Protestants Need to Convert

Controversial, yes, but true. Otherwise, we don’t believe in Church dogma or the reality of the sin of heresy.

Michael Voris makes some good points in this video. To the line “we don’t talk about religion and politics here,” he has added a third forbidden subject, sex. Regarding the older form of that yarn, Brother Francis once made an innocently humorous response to someone while he was out doing our work on the streets. A man said to him, “There are two things, we don’t talk about here!”

To which Brother responded, with a slightly feigned naïveté, “Really? What are those?”

“Religion and Politics!” responded the man.

And Brother said, “What’s wrong with politics?”

  • jacobhalo

    God Bless Michael Voris!! I haven’t heard words like that except from the Slaves of the Immaculate of Mary and my Catholic school education pre-Vatican II. The truth will set you free.

  • Jay

    The speaker in this video is ignorant and arrogant. Does he read the Word of God? The Word of God is just as vital to Christianity as the Church; in fact Jesus talks about The Church twice in all of Scripture, whereas He talks about His Word dozens of times. Jesus never addressed infant baptism. In fact, no one did. Faith in Christ is the quantitative establishment of salvation, and how can a child have faith, and yet Catholicism teaches infant baptism without faith? Just on example of the Church overstepping its initial mandate.

    The Church silenced its enemies for hundreds of years through violence and coercion. That is certainly not a Christ-mandate either. There are literally hundreds of examples where The Church has made its own laws and regulations outside of Scripture. Michael Voris is clinging to aspects of faith that do not exist within actual Scripture. No wonder he’s so arrogant. Making up doctrine and suppressing Christ’s real mandate is the stuff of arrogance and ignorance.

  • GeneDe

    Jay, have you read — really read — our Bible closely? And, yes, I said OUR Bible; shall I explain? And, honestly, now, have you interpreted it to your own destruction? (That’s a paraphrase from St. Peter, the first Pope and head of the Catholic Church; appointed by Christ Himself.)

  • I think the first question I would ask you is, what is the basis for your assurance of truth?

    For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ??

  • Laurence Charles Ringo

    Sorry,”GeneDe”, but those of us who have studied these issues instead of kowtowing to pseudo – historical,”because I said so”, so-called traditions have every reason to disbelieve the man-centered, bogus, contrived claims of roman catholicism, and I for one make no apology for doing so.And, it’s not “your”Bible, if by that you mean that tiresome, boring claim that”the roman catholic church gave the world the Bible”. Please, just give THAT fiction a rest, why don’t you! NO ONE believes that worn-out canard BUT catholics; who gave Jesus, Paul, the Apostles et.al.THEIR SCRIPTURES? What did the true, universal church believe before the formulation of your institution? ALL authentic Christians have only ONE SAVIOUR, and His Name is NOT Boniface VIII, it’s JESUS CHRIST, PERIOD!! (Acts 4 : 12).

  • GeneDe

    Hello. I sense anger here. Why? Is it because that perhaps the truth does, in fact, hurt? If you would only examine the HISTORICAL facts (truth), then you would see that it was, again, in fact, those dedicated to preserving the Scriptures were Catholic monks/priests/scribes commissioned to compile the Scriptures and eventually it was the Catholic Church’s authority that canonized/codified the Scriptures. More later, as I now have to go to Mass and receive the Body and Blood of Christ our Savior in the Eucharist. Do you have that? Blessings.

  • GeneDe

    What authority do you have to know what is truth and what is spurious? A book? You?

  • So you do not want to answer my question from 5 months ago? My answer to you is by the same authority souls had to know what Truth was, and men and writings of God, before a church of Rome presumed it was essential for this, and deceived others into believing it.

    Not that the issue is not the validity of the magisterial office, but that of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, and the presuppositions for it.

  • GeneDe

    I’ll answer your question, then you answer mine. Christ gave to His Church — through the Apostles — the assurance of the Paraclete to teach all truth. That truth resides in one Church founded on the rock of St. Peter, and forward. Our Lord told His Apostles that those who hear you, hear Me, and those that reject you, reject Me and the Father Who sent Me.

    Now, you can answer my question: what authority do you have to know what is the truth and what is spurious? A book? You?

    PS. I just saw your 5 month old question earlier today.

  • Your answer is not an answer but a bare assertion, which is based upon the premise and presupposition that i asked about, and which relates to my answer which you failed to deal with. Your question is one of the basis for authority, and like the questions asked of the Lord, (Mk. 11:27-33) the basic premise behind it demands a question be answered in order to meaningful see the answer.

    Your question is one of the basis for authority, which must have as its premise that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for determination, assurance, and preservation of Truth. Thus one cannot realize this without said magisterium=they have no authority.

    And the RC argument also argues that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    Do you affirm or deny this?

    .

  • GeneDe

    I repeat, Our Lord ASSURED His Church that He would send the Paraclete when He ascended, to teach all truth. That is NOT an assertion, but a fact — a truth. Second, when conditions are met, the Magisterium is infallible. See my previous statement or what Our Lord told His disciples: those who hear you hear ME, and those the reject you reject ME. That infallible authority has continued; it didn’t end with the death of St. John.

    From now on, I will hammer this home to you: 1. It was on the authority of the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible. 2. It was on the authority of the Catholic Church that declared what books of the Bible were authentic and which were not. 3. It was the arch-heretic, Luther, that expunged 6 books of the Bible because it didn’t suit him. Think about it: a creature of God changing the Word of God, his Creator! These are historical facts that can easily be verified.

    One more thing; are you a “Bible only” Protestant?

  • And i repeat, these are bare assertions, as they claim or presuppose that ,

    1. Rome is uniquely that church that the Holy Ghost will to lead into all truth;

    2. That this means that an assuredly infallible magisterium is required and or promised;

    3. Being the historical steward of Holy Writ means such is that magisterium and alone can assuredly correctly declare what Scripture consists of and means.

    4. Likewise, “he who hears you hears ME,” uniquely refers to the Roman church;

    5. That Luther as a maverick wrongly dissented from an infallible canon, without any sound reasons, and thus did not include them in his Bible;

    6. That excluding some books as being wholly inspired Scripture means changing the Word of God;

    7. That being “Bible only” means..?

    All these are assertions with presuppositions, and thus you need to clarify the basis for your assertions, and assurance these are true, which is why i asked what i did above , 5 months ago.

    Can you actually affirm the aforementioned assertions, as well as the basis for them as i asked long ago, or state any differences? Repeating claims simply does not make the true, no matter how vehement you assert them.

  • Guest

    You’re dodging GeneDe’s questions. Why don’t you just answer them? He answered yours. He’s even quoting from the Bible.

  • Guest

    Here, straight from the Bible:

    “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2: 14

    The basis of Christian faith is scripture and tradition, not scripture alone.

    “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3: 15

    The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. If the Bible was, St. Paul would’ve said so. Church teaching comes from scripture and tradition. Since it’s is the pillar/ground of truth, the Church can’t teach error. (Magister: latin “teacher”). Dogmas from the Magisterium are just formal definitions of doctrines that have already been revealed in scripture and/or tradition.

  • GeneDe

    I have laid out the facts. You can ignore them to the detriment of your own soul, if you wish — after all, you have free will to reject what Jesus taught. By the way, your handle Peace BY Jesus, from what you have said, indicates that you found “Peace BY Jesus” from a book, not from His Church. I wish you peace too, and an invitation to come into His one, true, Apostolic, Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is neither holiness, remission of sins (see the Bible; yes, the power to remit or bind sins was given to the disciples of Our Lord) or salvation. Blessings.

  • When you actually have an argument vs assertions, and can establish the validity of your presuppositions, then let me know.

    At least show me why an infallible magisterium is needed “to know what is the truth and what is spurious,” and that the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation are that magisterium, when the church itself began in dissent from from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    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.)

  • He has basically done everything but answer my questions, but resorts to merely making assertions or pasting texts while refusing to establish the presuppositions upon which they rest. What is your basis for assurance of Truth?

    Meanwhile, I no more dodged Gene’s polemical questions by requiring him to deal with the foundational premise and presuppositions behind them -by which he would have His answer – than the Lord did in responding the questions of “the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,” “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (Mark 11:28)

    The Lord responded by demanding, “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.” (Mark 11:29-30)

    Here you have one itinerant preacher – as far as those who sat in the seat of Moses were concerned – being challenged by the historical magisterium, who were the stewards of Holy Writ, as to what authority He had to teach and do what He did. Which is the very question RCs ask, under the premise that no one can do valid ministry apart from their sanction, or certainly not in dissent from them.

    But what does this Preacher do but invoke the authority of another itinerant preacher, whom the common people rightly discerned as being “a prophet indeed.” Which is why the Jewish hierarchy, the teachers of Israel, would not rightly answer the Lord’s question, as “they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.” (Mark 11:32)

    The Lord’s question was challenging the premise behind their question, that no one could have valid authority apart from them, or in dissent from them. To admit what the common people discerned, that John was indeed of God, would mean that they could be wrong,and could be reproved by a man in the desert who ate insects, and another itinerant Preacher whom the common people also rightly discerned was of God.

    But which was nothing new, as in the past God often provided Truth and preserved it by raising up men from without the powers that be to reprove it, whom the faithful remnant recognized as being of God. And thus the church began and has continued as the body of Christ.

    Moreover, writings of God were also recognized as being so, and Truth was discerned and thus faith was preserved without a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, the necessity of which is the premise behind the RC question ” what authority do you have to know what is the truth and what is spurious?”

    And as the NT church began in dissent from the historical magisterium, who were the stewards of Holy Writ, and established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, so much the church today.

    But in contrast, the validity of Rome’s teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but upon the premise of her assured veracity.

    As one of your apologists said,

    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

    Scripture, history and tradition only consist of and mean what she declares they mean, thus precluding the possibility of contradiction with such, including herself or others.

    As Manning said, 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. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves….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, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.

    Thus Newman states,

    “in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” – John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html

    This is reflected in the “answers” I have been called t response to so often, that of mere assertions of RC propaganda, as is saying such makes it true, while it remains that the church of Rome stands in such contrast to the NT of Scripture that it is basically invisible .

    Now at least you should understand, but i seldom see a reason-able response.

  • Invoking 2 Thessalonians 2: 14 in support requires you to establish that,

    1. That the truths taught via oral preaching to the Thessalonians where not that of Truths taught elsewhere in Scripture, but not yet read by the Thessalonians. A pastor today can enjoin obedience to the preaching of Scriptural Truths, even if souls were ignorant of them and have no Bible to read, but the veracity of such is always subject to proof by that which is written, as Paul’s was.

