While this may not be what you interpret Rome as teaching, yet as i had just provided , Cardinal Avery Dulles did claim ,
"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."
Let's be precise in our terminology. What the Catholic Church is indeed claiming is that, to discover ALL of the revelation God has revealed to mankind, all of it, not just a portion, then it is NOW necessary to have an infallible magisterium.
What I said before isn't inconsistent with this, as it is indeed possible for God to have:
A. Revealed Himself to whomever He chose in the OT, to fulfill his plan of Salvation for mankind, through mankind.
B. While He was here on Earth, in the flesh, obviously an "infallible magisterium" was NOT required since He was here. He was the source of infallibility then, since He is, even just by definition "infallible"
C. Now that He has ascended to heaven, and has revealed all there is to reveal to mankind (there is no more revelation to receive, the faith was "deposited" with the Apostles at Pentecost), *now* there exists a need for a magisterium to "know all things there is to know" about God, and thus we have statements like Cardinal Dulles'.
I hope this clarifies things.
What you need to provide is the basis for the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
First of all, it's "unscriptural" in your opinion. You (among others) have been provided ample Scriptural evidence for the establishment of a visible Church government. You have simply rejected it, claiming it's unscriptural, because it contradicts Scripture elsewhere. Again, in your opinion.
The first part of your request (namely "provide...the basis for the NOVEL...premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility...", emphasis added) is reasonable however, and that basis is given, I believe, in post 34. I have not seen anyone refute the logic there in this thread. If you would like to have a go at it feel free.
Well, he's wrong in that as well.
People can only understand spiritual truths as it is revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.
Hearing it from fellow men does not give spiritual insight.
Let's be precise that you were ignorant of the argument i was responding to, which premise was refuted.
Let's be precise in our terminology. What the Catholic Church is indeed claiming is that, to discover ALL of the revelation God has revealed to mankind, all of it, not just a portion, then it is NOW necessary to have an infallible magisterium. That the claim for the necessity of the infallible magisterium (IM) only refers to all of Divine revelation is simply your interpretation of Dulles, whereas the CE includes needing faith in the instruments of revelation in order to believe in the Bible.
Dulles goes in to say, “By its unceasing vigilance the Magisterium preserves the Scriptures as a sacred deposit and supervises editions, translations, and commentaries”
Which the maligned (much by RCs) NAB is an example of!
, then it is NOW necessary to have an infallible magisterium.
But what would that be essential now? If God could provide and preserve most of Scripture itself and faith without an IM, then why is it necessary now. And note the God has always been leading His own progressively into Truth, which will not culminate in this life. (1Co. 13:10-12; 1Jn. 3:2)
is indeed possible for God to have: A. Revealed Himself to whomever He chose in the OT, to fulfill his plan of Salvation for mankind, through mankind. But doing so apart from the magisterium, those who sat in the seat of Moses, was not an exception, but the norm, as God spoke by prophets who were often rejected by those who sat in power, and which the common people discerned even when the mag. did not. And which is how the NT church began. Thus why would not only a magisterium be essential to know what is God, but an IM?
In the OT, the function of the magisterium was primarily judicial, besides being didactic, but God never has need for an IM, as He knew how to raise up men from without the magisterium to reprove it. And thus the church began in dissent from the historical magisterium, contrary to the RC model, being was built upon an itinerant preachers, Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles and the prophets, men whom the magisterium rejected.
B. While He was here on Earth, in the flesh, obviously an "infallible magisterium" was NOT required since He was here. He was the source of infallibility then, since He is, even just by definition "infallible"
And yet He established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (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 the Lord being in Heaven, Scripture is the Only transcendent immutable comprehensive material body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God, which "infallible" papal teaching is not, and lacks the power of the wholly inspired word of God. (Heb. 4:12)
C. Now that He has ascended to heaven, and has revealed all there is to reveal to mankind (there is no more revelation to receive, the faith was "deposited" with the Apostles at Pentecost), *now* there exists a need for a magisterium to "know all things there is to know" about God, and thus we have statements like Cardinal Dulles'.
While more can be revealed when Christ returns, that Rome does not presume to reveal more things in this life is misleading, as she can claim to "remember" a specific story that is not recorded in Scripture and lacks even early evidence , and which her scholars were opposed to as making it doctrine, and make it binding upon all Christians.
She can claim this is not new under the premise that it was always believed by all everywhere, and was true, despite it being absent from Scripture and lacking early evidence or being one tradition among others, with the veracity of which actually resting upon the premise of her own ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
For Rome has infallibly declared 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.
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”
Yet not only is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility unknown in Scripture, and contrary to how souls believed the Truth and the church began, but it remains unnecessary despite your assertions otherwise, and is actually what many cults like the Mormons effectively work out of.
I hope this clarifies things.
Indeed i do.
First of all, it's "unscriptural" in your opinion. You (among others) have been provided ample Scriptural evidence for the establishment of a visible Church government.
Wrong, wrong wrong! Visible Church government, which Westminster affirms, is not that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. Propaganda posted on behalf of it has been refuted time and time again by God's grace, leading to the silence of those who tried to defend it.
You have simply rejected it, claiming it's unscriptural, because it contradicts Scripture elsewhere. Again, in your opinion.
Which is just what souls could say to Scripturally substantiated preaching in the NT. And it remains than an IM did not exist nor was necessary for both men and writings to be discerned and established as being so. But the RC recourse is to asserting that since Rome gave us the Bible, then we need to submit to her. Which logic is an argument against Rome.
The first part of your request (namely "provide...the basis for the NOVEL...premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility...", emphasis added) is reasonable however, and that basis is given, I believe, in post 34. I have not seen anyone refute the logic there in this thread. If you would like to have a go at it feel free.
I never saw the post, but quite readily i can see that since his premise is faulty, so is his conclusion. See here .