You apparently missed the point, which is that although you dismiss the testimony of the Church Fathers (who received the teachings of Christ from the Apostles) you resort to extra-biblical texts produced over a millenium later to support your opinions. This strikes me as inconsistent (and frankly, illogical).
Indeed, According to your interpretation, how many verses has Rome indisputably interpreted, outside of excluding that none could possibly contradict her?
No interpretation required. Another readily available fact is that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. The multiplicity of scriptural interpretations is at the root of this wide disobedience to St. Paul's exhortation ("Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment"). Since Jesus didn't tolerate a plethora of opinions among His followers, how are such divergences justified today among the squabbling denominations who all claim to follow Him, each convinced that they alone teach the truth?
And do you deny that RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage
Absolutely. There are parameters which are clearly defined by the Church and "any interpretation" certainly exceeds those limits.
It does not follow that Scripture being "the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law," requires a completely sufficient revelation, but means all additional revelation/information writings had to be consistent with what was prior established, in principal or precept.
Yes it does follow, because public revelation (Scripture and Tradition) ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Yet in magnifying the Law, which came to be referred to as the first 5 books, the Lord could go back to Genesis and remove the liberal provision for divorce.
"For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Divorce, stoning, dietary rule changes, etc., were fulfillments, not "magnifications".
while foretelling of further complete revelation
And who possessed the authority to determine the authenticity of "further complete revelation"?
The perfection of Scripture asserted by us does not exclude either the ecclesiastical ministry
Indeed.
"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the other side should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question."
"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood."
The canon is considered closed because the books therein outshine all competition, and like the incense God "copyrighted," there has been no more like it, and were recognized as classics are.
So "the canon is consider closed" based on subjective opinion, rather than objective fact (the death of its last author)?
It seems you simply engage in knee-jerk denials without considering what i wrote.
What you have written displays a profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have not been deliberately mischaracterizing those teachings, but are unfortunately ill-informed.
I must get back to you later. I have a new keyboard for my arthritic fingers, and there is some combination of key that i sometime hit which nukes the tab deletes the text - which take me hours to type - and so i must rest and come back later. Perseverance of faith versus the devil.
No, the point missed and the illogic is yours, as rejecting a source as authoritatively being determinative of a doctrine is not that same as invoking a source that describes or asserts it, which i did often in substantiating what Rome teaches, and thus i did so in regards to a Prot. teaching.
Indeed, According to your interpretation, how many verses has Rome indisputably interpreted, outside of excluding that none could possibly contradict her?
No interpretation required.
Faced with the great liberty and disparate interpretations of RCs can engage in, while complaining about those of Prots, and that is your answer?!
Indeed how many verses has Rome indisputably interpreted is a matter of disparate interpretations.
But "No interpretation required" is indeed a truthful answer, as it does not really matter what Scripture says, as only what Rome says matters, which is cultic. But even then you cannot except the problem of interpretations, as how many infallible teachings of Rome there are, and what level others fall under, as well as their meanings to varying degrees are all matters of interpretation.
Another readily available fact is that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world.
"Another?" The first relegates Rome to being like a cult, while this one places you in the company of papists who parrot specious RC assertions which have been refuted and are ill considered.
The multiplicity of scriptural interpretations is at the root of this wide disobedience to St. Paul's exhortation ("Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment"). Since Jesus didn't tolerate a plethora of opinions among His followers, how are such divergences justified today among the squabbling denominations who all claim to follow Him, each convinced that they alone teach the truth?
Actually, the apostles failed to get much of what Christ taught until after He opened up their minds to the Scriptures, and th supremacy of which He taught beginning with defeating the devil by the use of them, (Mt. 4) to substantiating His word by them.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And it is such basic things as He taught in the gospels that evangelicals are most unified in, in contrast to the overall fruit of Rome, while comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized.
Consider the issue of the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom and Congregatio de Auxiliis , in which after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was never solved but all Rome could do was require a truce.
The NT church itself was far from comprehensively unified, while Rome's answer, that of the pope as the supreme infallible exalted leader that the whole church looked to, is invisible in Scripture. Nowhere in the church epistles is he set forth as such, nor submission to him presented as a solution to problems, nor even in the Lord;s word to the 7 churches of Asia.
The unity the NT church did have was under unmistakably supernaturally attested apostles of God, who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in stark contrast to the claimants of Rome. Thus it is those who hold Scripture as supreme that would most submit to these apostles were they here today, the lack of many who are even close is a judgment, and they attest to the greatest practical unity, outside cults who have the greatest unity under sola ecclesia, shared by Rome, but which is not a Scriptural unity.
Rome for her part is certainly not perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and the unity of Rome is limited and largely a paper one, while what one does and effects constitutes the definition of what believes, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:16) And in which Rome partly testifies what she really believes by treating prosodomite murderers as members in life and in the death, while those who hold most strongly to Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired authoritative word of God are the most unified in core beliefs, in contrast to the fruit of Rome.
And do you deny that RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage...
Absolutely. There are parameters which are clearly defined by the Church and "any interpretation" certainly exceeds those limits.
But as my sentence that you cut off goes on to say, "as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty." So you deny this great deal of liberty that Akin's states they have, which simply again examples the disparity of interpretations of Rome among RCs.
It does not follow that Scripture being "the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law," requires a completely sufficient revelation, but means all additional revelation/information writings had to be consistent with what was prior established, in principal or precept.
Yes it does follow, because public revelation (Scripture and Tradition) ended with the death of the last Apostle.
No, it simply does not follow. The supremacy of the established wholly inspired written word always was the standard for the establishment for further Truth claims.
"For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Divorce, stoning, dietary rule changes, etc., were fulfillments, not "magnifications".
Again you are confusing two different things. Indeed, the Lord fulfilled the Law in such things as dietary changes, but but in making even lusting in the heart to be adultery, then He was magnifying the Lord, as the Holy Spirit said He would, even if you disagree:
The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable. (Isaiah 42:21)
And who possessed the authority to determine the authenticity of "further complete revelation"?
The same one who established Elijah as a prophet, or Genesis as being of God, and an itinerant Jewish Preacher of the 1st century.
"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the other side should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question."
Why are you forcing Scripture to support Rome? Go show me even one place single time where the Holy Spirit titles NT pastors "hiereus" (priests) or or “archiereus” (high priest)! That is an etymological fallacy due to imposed functional equivalence. See here . Just one more novelty.
The only way NT pastors are called "priests" is by way of inclusion in the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers as they all function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood."
Another example of eisegesis! The word you render "priesthood" is not hierateuma but presbuterion, that of presbuteros (senior/elder)! The fact that you must read this into Scripture testifies to the foreign nature of Rome.
So "the canon is consider closed" based on subjective opinion, rather than objective fact (the death of its last author)?
Its called the consensus of the faithful, the same reason the Lord and His church could so abundantly appeal to the Scriptures, without a single dispute about what they were. The alternative being that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. You want to try arguing for that? You must as that is your fundamental premise.
What you have written displays a profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have not been deliberately mischaracterizing those teachings, but are unfortunately ill-informed.
Then prove it rather than resorting to crass bombast, as it is i who have been providing substantiation on what Rome teaches, while you only referenced a bit by Newman once to the CE, which as shown, affirms the baptized is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness."
All your assertions of grace will not change that. Trent even teaches in essence that if anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema. And fine distinctions about different kinds of grace needed to try to justify this is lost to the laity who much trust in their merit to gain them eternal life.