    2. Or, if this oral preaching was not that of Truths written elsewhere, that Rome’s leadership receive new Divine revelation such as apostles Paul and John did. Which presumes they meet the requirements and credentials of the apostles.

    3. That the veracity of such traditions, if coming from am amorphous source, supremely subject to corruption as those of Rome, rested upon the premise of their assured
    veracity, so that the Assumption assuredly true because Rome said so, even if it was not
    recorded or promised in Scripture, nor had the written or extant
    testimony of eyewitnesses even in early tradition , as the Lord’s bodily assumption did. (1Cor. 15)

    4. That such traditions, if not already written elsewhere, were not subsequently written, and that Rome can show us what they were.

    The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

    This requires that you establish that 1Tim. 3:15, with the words used for pillar and ground (both of which basically denote support), means the church was not simply the support of the Truth, and grounded in it, but that it, not wholly inspired Scripture which assuredly reveals Truth, is the supreme infallible authority, based upon the premise of the assured veracity of the church’s own interpretation of this text and whatever else she finds supporting it.

    Which also requires you to provide the infallible interpretation of of this text by Rome, unless you allow that you can provide assurance of Truth by your own interpretation.

    And that the church of the living God of that text is uniquely the church of Rome, versus the body of Christ, which is the only 100% true church, as it alone consists of 100% believers, while the visible church has never remained so.

    If the Bible was, St. Paul would’ve said so. Church teaching comes from scripture and tradition.

    Which as said, presumes Paul said the church was not simply a support of the Truth but its head over Scripture, rather than the church owing its establishment to Scripture, with its members providing additional complementary writings in conflation with what was previously established as being of God, due to their heavenly qualities and attestation, and recognized in the consensus of the faithful.

    Dogmas from the Magisterium are just formal definitions of doctrines that have already been revealed in scripture and/or tradition.

    Will due respect, that is simply parroting propaganda. Show me where Scripture or early tradition taught the Assumption.

    Or even one prayer out of the close to 175 in Scripture where any believer prayed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, or where instructed to address anyone in Heaven, and where any being but God is shown able to hear and personally respond to virtually infinite prayers to them.

    Or where any NT pastor is distinctively titled a “priest,” and are shown engaging in a uniquely sacrificial function as their primary function, as priests do.

  • Guest

    “What is your basis for assurance of Truth?”
    The million dollar question. My answer: the Magisterium.
    What’s your answer? Scripture? Scripture is part of Magisterial teaching, but so is Tradition.

  • Guest

    “Show me where Scripture or early tradition taught the Assumption.”

    For evidence from Scripture, I recommend this article: http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-assumption-of-mary

    Other than that, if you believe that Mary was immaculately conceived and never sinned, then her bodily assumption only makes sense. Death is a consequence of sin, but since Mary neither sinned nor inherited original sin, she wouldn’t actually die. She left this life and went to heaven but her body and soul never separated.

    Immaculate Conception:

    [The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

    [The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.] – catholic . com

    “Show me where any NT pastor is distinctively titled a “priest,” and are shown engaging in a uniquely sacrificial function as their primary function, as priests do.”

    James 5: 14-15 “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

    Priests giving the bedridden Anointing of the Sick (a sacrament) and Confession (a sacrament).

    “Show me where even one prayer out of the close to 175 in Scripture where any believer prayed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, or where instructed to address anyone in Heaven, and where any being but God is shown able to hear and personally respond to virtually infinite prayers to them.”

    [No one prays to dead saints, because those in heaven are more alive than we are. The Lord is God of the living, not of the dead. The fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful (Jas 5:16). Those in heaven are surely righteous, since nothing unclean can enter heaven (Rv 21:27). Those in heaven are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and have not been separated from us by death, but surround us as a great cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1). They stand before the throne of God and offer our prayers to him (Rv 5:8) and cheer us on as we run the good race. Intercession among members of the body of Christ is pleasing to God (1 Tm 2:1-4) and even commanded by him (Jn 15:17). Those in heaven have a perfected love, so how could they not intercede for us? Christ is the vine, and we are the branches; if we are connected to him, we are inseparably bound together as well. Can the eye say to the hand, “I need you not”? Neither are we to say we don’t need the prayers of our brothers and sisters (alive here or in heaven), because salvation is a family affair.] – catholic . com

    “That the truths taught via oral preaching to the Thessalonians where not that of Truths taught elsewhere in Scripture.”

    Common sense. I think you’re forgetting that before any of the Apostles ever put pen to parchment, they preached the gospel by word of mouth. The Apostles initially evangelized people by oral preaching. It wasn’t until years later that they wrote the Scriptures when certain people and communities had certain issues. So if anything, you have to prove that the NT scriptures contain everything the Apostles preached orally, and if so, why?

    “Which as said, presumes Paul said the church was not simply a support of the Truth but its head over Scripture, rather than the church owing its establishment to Scripture.”

    Your entire approach to this is based off of a key mistaken presupposition: that the Church came from the Bible.

    It’s the other way around. The Bible came from the Church. It’s just common sense.

    The Magisterium (Peter and the other Apostles in union with him) existed since Pentecost, long before the first verse of the NT was ever written. The NT scriptures are essentially the Church’s proto-encyclicals.

    “recognized in the consensus of the faithful.”

    Problem is that after a while, there wasn’t a “consensus of the faithful” about which scriptures were authentic. Some were spurious, and some were good but just not inspired. Ultimately it was the Catholic Church that finalized the Canon of Scripture, which took place at several councils of bishops. That’s a fact of history.

    “Scripture, history and tradition only consist of and mean what she declares they mean, thus precluding the possibility of contradiction with such, including herself or others.”
    Yeah that’s why if you take a good look at history, you’ll see the Catholic Church has been there from the beginning, not since Constantine or whatever you might believe about it. Look at the letters of Ignatius of Antioch for starters. He was a disciple of the Apostle John. His letters obviously aren’t inspired scripture, but they’re clear historical testimony to what the early Christians actually believed and practiced. They were very Catholic.

  • GeneDe

    You are playing word games.

    From the time of Abraham to the time of Moses — a period of 500 years! — THERE WERE NO SCRIPTURES, so how, may I ask was the true Faith passed on?

    Let me answer that for you: by Tradition: that is, by word of mouth, including the Prophets; PRIESTS offering sacrifice on an altar; fathers relaying the FAITH to their sons, etc.

    It is plain to see that Protestants that use OUR Bible against us Catholics have no basis to do so. In other words, “Bible only” falls flat on its face.

    Again, think and come into the one, true Church founded by Our Lord, outside of which is neither holiness, remission of sin, nor salvation, for the sake of yourself and you family, if you have one.

    St. Peter said that the unlearned (or even the “learned”?) can wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.

  • Then your basis for assurance that the Magisterium is infallible must be because the Magisterium said it was, as it cannot be based on Scripture or other evidence, for if assurance of Truth came by such then the Magisterium would not be essential for assurance of Truth.

    Scripture is employed as a servant in support of Magisterial teaching, but the church began upon the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, following itinerant (as far as the magisterium saw them) preachers, by which mean i have assurance, and must appeal to.

  • The only games are those of Rome’s presumption. The faith was passed on by God supernaturally attesting to men such as Abraham and Moses, with the latter providing the word of God in written form. And as written, it because the transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . And with further complementary writings being added in conflation with it.

    The Lord did not rebuke the devil at the beginning of His ministry by referencing Tradition, nor at the end did He substantiate His mission and open the understanding of the disciples to Tradition.

    Some of what is in Scripture was first expressed in oral form, but Scripture is always the judge by which any Truth claim,as well as the validity of person, is established.

    Both men and writings of God were recognized and discerned as being so (due to their heavenly qualities and attestation, long before Rome presumed it was essential for this.

    Nor does being the historically stewards of revelation require or evidence that such is infallible.

    By presuming contrary to this Rome evidences it is not the NT church.

  • In addition,

    PRIESTS offering sacrifice on an altar;

    No where did the Holy Spirit ever call a ever call any pastor of the NT church “priest” (“hiereus”), and that the only priesthood in the NT church is that of 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)

    The use of priest is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalence. See here . Nor do we see the primary function of NT pastors being that of dispensing physical food to be eaten to gain spiritual and eternal life, or the Lord’s supper otherwise being manifest in Acts or the rest of the NT, interpretive of the gospels, being the “the source and summit of the Christian life,” upon which all else revolves in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished.”

    More here .

    Catholic writer Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide” states,

    “Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.”

    “When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome’s theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist.”

  • Furthermore,

    It is plain to see that Protestants that use OUR Bible against us Catholics have no basis to do so

    Your conclusion simply does not follow your premise. All you have made are assertions, while the premise that being the instrument and steward of Scripture means such is the infallible authority on it, and others cannot refute them, ends of invalidating the NT church.

    For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    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.)

    St. Peter said that the unlearned (or even the “learned”?) can wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.

    Which you have. Repent while you have light to do so.

  • Guest

    “Then your basis for assurance that the Magisterium is infallible must be because the Magisterium said it was…”

    No, because Christ said it was. The Magisterium dogmatically defined it later, but until then it was undisputed.

    “the church began upon the basis of Scriptural substantiation…”

    The Church began on the basis of Christ’s command.

    “Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” Mt. 16: 15-19

    “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” Mt. 28: 18-20

    We don’t get the Church from the bible. We get the bible from the Church. The authority rests in the people that wrote it, not in the book itself. Their authority was passed on to their successors. Early Christians believed this and died for it, and they passed on their beliefs and practices to us.

  • Guest

    “Your conclusion simply does not follow your premise.”

    His conclusion is based off actual history and common sense. The Catholic Church inherited the OT scriptures and wrote the NT. The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church.

    The rest of what you wrote doesn’t make any sense either.

  • You linked source, Staples, consists of forcing tests which Rome herself does not officially define as referring to Mary, nor do they have the “unanimous consent of the fathers” stated by V1, or any promise to herr in Scripture or manifest expectation.

    Moreover, in the NT bodily resurrection and crowning only takes place at the Lord’s return. Thus at best the Assumption is speculation, and definitely not warranted as binding doctrine.

