Middle Ages was that of the Catholic Church. This is in contrast to the Romance languages which have maintained two distinctive terms from the Latin.
Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.
In the end, the Protestant claim that they teach the true Word of God fails because, without a divinely established Magisterium, the only thing that we can have assurance of is the ipsissima verbra of Scripture. Anything else to to add to Scripture.
Remember to include the unholy father of these re-formed religions, Henry VIII who, in protest against the authority of the holy catholic apostolic church, formed his own. Others soon followed; what is the count up to now ?
There are more than 1200 varities of the RCC in South America alone.
Is that what you mean?
.
Since Yeshua denounced the very idea of a “divinely established Magisterium,” declaring them to be Nicolaitans, there must be no church at all then!
A divinely established Magisterium is exactly what he did his best to prevent. He gave us his ancient scriptures to go by.
He said “it is written” before every doctrinal presentation he ever made.
.
I missed nothing; other than the basis Rome uses to come up with some of the stuff it does.
So THEY made up the 'doctrine' that Mary didn't die and she can get Jesus to do what SHE asks?
{cue Hallelujah chorus!}
Something about QUOTES that are a bit fuzzy in your mind?
I like that!
It has a nice ring to it...
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
The meal is eaten AFTER the lamb is slaughtered, and roasted.
Yeshua’s crucifixion was obviously BEFORE the Passover
John 19:
[31] The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
[33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
[34] But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
[35] And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
[36] For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
[37] And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand
Has it sunk in yet?
Yeshua is crucified, and it is still a preparation day, not yet the passover.
Is this too intellectually challenging for you?
.
You are seriously sounding very similar in your commentary to cases of demonic possession - the Vatican has highly skilled and knowledgeable exorcists who can help you.
It’s like Yeshua said, “if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself.”
The RCC is Satan’s biggest operation on Earth.
The eucharist is his favorite tool.
.
No more that Jesus QUOTED words are for you!
Those words are not in the other gospels, so it is safe to put them on the error list.
Yeshua knew it was not the Passover, because he had not yet been crucified, so it is most unlikely that he ever spoke them. They do not fit the timeline and accounts.
It is also most telling that he broke leavened bread.
Someday you might learn to read the word for meaning, and get the whole truth.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
WHAT?
If something is mentioned ONCE in Scripture; you can just toss it out?
17 And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch?
18 But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: the master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make the pasch with my disciples.
19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch.
20 But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples.
21 And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me.
22 And they being very much troubled, began every one to say: Is it I, Lord?
23 But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me.
24 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.
25 And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.
26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.
30 And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.
No, which denomination or sect did you find that is holy, catholic, and apostolic ? Or did do simply throw up your hands and say there are none and start your own ? Are not all the best names taken already ? I suppose you could reuse the name and pretend you are the first.
I have yet to see anyone take on the Schatz quotes. The times you post his references and countless others, I have not seen a response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.