Replies

Why can't I be my own Pope and decide just what Christ should mean to ME - and decide for myself what scriptures I will accept- and those I will reject?

So do you have an answer? Why can't I decide what my flavor of Christianity is going to be? Who has the authority to tell me otherwise ? You ? Anyone else ? Just because I disagree with your ideals - and I think they need to be reformed into what I want to believe... doesn't mean I'm wrong and your right-- absent an absolute authority of course

A good polemical question actually, for it has to do with authority, and with your argument being that an infallible authority is required, and with that being "The Catholic Church" (RC vs. EO).

However, the reason you cannot be your own pope is the same reason the pope cannot be what is claimed for his office, which is that there is a greater and uniquely infallible authority than any magisterium of men, which is the assured established authoritative word of God, and which is Scripture.

And contrast to the Catholic premise than an infallible magisterium is required in order to know which writings are of God, and for them to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, which the Lord often invoked and established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)

And which establishment is essentially due to their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, by which men of God became accepted as being so, even when the magisterium rejected them.

And which is seen in an account which deals with very subject of the validity of authority, and refutes the Catholic premise of infallible magisterium being required in order to know what is of God. In Mark 11 we read:

And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Mark 11:27-33)

Here, we see the authority of Christ challenged by men who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2) -this being the historical magisterium to who conditional obedience was yet enjoined- for as far as they were concerned, Jesus of Nazareth was just an itinerant preacher whom they did not sanction, and who reproved them from Scripture. (Mk. 7:1-13)

And yet who does the Lord invoke in responding to their challenge but John the baptizer, who was another itinerant preacher they rejected. Yet the common people, who heard Jesus gladly, (Mark 12:37) rightly discerned what the magisterium did not, "for all men counted John that he was a prophet indeed."

And if these Jewish leaders had eyes to see and admit the Truth, then they would have admitted what Peter did, that the authority came from God, who in history often raised up men from without the formal magisterium and reproved leadership, in preserving and supplementing the faith.

Therefore NT church did not begin upon the foundation of those who sat in the seat of Moses, but upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20) - that of dissenters from the misleading magisterium. And thus the NT church did not begin consistent with the Catholic model for ascertaining Truth with "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (Pope Pius X) for that would have required them to submit to the judgment of the magisterium as to whom this Jesus Christ was.

Therefore contrary to your argument that "absent an absolute authority" - with that authority being Rome - "just because I disagree with your ideals...doesn't mean I'm wrong and your right," in history the supreme absolute authority by which the church began was Scripture, not the historical magisterium.

For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and 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.)

Therefore, while in Catholicism when leadership goes South then either the flock follows them, or they essentially become like evangelicals in that they decide what which modern church teachings are valid based upon their judgment of what historical church teachings include and mean (the difference being we are to go back to the most ancient church teachings, Scripture). This does result in the many conservative sects and their divisions(and we have more), but at least they are conservative.

You can argue that Scripture needs an interpreter, and which is true, yet so does Catholic teaching, as seen by its many sects. And rather than SS being rejected due to division, the most liberal Prot churches are not SS ones but are usually those closest to Catholicism, while those who most strongly esteem Scripture testify to being the most unified in conservative beliefs.

In addition, SS does not mean rejection of the magisterial office, but which is affirmed, and it is liberals who are likely to call Rome their home vs. conservative evangelical churches.