    But as said, the basis for its veracity is the premise of Rome’s assured veracity, which itself is unScriptural.

    the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

    [The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions

    Wrong. Kecharitomene (one form of the verb “charitoo”) in Lk.
    1:28, is never used for “full” elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28
    simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in
    Eph.1:6.

    κεχαριτωμένη,
    is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω
    (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means
    highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. REPEATED: It is a
    passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean “full
    of grace” or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is
    “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the
    Greek….

    In contrast, the only one (though in some mss
    Stephen, in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus,
    “full (“plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth,”
    using “plērēs,” which denotes “full”
    17 other places in the NT.

    Much more technical here :

    James 5: 14-15 “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church,

    See below and here on this wresting of Scripture in making into a distinctive class titled priests.

    Forgiveness and healing can go together, even if not able to confess as in the case of the palsied man, and likely here.

    Meanwhile, RCs priests themselves need to be forgiven by being truly born again, and rather than this act of anointing being for healing as in Scripture, in Rome it is usually a precursor of death.

    In addition, James goes on and addresses believers in general to confess sins to each other, the only confession he actually calls for, and pray for each other that they may be healed.

    No one prays to dead saints, because those in heaven are more alive than we are.

    Why are you arguing against what i did not state?

    those in heaven are surely righteous,…They stand before the throne of God and offer our prayers

    That is only at a specific time, as a precursor to judgment, and is offering prayer as a memorial ,
    evidently after the OT memorial sense, (Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num.
    5:15) NOT saints being the object of virtually unlimited prayers addressed
    to them and being able to process them, or that the prayers needed an angelic postal service, much less heavenly secretaries. It simply it not there!

    Meanwhile, Irenaeus wrote:

    “Nor does she [the church] perform anything
    by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other
    wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made
    all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and
    calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..(Against Heresies,
    2:32:5, 4:18:60)

    Intercession among members of the body of Christ is pleasing to God..Those in heaven have a perfected love, so how could they not intercede…Can the eye say to the hand, “I need you not”?

    Absolutely none of this translates into the ability to hear virtually infinite prayers addressed to them, which only God is shown able to do, and is a mark of Deity. Nor re any prayers being so addressed, while the Spirit abundant records prayers – all to God to whom believers have direct access by Christ, the all sufficient and only heavenly intercessor in Scripture between God and man.

    You are engaging in egregious extrapolation to support a wrong tradition, and will answer for it.

    . I think you’re forgetting that before any of the Apostles ever put pen to parchment, they preached the gospel by word of mouth.

    Rather, you are forgetting that it was upon the premise of Scripture being the supreme and assured word of God that they preached, as can be much seen

    . So if anything, you have to prove that the NT scriptures contain everything the Apostles p reached orally,

    No, not any more than you have to prove revealed Catholic tradition contains everything the Lord did. The secret things
    belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

    Your entire approach to this is based off of a key mistaken presupposition: that the Church came from the Bible. It’s the other way around. The Bible came from the Church

    Wrong again, very wrong, for as said, the church actually began following 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.)

    The NT church added to the extant body of Holy Writ by way of individuals (which were not commissioned by the magisterium, and cannot take credit for it) writings complimentary revelation, in conflation with what was written.

    The NT scriptures are essentially the Church’s proto-encyclicals.

    Not those of Rome, which are neither wholly inspired of God nor even all held as “infallible” in Rome.

    Problem is that after a while, there wasn’t a ” consensus of the faithful” about which scriptures were authentic.

    “Consensus of the faithful” is also used of Rome, and does not mean universal consensus.

    Ultimately it was the Catholic Church that finalized the Canon of Scripture,

    Actually, it would be only after Luther died that an “infallible,”
    indisputable canon was defined by Rome. Before that doubts and dissent continued
    , right into Trent.

    So much for the magisterium dealing with confusion in a timely manner. Previous councils were not ecumenical and their affirmation was not binding.

    Yeah that’s why if you take a good look at history, you’ll see the Catholic Church has been there from the beginning,

    I have taken a good and long look, and the more i have then the more it has become evident that stands in such contrast to the NT church of Scripture that it is basically invisible.

    You have taken much of my time with old propaganda. Sorry.

  • Guest

    Why are you quoting some diocesan lay teacher? Why not quote St. Ignatius of Antioch. http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/apologetics-with-st-ignatius-of-Antioch

    Re: the Eucharist, http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/are-we-really-eating-jesus-in-the-eucharist-or-is-it-only-symbolic
    Instead of “priests” in James 5, the KJV uses the word “elders”. Call them what you want, but they were still Catholic and they still had Holy Orders. In other words, they were priests.

  • Wrong, as the conclusion that one has no authority to use a Bible that came from a source which differs from it would invalidate the NT church, which began in dissent from those who were committed the oracles of God.” “Who are Israelites;
    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; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning
    the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.
    Amen.” (Romans 3:2; 9:4-5).

    Whose leaders sat in the seat of Moses.

    Moreover, it is Rome that has invalidated her authority as did the Jews by teaching critically contrary to the NT church, even the basis for Truth, as the NT church began under Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of the assured veracity of the magisterium. .

  • You mean why don’t i read what some lay teaches interprets extraBiblical men as saying? Why no read what others show him saying?

    Instead of “priests” in James 5, the KJV uses the word “elders”. Call them what you want, but they were still Catholic and they still had Holy Orders. In other words, they were priests.

    Wrong, the two do not equate. A clerical priest engages in sacrifices for sin as his primary duty, and the word for “priest” is a specific distinctive word, which the Spirit in distinction never ever titles a NT presbyteros. See here .

  • Guest

    “Some of what is in Scripture was first expressed in oral form…”
    Other way around. Some of the OT oral tradition was recorded in scripture.
    “but Scripture is always the judge by which any Truth claim,as well as the validity of person, is established.”
    Christ is the Judge of everything and everyone. He fulfilled the OT prophecies, founded the Catholic Church, and established a hierarchy of men to lead it with His authority. That’s really all there is to it.

  • But by what source did Christ substantiate His mission to the disciples by? (Lk. 24:44) And by what source did Paul reason out of, and the Bereans validate his preaching by, and Apollos mightily convince the Jews by? (Acts 17:2,11; 18:28) Thus by what source do you know the NT church was valid by? Is the instrument and steward of Scripture superior to it?

  • Guest
  • Guest

    Ignatius of Antioch:

    “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6
    Sorry, no getting around that.

  • Guest

    Ironic how the article you linked didn’t even mention that Eucharist quote from Ignatius.

  • Guest

    From the way you worded your third question, you try to make it sound like it flows from your first two questions. It doesn’t. The answer you’re looking for is Scripture, but that’s not it.

    “Thus by what source do you know the NT church was valid by?”

    Apostolic Succession.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

    http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/apostolic-succession

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

    http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/hierarchy-of-the-early-church

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency

    http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it%E2%80%99s-the-true-church

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-tradition

    http://www.catholic.com/video/what-are-the-historical-roots-of-the-mass

    “I have taken a good and long look, and the more i have then the more it has become evident that stands in such contrast to the NT church of Scripture that it is basically invisible.”

    It’s invisible to you because you don’t want to see it.

  • Guest

    “Wrong, as the conclusion that one has no authority to use a Bible that came from a source which differs from it would invalidate the NT church…”
    See that’s where you’re mistaken. The only difference between the Catholic Church and the OT is the covenant. The source is the same for both – God. There’s a continuity of religion.
    Do you think YOU have authority to say what a bible passage means, but the Church with apostolic succession doesn’t?

  • Guest

    Then by your logic, you can’t accept that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so. Sorry, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  • The only difference between the Catholic Church and the OT is the covenant. The source is the same for both

    But without a defining source that is wholly inspired by God than you have a God that is only revealed by nature, and a church that has no foundation in express revelation and to which assured word of God, it is subject to , and thus can autocratically define itself as true and infallible.

    Welcome to the church of Rome, with a caesariopapacy patterned after the empire in which it was found.

    Do you think YOU have authority to say what a bible passage means, but the Church with apostolic succession doesn’t?

    No one has the right to presume they are correct due to possessing assured veracity, which Vatican “infallibly” declared the pope and they do (conditionally), while one has a right to disagree with the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation, conditional upon Scriptural substantiation.

    That is if the church began with common 1st century souls presuming they had the right to disagree with those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, as the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation.

    And if not then the NT is invalidated just as Rome invalidates those who disagree with her, but which Scripturally invalidates her claim.

  • Which is irrelevant, as what so-called church fathers – who can disagree with each other and Rome – believed is not determinative for doctrine for either me or Rome, who judges them more than they judge her, she does to Scripture as well. Only Scripture is determinative for doctrine, with the validity of Truth claims resting upon the degree of manifest Scriptural attestation, as it was for the NT church.

  • Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions, such holding that acquiring spiritual and eternal life requires literally eating human flesh and blood, which is a form of endocannibalism which the Scripture nowhere teaches.

    Instead of obtaining life in them via literally eating anything physical, spiritual and eternal were always obtained by believing the gospel message, and then “living by” the Lord by living in accordance with His word, as the Lord taught, (Mt. 4:4) quoting Scripture.

    And which was the Lord’s “meat,” (Jn. 4:34) which He taught believers life by Him in Jn. 6:57 – “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (John 6:57) – which was not by eating the Father’s flesh.

    For feeding the flesh gains nothing spiritually, but His words are spirit, and life, thus one gains life by the gospel and thereby “live
    by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20)

    Thus the metaphorical only one which is consistent with Scripture,
    and the use of figurative eating and drinking, in which drinking
    water is called the blood of men and poured out as an offering to the
    Lord, and people are called “bread for Israel,” while land
    “eats” them, and enemies come to eat David, the word of God
    is also eaten. (2 Samuel 23:15-17; Num. 13:32; 14:9; Jer. 15:16 ; Ps.
    27:2; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9)

    And which is what is consistent with John itself in which the Lord is figuratively the Lamb of God, the temple of God, living water, the Light of the world, the door of the sheep, the good shepherd, the true vine, etc. (John 1:29; 2:19; 4:14; 9:5; 10:7,10; 15)

  • Propaganda, which cannot show the word for “full” in Lk. 1:28, but which is read into the text to support a doctrine of Tradition. As Akin admits in response to a question in your link:
    ——————-
    (1) does John 1:14 use kecharitomene as fully (pardon the pun) as Luke’s usage in 1:28 or does John 1:14 follow more closely to Acts 6:8 when Stephen is referred to as “full of grace and power”?

