I wasn’t able to join this discussion sooner, but have read the more recent comments and hope to have time to reply to at least some here. But I did post at 123 and want to make sure some concerns I have about the Catholic beliefs stated here in this article are considered, so I’m pinging some of the recent contributors to the discussion.
Briefly, in that post I addressed just a few things. One was that Catholic Church defenders often argue that if their church holds some position and it is in some way possible, then it must be so, which is not logical. And along with that, I brought up the question of whether or not the Church of the Fourth Century which compiled the Bible is the same of later centuries, since this article’s author claims that the Catholic Church made an infallible decision then, so it’s only logical, according to him, that it must have been the same church and continued to make infallible decisions, up to the present day. But the Catholic Church in later centuries is not the same people, at the same point in Christianity’s development, and was much further removed from Jesus and the witness He left with His disciples, while the Church which compiled the Bible was essentially still the foundational Church, built on the Apostles’ witness as well as centuries of persecution and martyrdom.
And the author’s two examples from Scripture about the ability to hear God’s Word also didn’t truly support his argument, since Samuel was only a child, and the man of God was told he would be punished for disobeying God’s Word (and he was), so we know God’s Word was clear, but he wasn’t faithful to it - and that is essentially the whole issue. God speaks clearly, but man disobeys. Through Jesus, though, the Lord gives us a heart and mind that recognizes our total dependence on Him alone, and desires to serve Him obediently and faithfully, and this is the Spirit of the true Church.
I’ll also add to what I already wrote is that one other example of the Catholic Church leadership using the Bible only as a general guide which it also sees as something somewhat “outdated” and so open to modification is that it has allowed the idea that Mary is “co-redemptrix” to creep in. In no way does Scripture support anything but the utter rejection of that idea, yet it has some de facto acceptance among Catholic leaders, and Benedict said there was no reason to make it official, since the thought is already included in other titles for Mary, it departs **too far*** from Scripture (meaning departing from Scripture is acceptable to a degree) and it would “complicate” evangelical efforts. But again, God’s Word makes clear that there is Creator, and creature, and He will not share His glory. ALL goodness comes from Him and Him only, and when He bestows some on creatures, it is both gifted to them, and required that they not take any credit for it themselves (”I earned or deserve what good God has given me,” as if He could owe us anything), but give all credit to the Lord. The very reason that Satan and the angels were cast out of Heaven was their rejection of their proper place, and as creatures God’s good will for us, so that we can know the way of true love, joy and peace forever, is that we take and keep to our proper places before Him.
I like your postings. They make sense.