    John 1:14 says that Jesus was plErEs charitos,
    which literally means “full of grace.” (Those capital Es arepresent
    etas, so pronounce them like the e in “they”; the word is thus
    pronounced PLAY-RACE).

    Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means “one who has been graced” or “woman who has been graced” (since the gender is female). It doesn’t literally mean “full of grace,” though that is defensible as a free translation.

    Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, so again it’s literally “full of grace” and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.

    If it is the latter, (2) does that mean there really isn’t a literal “full of grace” parallel between Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 or can I find that literal parallel somewhere else in the New Testament?

    Not that I’m aware of, and I’d almost certainly be aware of it if there were.

    ———————-

  • No, as unlike a consistent RC, who requires an infallible church to assuredly know what Scripture consists of and means (thus excluding assurance from Scripture that even this premise is true without a prior acceptance of her claim), we hold, and as seen in Scripture, that truth and assurance of it can be obtained by examination of evidences.

    Thus even common people can come to assuredly recognize both men and writings of God, essentially due to their Heavenly qualities and attestation, which is how the church began. People did not follow Moses because he had a PHD, likewise John the Baptist, or believe the Law and the prophets because of Trent.

    However, the idea of souls assuredly recognizing both men and writings of God apart from an infallible magisterium is repulsive to a RC, who excludes assurance of Truth being realized apart from assent to the authority of their infallible magisterium. Otherwise it impugns upon the premise that this is needed, versus a magisterium that is not assuredly correct, but depedant upon establishing its veracity upon Scriptural substantiation.

  • No, because Christ said it was [infallible].

    And you assuredly know this because the church said He said so, and thus it remains that assurance that the Magisterium is infallible must be because the Magisterium said it was

    You are going in circles.

    You need to establish the infallibility of the church from evidences, as i would for the Divine inspiration of Scripture, but if Scripture cannot be assuredly known as being of God and correctly understood except by assent to the infallible authority of the church, then you cannot establish the authority of the church on the basis of the Scriptures.

    The Church began on the basis of Christ’s command.

    But you are appealing to the authority of Scripture in order to establish the authority of the church in order to argue that the authority of Scripture comes from the authority of the church, which is circular reasoning. I cannot even argue for the authority of Scripture based upon something that depends upon the authority of Scripture.

    You can argue for the authority of the church or Scripture based upon evidences, but that must allow that assurance of Truth can be realized apart from recognizing that authority.

    You can argue that man can first assuredly realize, based upon evidences, that a entity is a supreme source of and authority on Truth, be it man, writings or church, submission to which is necessary to realize the fulness of Truth. But this means allowing recognizing the veracity of the source apart from submission to Rome, which is contrary to the premise that discernment of both writings and men of God requires submission to Rome.

    It thus means that assent to the veracity of the source is dependent upon the evidences that are to warrant it, which disallows a favorite recourse of RCs that deals with reasons against submission to Rome based upon evidence, by asserting that Rome is right because she is the one true church of history, the very thing that needs to be proved.

    Behind all such elitism is the attitude of those who sat in the seat of Moses,

    The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)

    Yet the common people “counted John, that he was a prophet indeed,” And they sought to
    lay hold on him [CHRIST], but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken
    the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way. (Mark
    11:32; 12:12)

    Like as the widow women could attest , “to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and
    that the word of the Lord
    in thy mouth is truth,” (1 Kings 17:24) so the church began in the light of such evidences and discernment by common people of good and honest hearts, and it is only insofar as the church manifests such, having renounced
    the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling
    the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth
    commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God, (2
    Corinthians 4:2) “in all things
    approving ourselves as the ministers of God,” (2 Corinthians 6:4) can it have credibility that it is of the church of the “living God.”

    Of which apostolic standard I certainly fall short, though i do not claim to be an apostle, and the greater the claim, the greater the credentials and attestation must be, but while i honestly wish that the church of Rome was such as church (and that all that was within cried glory to God) it has become such a contrast to the NT church that is not even in the running, though not alone, sad to say

  • Argument by mere links will marginalize you, while she not does not have
    a proven unbroken succession of Peter and the 12, and fails of the
    qualifications of personal discipleship for such, (Acts 1:21,22;
    1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) and none where elected in accordance with
    the method use to replace Judas (Acts 1:26) – which prevented the
    politics usually involved in electing popes (making God to favor
    Italians).

    And which was to maintain the number of the original
    foundational twelve for the beginning of the church, thus only one was chosen, r ((Acts 1:15-25; Rv. 21:14; cf Eph. 2:20) with none being mentioned for James (Acts
    12:2)

    And instead she has elected men who, like Judas,
    were immoral men before and during their reign, and not worthy to
    even be called members. Which believers are commanded to shun, (1Cor.
    1:11) not elected as leaders (who thus would not be valid NT
    successors),

    Moreover historical research even by Cath. scholars testifies against the papacy of Rome, and the Reformation was preceded with “unbroken succession” of absences of up to 3 years and competing popes, so that

    “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three
    obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic
    lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last
    analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had
    right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of
    salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective
    form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought
    outside the institution.

    It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” p.196).
    http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

  • Guest

    The expression “full of grace” is the translation of the Greek word kecharitoméne, which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely “full of grace”, but “made full of grace”, or even “filled with grace”, which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a *perfect* participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness.

  • Guest

    The same verb, in the sense of “to bestow grace”, is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in his beloved Son (Eph 1:6), and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (cf. Redemptoris Mater, n. 10).

  • Guest

    In Luke 1:28, the Blessed Virgin Mary is referred to as κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitoméne)
    In John 1:14, the incarnate Logos is referred to as πλήρης χάριτος (pléres cháritos)

    It would be better to translate the Lord’s “full of grace” as “the fullness of grace”, since He – being God – is “Grace Itself.”

    The Virgin’s “full of grace” is more like “filled with grace (by God).”

    Grammatically it’s a passive (meaning that the action was done to, not by, the referent) present perfect (meaning that the action took place in the past, but the effects of that action still remain) feminine singular nominative/vocative (in the feminine they’re identical) participle, or verbal adjective, that can be used as a noun.

    “You (fem.)-who-have-been-graced-in-the-past-and-upon-whom-the-effects-of-your-having-been-graced-still-remain.”

    “Full of grace” or “filled with grace” is the exact translation of “pleres charitos”. “Kecharitomene” is nearly untranslatable, and even “full of grace” falls short of the power of the word, much less “highly favoured.” The problem is with the perfect tense of the participle, combined with the fact that it is a vocative. English cannot capture the precision of the Greek without plenty of awkward phrasing.

  • Guest

    The context is Jesus’ discourse in John chapter 6. You don’t get to jump around out of context and mix meanings. In some contexts, Christ spoke symbolically, in others literally. Christ is talking about something in a totally different context in John 4. Stick to this context.

    “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions, such holding that acquiring spiritual and eternal life requires literally eating human flesh and blood, which is a form of endocannibalism which the Scripture nowhere teaches.”
    You are like the Jews that didn’t believe and walked away. Christ wasn’t talking about cannibalism and neither is the Catholic Church. Cannibalism is eating dead flesh. Christ was talking about eating and drinking his risen, glorified body and blood, which is very much alive.

    http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-holy-communion-real-or-symbolic.html

    “Some will zero in on this passage: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.” (John 6:63-64) They use this as some kind of “proof text” to disprove the entire sixth chapter of John, saying that when Jesus said his words were “spirit” he intended that to mean “symbolic.” Thus, they contend, Jesus never intended his words in this chapter to be taken literally. However, in saying this, they’ve made a critical error. The word “spirit” does not mean “symbolic.” Is the Holy Spirit just symbolic? Are spiritual beings, like angles are demons, merely symbolic? They’re spiritual. If spiritual means symbolic then we have some very serious theological problems. Obviously, “spiritual” does not mean symbolic. Rather it means the exact opposite. It means “real,” but it is a “higher reality” (more real than the natural world) which cannot be easily perceived with the natural senses. We believe the Holy Spirit is real, even though we cannot usually perceive Him with our natural senses — because He is Spirit (higher reality). We believe angels and demons are real, even though we cannot usually perceive them with our natural senses — because they are spirit (higher reality). We believe we ourselves have immortal souls, even though we cannot perceive or measure them, because they are spirit (higher reality). So Jesus Christ told his disciples the same thing. The words he spoke were spirit (higher reality) and he was explaining to them the mystery and miracle of the transubstantiation in Holy Communion. What he said was real, not at all symbolic, but rather the exact opposite of symbolic (spirit) which is a higher reality than what we can usually perceive through our natural senses. To use this passage as some kind of “proof text” that Jesus didn’t really mean what he said, is to do two things. First, it imposes on the text a meaning for the word “spirit” that is not accurate, which creates all sorts of theological problems. Second, it uses a single verse to effectively negate an entire chapter. It’s as if to say, Jesus created an allegory that didn’t work, and then he said “just kidding” at the end. If we interpret the word “spirit” as symbolic, we have some serious problems as Christians. However, if we interpret the word “spirit” as higher reality, which is what it really means (indeed what it has always meant), then we fall back to a literal interpretation of what Jesus said. Again, this appears to be exactly what Jesus intended, because many of his disciples interpreted it literally, leaving him because of it, and he let them go.”

  • GeneDe

    There you go with that word “assertions” again, and again, and again. And yet, as a Protestant, you simply cannot accept the FACT of Tradition AND the historical FACT that it was/is the Catholic Church that codified and canonized what books of the Bible were authentic and those that were not. BUT! you think you will win arguments using that very same Bible that the Catholic Church GAVE the WORLD. To you it must seem that the Faith that Christ gave to us somehow was in limbo until Luther and his ilk “found” the real faith — somehow???? So, for 1,500 years! all those who lived and died in the Catholic Faith were just stupid fools for following Church teachings: scripture and tradition. Wow! Luther, after all, was a Catholic priest until he “discovered” the real faith of Christ! And wow again! I’m so stupid too! Boy, now all I have to do is to read a book and I’ll be saved! That’s easy as pie! Oh, you still didn’t answer how the true faith was passed on from the time of Abraham to Moses — WHEN THERE WERE NO SCRIPTURES. That’s a period of 500 years!!!! Oh, I forgot, I answered that for you: by TRADITION. You bore me. Just got home and I’m tired.

  • Guest

    If I appear to be going in circles, it’s only because I’m trying to keep up with your illogical spiral reasoning. The history is clearly there. I challenge whoever bothers to actually read all the way down to the end here, to do an honest thorough historical research of the early Church and what early Christians actually believed and practised. The archaeological evidence is clearly there in the catacombs as well as above ground – evidence that the early Christians celibrated the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    I’m shaking the proverbial dust off my feet now. Prayers and best wishes.

  • You really should provide attribution (http://catholicism.org/protestants-need-to-convert.html#comment-16509504850 for your verbatim cut and paste technical polemic (not merely ideas or reiteration).

    One of your apologist only recommended “if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters…Don’t hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there.

    If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out- I don’t see any problem, as long as you’re doing it in private correspondence.” http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2008/02/26/apologetics-for-the-masses/

    That aside, here i will just paste some of a reply by White (hold your invectives) to this polemic as employed by Keating:

    Note that Keating alleges that the “Greek indicates a perfection of grace.” He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek “indicates a perfection of grace.”

    First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something *is* (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…”), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (“For we know, brothers loved by God…”), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord…”) emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34,..

    Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary “must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way,” he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid.

    More at link

    I can also provide other debates, but it remains that God knows how to clearly say “full of grace,” (Jn. 1:14) but did not in Lk. 1:28.

  • Well I see Catholic answers has supplied you with three more opinions you can verbatim paste as you own, except that you changed two questions from the first post into assertions.

    However, while “Full of grace” or “filled with grace” is the exact translation of “pleres charitos,” it only occurs in Jn. 1:14 (though Stephen in Acts 6:8, in some mss) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, “full (“plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth.” (Jn.
    1:14) It remaains the reason “plērēs” is not used in Lk.
    1:28 is because plērēs actually does denote “full”
    17 other places in the NT., and thus it is used of the one who was/is
    unmistakably full of grace and Truth.

    Thus you rely in Kecharitomene” being nearly untranslatable, in order to support it saying what it does not, while making every believer “full of grace” as a result of your below post.

    Nor does that Mary was graced already mean she was sinless, but because “the Lord is with thee,” as said to Gideon and David. (Judges 6:12; 2Sam. 7:3)

  • See above.

  • The context is Jesus’ discourse in John chapter 6. You don’t get to jump around out of context and mix meanings.

    What? Who taught you sound principles of Biblical exegesis? You do not simply look at the immediate context, but to see how a concept and language is used, as well as a doctrine, you look at all of Scripture.

    In so doing it remains that the metaphorical is the only one which is consistent with Scripture, and the use of figurative eating and drinking, in which drinkingwater is called the blood of men and poured out as an offering to the Lord, and people are called “bread for Israel,” while land
    “eats” them, and enemies come to eat David, the word of God
    is also eaten. (2 Samuel 23:15-17; Num. 13:32; 14:9; Jer. 15:16 ; Ps.
    27:2; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9)

    And which is what is consistent with John itself in which the Lord is
    figuratively the Lamb of God, the temple of God, living water, the Light
    of the world, the door of the sheep, the good shepherd, the true vine,
    etc. (John 1:29; 2:19; 4:14; 9:5; 10:7,10; 15)

    As for your cut and paste polemic, learn to use paragraphs and shoter excerpts if possible if you want responses.

  • Guest

    Last reply to you.
    Anything written in the Bible can be watered down and stripped of its meaning, as Protestants and others have tried to do to the Immaculate Conception, the Eucharist, and many other doctrines. That’s what happens when you don’t have the Holy Spirit working through Magisterial teaching to guide you. If there’s no living Apostolic authority (the Catholic Church) to say “This means this,” then you’ll come up with whatever you want (as Protestants do). Christ’s Church is the pillar and ground of Truth, not the pillar and ground of many opinions.
    The fact that the Blessed Virgn Mary was filled completely with grace by God (kept free from all sin from the moment of her conception), and is the Ark of the New Covenant, is something that the early Church Fathers believed.

    http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

    There’s Church tradition and history for you.

    As for the “full of grace” in Greek, I stand by the quotes I found earlier:

    “You (fem.)-who-have-been-graced-in-the-past-and-upon-whom-the-effects-of-your-having-been-graced-still-remain.”
    “Full of grace” or “filled with grace” is the exact translation of “pleres charitos”. “Kecharitomene” is nearly untranslatable, and even “full of grace” falls short of the power of the word, much less “highly favoured.” The problem is with the perfect tense of the participle, combined with the fact that it is a vocative. English cannot capture the precision of the Greek without plenty of awkward phrasing.”
    Even if the Greek translation technically doesn’t explicitlly say “full” in English (depending on which scholar is doing the translating – that’s another thing), it certainly doesn’t disprove it. In fact, when you take into consideration the fact that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, as Church fathers attest to, then Her Immaculate Conception only makes sense.
    We could go back and forth about the Greek, but there’s no point. Of course you won’t see the Immaculate Conception there, or any doctrine for that matter, if you’re not reading it in the light of Magisterial teaching. Unfortunately, your vision is blurred by your prejudice against the Catholic Church. I pity you. Really.

  • you simply cannot accept the FACT of Tradition AND the historical FACT that it was/is the Catholic Church that codified and canonized what books of the Bible were authentic and those that were not…So, for 1,500 years! all those who lived and died in the Catholic Faith
    were just stupid fools for following Church teachings: scripture and
    tradition.

    This is all one nonsensible rant of assertions that have already been carefully refuted. The issue was not that Rome codified and canonized books, but that providing, discerning, collecting, and preserving Divine writings – even if the church of Rome is that of the 1st century, which it manifestly is not – does not require infallibility nor make one the infallible authority on Truth. Both men and writing were established as being so long before Rome.

    Nor does this Rome’s progressive deformation mean all within her were lost, as The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit, (Psalms 34:18) who see the smoke and mirrors of institutionalized religion to find Christ as Lord and Savior, thank God.

    Nor does it mean the church ceased, as the one true church can only be the body of Christ as only it consists of 100% believers. It visible forms however, which were varied in the NT, were never wholly those of the elect or without errors for long.

    This and the 500 year period and the rest of you rant has already been responded to above, even just a day ago to you.

    You are now marginalized as a Catholic less fit to attempt a meaningful exchange with.

  • Sean

    Oh you’re a real humble Christian yourself.

  • You have utterly failed to demonstrate any illogical reasoning, while “spiral reasoning” is actually a term RC apologists desperately came up with in attempting to justify their circular reasoning, but which attempt i dealt with briefly with my response.

    o do an honest thorough historical research of the early Church

    So scholars, even Catholic ones, who do thorough historical research of the early Church but do not find the evidence claimed for the manner of papacy or other things claimed by Rome must be dishonest?

    Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-3, finds:

    That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably ‘no…”

    If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” (page 3, top)

    Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes,

    Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church…

    As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century… – Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224

    Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control…the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.

    Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds,

    With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members…With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ’emperor figure’ or supreme priest…

    [Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 – and then…Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone…

    Then you have Prot. scholars, but RCs dismiss them even quicker then Catholics ones who do not support their fantasy.

    Yet even without such it is manifest that the church of Rome suffered progressive deformation which yet requires on going reformation.

    The archaeological evidence is clearly there in the catacombs as well as above ground – evidence that the early Christians celibrated the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    But evidence of mistaken ideas of some does not constitute evidence of what was correct, which Scripture does.

  • Anything written in the Bible can be watered down and stripped of its meaning, as Protestants and others have tried to do to the Immaculate Conception, the Eucharist, and many other doctrines.

    Actually, unless one waters down Scripture as many modern Bibles does, and some of the Catholic NAB notes , the written Word of God remains the same, thus the Lord quoted it in rebuking the devil as well as substantiating His identity and mission and oral preaching.

    But when the words of inspired men, that of popes and magisterium in its various levels, become the supreme standard then obedience to them in one century can require using torture and killing to deal with those who theologically disagree (and forbid laymen from engaging in debates as this), while in another century that would be disobedience.

    Which is just one example of the many contrasts .

    And Scripture teaches that what you do and effect constitutes the evidence of what you really believe, which Rome partly shows by counting and treating known proabortion, prosodomite men and women as members in life and in death. Ask Ted Kennedy.

    By so doing the church of Rome interprets herself, and and thus when men have become the supreme authority over unchanging Scripture, then they will go to extremes on both ends.

    Moreover, those who hold most strongly to the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, testify to far greater unity in basic beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.

    The reality is that unity in Rome is very limited and largely on paper, while what RCs can disagree on is very extensive .

    That’s what happens when you don’t have the Holy Spirit working through Magisterial teaching to guide you.

    Actually, what i have documented testifies to what happens when uninspired men presume to declare they are uniquely guided by the Holy Spirit, supreme over the words He inspired.

    The fact that the Blessed Virgn Mary was filled completely with grace by God (kept free from all sin from the moment of her conception), and is the Ark of the New Covenant, is something that the early Church Fa thers believed.

    Not all did, and what matters is that Scripture does not say this, but it is just part of the unScriptural elevation of the Mary of Catholicism into a demigoddess status, versus the humble and holy Mary of Scripture, who told us to obey Jesus, and which includes not adding to His words, as Catholics effectively do especially in this. Who in so many things are made to parallel Christ.

    Humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess to whom “Jesus owes His Precious Blood” to,

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

    who “had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,”

    even so that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,”

    for indeed saints have “but one advocate,” and that is Mary, who “alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,”

    and whose power now “is all but unlimited,”

    for indeed she “seems to have the same power as God,”

    “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,”

    so that “the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse.”

    Moreover, “there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,”

    and who has “authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,”

    including “assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,”

    whom the good angels “unceasingly call out to,” greeting her “countless times each day with ‘Hail, Mary,’ while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,”

    and who (obviously) cannot “be honored to excess,”

    and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose “honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation.” Sources .

    As for the “full of grace” in Greek, I stand by the quotes I found earlier:

    Repetition will not make it true.

    it certainly doesn’t disprove it.

    Which is where this ends up, that of an argument from silence, which is not the basis for a doctrine. Scripture does not disprove that there will be Golden Retrievers in Heaven who can talk, but that does not warrant making it doctrine that they will.

    Meanwhile, Scripture is contrary to Mary being bodily assumed and crowned and prayed to.

    one would have a hard time in Bible times
    explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it
    represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and
    glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help,
    directly accessed by mental prayer.

    Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia,
    not adoring her. Can’t you tell the difference?

    course you won’t see the Immaculate Conception there, or any
    doctrine for that matter, if you’re not reading it in the light of
    Magisterial teaching. Unfortunately, your vision is blurred by your
    prejudice against the Catholic Church. I pity you. Really.

    Thus
    we are back to the basic premise of RC apologetics, that one cannot
    correctly discern Truth apart from submission to Rome as infallible,
    which thus requires submission to Rome in order be sure one should
    submit to Rome.

    Yet it remains that both writings and
    men of God were correctly judged as being so without Rome and an
    infallible magisterium, and evangelicals have historically affirmed and
    contended for many doctrines Rome holds to, because they were manifestly Scriptural, while her traditions of men were not. The Lord did
    likewise. (Mk. 7:2-16) Glory to God.

  • James

    So I read all your responses to GeneDe and I didn’t see where you answered his question: How was the true faith passed on from the time of Abraham to Moses – a period of 500 years – when there were no scriptures? (paraphrase)

    Could you spell out your answer in plain English please? Thanks.

  • GeneDe

    THANKS FOR THE COMPLIMENT… BUT IT SEEMS THAT YOU JUST CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT IT WAS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT GAVE THE WORLD THE AUTHENTIC BOOKS OF THE BIBLE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE THAT WERE NOT AUTHENTIC, DESPITE ALL YOUR MANEUVERINGS. HOWEVER, I STILL INVITE YOU TO COME INTO THE ONE, TRUE CHURCH THAT CHRIST FOUNDED FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS, OUTSIDE OF WITCH THERE IS NO HOLINESS, REMISSION OF SIN, NOR SALVATION. YOU CAN ARGUE THE SCRIPTURES WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT PROBABLY CAN MAKE ME LOOK SICK, BUT SATAN ALSO KNOWS THE SCRIPTURES BY HEART, YET HE IS DAMNED. YOU CANNOT BE “SAVED” BY A BOOK, ONLY FROM HIS CHURCH. SO SAYS A “MARGINALIZED” CATHOLIC LESS FIT TO ATTEMPT A MEANINGFUL EXCHANGE WITH. AGAIN, THANKS FOR THE COMPLIMENT.

  • So somehow you missed the link in the very post you are responding to?

    “The faith was passed on by God supernaturally attesting to men such as
    Abraham and Moses, with the latter providing the word of God in written
    form. And as written, it because the transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . And with further complementary writings being added in conflation with it.”

    Thus there is no problem with a 500 year period, as my claim was not that Scripture was always the supreme standard but that it became so. Before that there was no nation, and no “holy nation” and corporate covenant, and known universal standard of laws, but God supernaturally attested to the faith of certain individuals. Thereby
    Moses was manifestly affirmed by God as His
    spokesmen, and thus the incomparable Law.

    The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

    While basic faith could be passed on by example and oral tradition, and can provide the truths of the Law, its very amorphous form is supremely subject to undetectable corruption, and is not conducive for setting forth an extensive code of conduct for a nation.

    But as the word was written, it became the supreme standard for obedience and Truth, which oral teaching expounded and was drawn from and established by, as is abundantly evidenced.

    The supernatural certainly has a place in this, especially for those who are ignorant of the word of God. (Rm. 15:19) But as the devil can do miracles, it is the written word that is the supreme standard as the only distinct class of transmission that is wholly inspired word of God.

    Rome even admits the transmission of her tradition is not wholly inspired of God as Scripture is, which alone has God as its very author.

    And as said, the NT church began with common people recognizing (what the magisterium considered) itinerant preachers as being from God, who established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured veracity, which is argued for under the premise that it is essential to discern what is of God and its meaning, and cannot be wrong.

  • James

    Well, I asked for a simple plain English answer and you gave me the run around too. Not surprised. Is the word “Tradition” too much to write?
    Now I have my own question for you. How were the first Christians evangelized and converted – for about 20 years – from Pentecost until the first new testament document was written?

  • Resorting to shouting and more refuted arguments by assertion simply testifies to the specious nature of your faith in Rome, which is your security. Bye.

  • Rather than a run around, my answer is the reality which you cannot refute, or perhaps comprehend.

    Complaining about the lack of the term “tradition” will not do, as not only is “oral tradition” that mentioned, that term is ambiguous without a definition. Do you even know where it begins and ends, or is an amorphous class of transmission out of which doctrine is channeled by Rom, though even then her words of that transmission are not wholly inspired of God?

    Having no refutation for my answer, you simply move onto your next parroted polemic, which imagines that since oral preaching preceded the writing of the NT means that Scripture is not the supreme standard for Truth and obedience.

    However, the answer has already been shown and is basically the same as how faith was transmitted for the Law, except that the oral preaching of the gospel and attendant Truths was established upon Scriptural substantiation, as exampled.

    It was not all oral transmission/ tradition that was said to be wholly inspired, or invoked for authority, but what was written, with oral preaching being established upon Scriptural substantiation. Or preaching of Truth is not contrary to the supremacy of Scripture or it sufficiency as it materially provides for it, but making it equal, and based upon an infallible magisterium being supreme (thus it only is and means what the mag. says), is what is foreign to the Scriptures.

    But he answered and said, It is written , Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

    Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures , nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)

    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 Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures , (Acts 17:2)

    For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)

    And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)

    Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures ,) (Romans 1:1-2)

    In addition to which was virtue and unmistakable supernatural attestation by which God confirmed the Word, (Jn. 14:11 Mk. 16:20; Rm. 15:19) as

    Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

    But which themselves are judged as valid evidences in the light of Scripture, which, like men of God, was recognized as being so due to its heavenly qualities and attestation.

    Which is your problem, as RCs reject private judgment as a basis for determination and assurance of Truth, insisting the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome is essential for this, yet both men and writings of God we recognized and established as being so long before a church of Rome would presume it was necessary for this. And arguing that historical descent and instrumentality testifies to and requires assured infallibility.

    Yet the very church Rome claims to be began with common people being in dissent from those who are actually affirmed to sit in the seat f Moses over the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation.

    This is contrary to what RCs have been taught, that the one duty of a faithful RC is to “simply follow the pastors,” and “not to know more than is necessary…”, and not to examine the evidences in order to ascertain the veracity of official RC doctrine.

  • James

    Not sure where you’re getting the last paragraph from but that’s not what I was taught. The majority of early Church fathers, whose writings we still have, plainly show that the true Church was/is Roman Catholic. Why should I believe you and your scholars over the Church fathers? They were much closer to the time of Christ and knew the scriptures and tradition much better. I noticed your conversation with Guest about Mary full of grace. St. Jerome, the Greek/Latin/Hebrew scholar and early Church father, translated “kecharitomene” into the Latin Vulgate as “gratia plena” (full of grace). Do you think your modern scholars know his ancient languages better than he did?

  • GeneDe

    Shouting? Well, in any event, I still invite you to come into the one, true Church that Our Lord founded for the salvation of souls — yours too.

  • Peace By JESUS GeneDe • 7 months ago

    I think the first question I would ask you is, what is the basis for your assurance of truth?

    The Word of God passed down by Jesus Christ in the deposit of faith which He entrusted to the Church.

    For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)

    That is correct. Scripture explicitly states that the Church is the instrument by which God conveys His word and wisdom to the world:

    Ephesians 3:10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

    1 Timothy 3:15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    As confirmed in Scripture. Since the Catholic Church continues to hold to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as admonished by the Apostle, so to do:

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

    Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

    Again, very true and in conformity with the Word of God in Scripture which says that the Church represents God:

    2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

    Therefore, anyone who rebels against the Church, rebels against the Church which He sent:

    Luke 10:16

    He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

    Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ??

    That fairly presents the Catholic and Scriptural Teaching. Thank you.

  • The Word of God passed down by Jesus Christ in the deposit of faith which He entrusted to the Church.

    Which is also a superficial non-answer to the basis for assurance of Truth, as it ignores the problem of how you know that what Rome calls the word of God is just that.

    To be consistent you must mean your basis for Truth is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, as an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to know what the word of God is

    an assuredly (if conditionall y) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth

    That is correct. Scripture explicitly states that the Church is the instrument by which God conveys His word and wisdom to the world:

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    As confirmed in Scripture. Since the Catholic Church continues to hold to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as admonished by the Apostle, so to do:

    Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    But 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.)

    Thus under your basis for assurance of Truth, and its presuppositions, De Maria has nuked the NT church and replaced it with a false one.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

    True, but what the apostles preached was not established as being of God on the Roman basis of assured veracity, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, “not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth
    commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

    But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,..By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4,7)

    Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

    Again, very true and in conformity with the Word of God in Scripture which says that the Church represents God:

    Likewise those who sat in the seat of Moses, thus to be consistent, 1st. c. souls should have submitted to themas to Rome under your model. But while we both affirm the magisterial office, never did that mean perpetual magisterial infallibility.

    And under which presumption her claim not to contradict Scripture is spurious, as that is according to her autocratic judgment.

    Therefore, anyone who rebels against the Church, rebels against the Church which He sent:

    But this presumes the magisterium is infallible, which is a novelty unknown and unnecessary in Scripture. Instead, while rebellion against magisterial authority could even mean death, (Dt. 17:8-13) God often provided and preserved Truth by raising up men from without the magisterium. And thus the church also began and has been preserved.

    T hat fairly presents the Catholic and Scriptural Teaching. Thank you.

    Rather, what you do represent is not Scriptural Teaching. Until you can admit that wha you affirms is wrong, that an infallible magisterium is NOT essential for valid assurance of Truth and to
    fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and
    preservation of faith;

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine
    revelation (oral and written) does NOT means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, and instead concur that the church began by establishing its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, under OT Scripture being supreme, then do not bother taking up more time with more propaganda as you do elsewhere.

  • James

    How do you know which books of the Bible are inspired?

  • Which is also a superficial non-answer to the basis for assurance of Truth,

    According to you. But I can ask you the same question. What is the basis for your assurance of Truth?

    as it ignores the problem of how you know that what Rome calls the word of God is just that.

    No it doesn’t. You didn’t ask that question, therefore I answered what was asked.

    The reason I know that what the Catholic Church calls the Word of God is the Word of God is manifold.

    1. The witness of the Church Fathers, through the centuries

    2. The witness of the Liturgies of the Church, through the centuries.

    3. The witness of documents of the Church, through the centuries.

    4. The witness of secular history.

    Notice that I am not even including the witness of Scripture and Sacred Tradition because they are both the Word of God. However, they both witness, one for the other. And the Magisterium of the Church, witnesses for both.

    To be consistent you must mean your basis for Truth is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, as an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to know what the word of God is

    I never denied that I believe the Catholic Church is infallible. But that is not my only reason that I believe that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up the Word of God passed down by Jesus Christ through the Church. And you didn’t ask that question either.

    Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    That was the Old Testament. But Jesus came along, established the Catholic Church, commanded the Catholic Church to Teach His commands through all generations and fulfilled the Old Testament.

    The Catholic Church then wrote the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

    But instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected,

    Whom the Jews rejected. Let’s be clear on that point. The magisterium of the Jews rejected Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ established a new Magisterium.

    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.)

    Jesus Christ did not place the Scriptures above His Word:

    Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    Jesus Christ established His Traditions and commanded the Church to Teach (Matt 28:19-20). He never mentioned putting anything in writing nor handing out Bibles.

    Thus under your basis for assurance of Truth, and its presuppositions, De Maria has nuked the NT church and replaced it with a false one.

    On the contrary, the Catholic Church is the one which Jesus Christ established and this is proven by Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, secular history, the writings of the Fathers and more.

    True, but what the apostles preached was not established as being of God on the Roman basis of assured veracity, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, “not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

    But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,..By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4,7)

    That is a false dichotomy since the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. That verse which you are quoting was written by a Catholic. And here’s how I’ll prove it. You believe the Catholic Doctrine that men are mediators of God’s word to be a blasphemous teaching. You also deny that any man can represent God. But 2 Corinthians was written by a Catholic who has no such objections:

    2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

    Likewise those who sat in the seat of Moses, thus to be consistent, 1st. c. souls should have submitted to themas to Rome under your model. But while we both affirm the magisterial office, never did that mean perpetual magisterial infallibility.

    So you say, but I follow the Scripture:

    Ephesians 3:10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

    If the Church is teaching the wisdom of God in eternity, then that speaks of perpetual magisterial infallibility. Eternal-perpetual, Teaching-magisterial, Wisdom of God-infallible.

    And under which presumption her claim not to contradict Scripture is spurious, as that is according to her autocratic judgment.

    Again, that is your biased judgement. But the Scripture tells us plainly that the Church upholds the Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that we learn the Word of God from our rulers in the Church (Heb 13:7).

    But this presumes the magisterium is infallible, which is a novelty unknown and unnecessary in Scripture. Instead, while rebellion against magisterial authority could even mean death, (Dt. 17:8-13) God often provided and preserved Truth by raising up men from without the magisterium. And thus the church also began and has been preserved.

    Jesus Christ introduced many New things in the New Testament. In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit leads Christ’s Church into all truth:

    John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

    Therefore, the Catholic Church is infallible.

    Rather, what you do represent is not Scriptural Teaching. Until you can admit that wha you affirms is wrong, that an infallible magisterium is NOT essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and
    preservation of faith;

    It is you who are wrong. Scripture is clear that Jesus Christ established an infallible Church.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) does NOT means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium,

    Yes, it does.

    and instead concur that the church began by establishing its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power,

    Scripture itself records that this is not true. The New Testament shows Jesus establishing a Church and commanding that Church to pass on His Teaching. He didn’t write a word of Scripture.

    under OT Scripture being supreme,

    Jesus Christ did not place the OT above His Word which He passed on in Sacred Tradition.

    then do not bother taking up more time with more propaganda as you do elsewhere.

    Lol! You have been raised up for one purpose, that Catholics may show your heresies to the world and more people may come to God’s Church. I pray that you may be amongst them.

  • Already answered. Read my replies . In short, how did souls know that the multitude of OT books upon which the church established its Truth claims upon were inspired?

    Is an infallible magisterium necessary for that?

  • James

    Yes, otherwise people have to decide for themselves…like you do.

  • According to you.

    No, saying it is the word of God does not answer how you ascertain that it is the word of God.

    But I can ask you the same question. What is the basis for your assurance of Truth?

    That was already stated, which is the means by which souls ascertained that writings and men were of God before there was a church of Rome which presumed an infallible magisterium was essential for this.

    as it ignores the problem of how you know that what Rome calls the word of God is just that.

    No it doesn’t. You didn’t ask that question, therefore I answered what was asked.

    Of course it ignores that problem, and the question. A Mormon could say the same thing. How can you fail to see that?

    The reason I know that what the Catholic Church calls the Word of God is the Word of God is manifold.

    The witness of the Church Fathers,..The witness of the Liturgies of the Church,.. The witness of documents of the Church…The witness of secular history

    Basically historical evidence, but which actually provides a RC with warrant to submit to Rome as the basis for assurance of what is of God. The RC position is that people have to be told what the contents of revelation is by the infallible magisterium.

    “..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of
    his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the
    intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading.”
    Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium;

    And see further below.

    Notice that I am not even including the witness of Scripture and Sacred Tradition because they are both the Word of God.

    As a RC you only have assurance that these are the word of God based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, which presumes the very thing you need to prove. Note also that the teaching of Sacred Tradition as set forth by Rome is not wholly inspired of God as Scripture is, nor are infallible decrees.

    I never denied that I believe the Catholic Church is infallible. But that is not my only reason that I believe that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up the Word of God..And you didn’t ask that question either.

    De, either your examination of evidences provides assurance of what is of God, which means you do not need an infallible magisterium for that, or the former means only provides some warrant for a step of faith in the assured veracity of the latter, which is your real basis for assurance of Truth.

    To be consistent with RC censure of evangelicals who find warrant for trusting Scripture as the word of God, and obtain assurance of Truth in the light of Scriptural substantiation, and thus deny Rome as possessing assured veracity, then you can only affirm that historical evidences provides you with warrant for submitting to Rome, whose assured veracity is your basis for assurance of Truth.

    For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare 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.

    Thus the recourse of no less a ultramontanist papist as Manning when faced with contrary historical evidences to RC propaganda (which even Catholic scholarship provides )

    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. Its
    past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is
    immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of
    ourselves….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, Lord Archbishop of
    Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason
    and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally
    written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228)

    And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth

    …the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” – VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical
    of Pope Pius X. As RC writers have exhorted,

    …having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. – HenryG. Graham, “What Faith Really Means”, (Nihil Obstat:C.SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914);

    Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation,

    That was the Old Testament. But Jesus came along, established the Catholic Church, commanded the Catholic Church to Teach His commands through all generations and fulfilled the Old Testament.

    That is absurd, as it ignores the basis upon which the church began. What you have done is appealed to historical testimony as substantiating the authority of the magisterium, which authority Scripture itself testifies that the Jewish magisterium had, being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, and then you dismiss it in preference to one which began with One who was (in the eyes of those who sat in the seat of Moses) an itinerant preacher whom the historically valid magisterium rejected.

    Again, under the Roman model, upon what basis should 1st century souls have followed itinerant preachers and a new sect they began, if not by the evangelical basis of Scriptural substantiation?

    Jesus Christ did not place the Scriptures above His Word:

    In His case they were always the same, but while men and writings of God are what they are regardless of what men think, it is abundantly manifest hat the Lord appealed to the written word in establishing His Truth claims to men.

    Jesus Christ established His Traditions and commanded the Church to Teach (Matt 28:19-20). He never mentioned putting anything in writing nor handing out Bibles.

    Which also is an absurd argument against Scripture being supreme, as the Lord and the very church He began established its Truth claims upon what was written, and was a fulfillment of it, and the Gentile church was grafted into its vine.

    And unless you deny that promise of Christ that He would send His Spirit to provide His word, then it is abundantly clear that the Lord spoke of writing His word so that souls could be saved and grow in grace.

    But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

    Thus under your basis for assurance of Truth, and its presuppositions, De Maria has nuked the NT church and replaced it with a false one.

    On the contrary, the Catholic Church is the one which Jesus Christ established and this is proven by Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, secular history, the writings of the Fathers and more.

    More absurd argumentation, as it assumes the very thing that must be proved. You have already affirmed that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, and recipient of Divine promises of God’s guidance, etc. means such is that infallible magisterium.

    But you reject the one that had this in preference to one which they rejected, which under the Roman model the people should have!

    what the apostles preached was not established as being of God on the Roman basis of assured veracity, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power,

    That is a false dichotomy since the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. That verse which you are quoting was written by a Catholic.

    That circularity presumes the very thing that needs to be proved, that they were Catholic and thus that Romish assured veracity and scriptural substantiation is one and the same, which it is not, nor is the latter the basis for RC assurance, lest they be as evangelicals.

    “…in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by
    History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of
    that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate
    exponent.” – John Henry Newman, “A Letter
    Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s
    Recent Expostulation.”

    Likewise those who sat in the seat of Moses, thus to be consistent, 1st. c. souls should have submitted to themas to Rome under your model.

    So you say, but I follow the Scripture: Ephesians 3:10..If the Church is teaching the wisdom of God in eternity, then that speaks of perpetual magisterial infallibility.

    No you do not follow the Scripture, but as abundantly exposed on debates with you on another forum, you continually abuse Scripture as a servant which is compelled to support Rome!

    And in which you tried this text as well, but as said, contextually this is not even speaking of the magisterium teaching doctrine, but of God revealing the manifold wisdom of God by making the Gentiles
    fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his
    promise in Christ by the gospel. (Ephesians 3:6)

    Moreover, Israel was also an instrument and steward of doctrinal revelation, “because that unto them were committed the oracles of God,” and had the seat of Moses, but nowhere did conveying, teaching and preserving God’s Truth require an infallible magisterium. And in fact, as said, God often raised up men from without the magisterium do so.Thus the church began upon prophets and apostles, both of which acted in dissent from those who actually sat in the seat of Moses.

    But Rome as like them, arrogantly assuming historical descent as the instruments of God excludes any dissent from validity, and demanding of such that did in the light of Scripture, , And say unto him, By
    what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority
    to do these things? (Mark 11:28) Have any of the
    rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth
    not the law are cursed. (John 7:48-49)

    And under which presumption her claim not to contradict Scripture is spurious, as that is according to her autocratic judgment.

    Again, that is your biased judgement. But the Scripture tells us plainly that the Church upholds the Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that we learn the Word of God from our rulers in the Church (Heb 13:7).

    But which is Rome’s biased judgement, which presumes Rome uniquely is that church, while in reality it refers to the body of Christ. And as with even laying claim to “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises,” and being the corporate instrument of providing the Messiah, (Rm. 9:4,5) being the entity that upholds and teaches the Truth does not translate into nor require perpetual magisterial infallibility, under which Rome declares she is the one true infallible church!

    But this presumes the magisterium is infallible, which is a novelty unknown and unnecessary in Scripture….

    Jesus Christ introduced many New things in the New Testament. In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit leads Christ’s Church into all truth: John 16:13…Therefore, the Catholic Church is infallible.

    Which process is not new nor does it require or promise perpetual magisterial infallibility. God has been progressively revealing Truth for eons, and which will not cease until His return, with the perfect revelation of Christ comes.

    For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

    Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

    The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

    It is you who are wrong. Scripture is clear that Jesus Christ established an infallible Church.

    A mere argument by assertion. Absolutely none of your attempts and assertions support perpetual magisterial infallibility, while the premise that this is necessary for believer to believe in the Bible and find in it the object of his faith is false, as is that being the historical instruments, teachers and stewards of Divine revelation means such is infallible, and which effectively nukes the NT church, which you foolishly indeed did. To your own damnation.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) does NOT means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium,

    Yes, it does.

    Then the 1st. c. souls should have submitted to those that were, and thus you again have affirmed NT church as being invalid. Pure and simple.

    and instead concur that the church began by establishing its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power,

    Scripture itself records that this is not true. The New Testament shows Jesus establishing a Church and commanding that Church to pass on His Teaching. He didn’t write a word of Scripture.

    What? How is it that you cannot see the NT church did not begin like some eastern cult, but began with a foundation, with its officially rejected leader and disciples establishing its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation? But as with those who rejected this evidence, RCs as yourself who reject this basis, are as the blind leading the blind.

    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. (Luke 24:44)

    For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)

    Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2)

    By the word of truth,
    by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand
    and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:7)

    But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:26)

    Jesus Christ did not place the OT above His Word which He passed on in Sacred Tradition.

    He did indeed reprove tradition under the premise of Scripture being supreme, while as said, although the Lord’s words oral alone were always the word of God, yet He clearly established them as being so, and His own claims to authority upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

    Lol! You have been raised up for one purpose, that Catholics may

    see the fallacious nature of RC claims, and especially your poor and spurious attempts to defend them.

    Until you can admit that your reasoning has effectively invalidated the NT church then you must remain among RCs who are not fit for dialogue.

    Bye.

  • James

    So the 2000 year old Church is wrong about the Bible, but you’re right?

  • One some things, that should be manifestly evident.

    Why is that possibility excluded when in Scripture God often raised up men to correct leadership and help provide and preserve faith, and perpetual magisterial infallibility was never promised or essential?

    Or do you also hold that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

  • James

    You really think you know better than 2000 years of Church fathers? You’re crazy…like Luther was. You’re following a man-made religion. Your bible-only beliefs were made up by men over a thousand years after Christ. Nobody in history believed what you believed for over a thousand years.
    “God often raised up men to correct leadership and help provide and preserve faith”
    Sounds like Catholic saints to me.

    And yes to your second question.

  • You really think you know better than 2000 years of Church fathers? You’re crazy.

    This is a fallacious argument as,

    1. Mere antiquity does not equate to veracity. The Jews have their tradition also. Read the Babylonian Talmud and see what nonsense that contains.

    2. RC doctrine itself is not determined by what CFs (so-called “church fathers”), but by what Rome autocratically judges is really from antiquity and its meaning, regardless of what the evidence shows:

    “It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion,…Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings-she judges them more than she is judged by them.” – Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium”

    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, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost:

    3. Under her autocratic judgment, The term unanimous consent ” of the Fathers” does not does not mean actual unanimous consent, which often does not exist.

    4. It is estimated that what is available to us is only a small portion of the what the early CFs wrote, nor is there even an infallible list of who all the church fathers consist of.

    5. It is possible to be in error on many things, yet still have a poor and contrite heart that God saves (Ps. 34:18) by faith in the sinless shed blood of the Divine Son of God.

    6. The fundamental basis for the veracity of RC teaching is not the weight of Scriptural substantiation, upon which the church began, but the premise of perpetual assured magisterial infallibility and veracity, which is a novelty unknown and unnecessary in Scripture,

    7. We see in Scripture that it was what is Scripture that judges the “tradition of the elders.” (Mk. 7:2-16)

    Nobody in history believed what you believed for over a thousand years.

    Wrong, as instead it is easily seen that,

    A. No church in Scripture manifestly held to many things the church of Rome came to hold.

    B. Many ECFs are seen providing support for distinctive Reformation teachings.

    C. Even the tradition-based EOs substantially disagree on what the ECFS taught, “The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” – .” Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135;

    D. What one really believes is not that which is merely on paper, which is what the faith of Rome mostly belongs to, but in what one does and in effects. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18: “I will shew thee my faith by my works.”) Which with Rome includes treating even public pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, pro-Muslim figures as members in life and in death, and fostering liberals as her majority (at least in the West).

    E. Evangelicals have been ardent defenders of Scriptural Truths we both agree on, and are much more unified in care Biblical values and beliefs than those whom Rome treats as member in life and in death.

    “God often raised up men to correct leadership and help provide and preserve faith” Sounds like Catholic saints to me.

    What something sounds or looks like to a defender of Rome is abundantly shown to be what they desire, not what the evidence reveals.

    And the reality is that under the Roman model first century souls should have submitted to the historical magisterium rather than the dissenters whom God raised up to correct them and provide Truth and preserve faith.

    Or do you also hold that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

    And yes to your second question.

    Then you join DM and others who have effectively invalidated the NT church, as 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. 3:2) 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; 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.)

    But like those who sat in the seat of Moses, Rome has presumed of herself above that which s written, and rejected those whom God raised up to preserved faith, and thus division became necessary, and by which the kingdom of God has been greatly increased. Thanks be to God.

  • James

    I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you had authority to say what Scripture means, and Rome doesn’t.
    So you know better than St. Ignatius of Antioch, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who wrote about the Eucharist? You know better than the other Church fathers (like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, Cyril etc.), long before Constantine came around, who wrote about apostolic succession and tradition, and the authority of Rome?
    You writing is very sophisticated, but you’re not fooling anybody here.
    If I was a non-Catholic, and I taught my own opinion of what the Bible means, I don’t think you’d care. But if the 2000 year old Catholic Church says something, watch out!

  • I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you had authority to say what Scripture means, and Rome doesn’t.

    You are confusing authority with assured veracity. The Biblical OT magisterium had power to even require the death penalty in certain cases of dissent, (Dt. 17:8-13) as do civil authorities, (Rm. 13:1-7) but which does not equate to assuredly correct judgment. (Mk. 11:27-33)

    In contrast to popes of Rome, the NT did not employ the sword of men in order to deal with theological dissent, and church discipline was executed by the passive means of disfellowship, (Matthew 18:17; Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; Titus 3:10) And supernatural means (Acts 5:5-10;1 Corinthians 4:20,21; 5:5; 2Co 10:3-5,8; 1 Timothy 1:20)

    Having lost her yet claimed power of coercive jurisdiction and heart to effectively exercise discipline, Rome now abounds with liberals she calls members, and a pope who seems more concerned about things like global warming than sodomy.

    So you know better than St. Ignatius of Antioch, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who wrote about the Eucharist?

    Rome herself thinks to know better than ECFs on issues, and that is indeed possible, as is my knowing better than Jerome and Augustine about virginity vs. marriage. I certainly do not think the even days of creation signify the uncleanness of marriage, or that to pray without ceasing means one cannot be a married pastor, or that by necessity martial relations must include sinful lust, even if not imputed to the elect.

    The John certainly was not writing about the semi-literal Cath. Eucharist in Jn. 6, as nowhere is eating the Lord’s supper, or literally anything physical the means to obtain life, nor is that how the Lord lived, as believers are to do. (Jn. 6:57)

    But as the Lord would depart, yet His words which are spirit and life, so souls in Scripture obtain life by believing the gospel of grace, and “live by” Christ by living by His word, (Mt. 4:4), as Christ lived by the Father, thus doing His will by His “meat.”

    And it is this figurative explanation that is the only one which is consistent with John and the rest of Scripture with its metaphors, interpretive of the last supper. In which men are save to be “bread” for Israel, and literal water is said to be the blood of men, and poured out as an offering unto the Lord. And the word of God is eaten. Etc. (2 Samuel 23:15-17; Num. 13:32; 14:9;Jer. 15:16 ; Ps. 27:2; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9)

    But one possibly can be an error on the Lord’s supper and still be a child of God, unless for instance one believes that consuming it is actually what gives one eternal life.

    And what is your original source by which you can prove Ignatius of Antioch was a personal disciple of the apostle, when most of what was written in his name is understood as not being authored by him (but were later compositions), and or suffering many interpolations? Even Eusubious can be dubious.

    Is the evidence for such on the level we have for the NT? Rome is known to have made use of forgeries in her history, but unlike many other writings, Biblical mss were far to numerous for her to accomplish that.

    You know better than the other Church fathers (like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, Cyril etc.), long before Constantine came around, who wrote about apostolic succession and tradition, and the authority of Rome?

    It seems know better than RCs who swallow the propaganda that what such ECFs wrote about was that of a church looking to exalted popes in Rome as their supreme heads as occupying a perpetually infallible autocratic office. Which even by the 4th century had its successor employing a murderous gang of thugs in working to secure his office from his rival. See what some of your own scholars find.

    You writing is very sophisticated, but you’re not fooling anybody here.

    That actually applies to Rome, except too many are all to willing to believe propaganda, while i seek to weigh what i say according to the evidential warrant.

    But if the 2000 year old Catholic Church says something, watch out!

    Indeed, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” (Luke 12:48)

    The church of Rome is not 2000 years old, and in fact it it basically invisible in the NT, but having taught damnable heresies in her progressive deformatio n, she has become as the gates of Hell to multitudes, and to her belongs the “greater damnation.”

  • James

    “You are confusing authority with assured veracity.”

    No I’m not. “Keys” are a symbol of authority and Christ gave those “keys” to Peter. He also sent the Holy Spirit to teach them “all truth.” There’s the “assured veracity.” Are you saying that YOU have “assured veracity” in these matters but the successors of the apostles don’t?

    “John certainly was not writing about the semi-literal Cath. Eucharist in Jn. 6, as nowhere is eating the Lord’s supper, or literally anything physical the means to obtain life…”

    “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” John6:51-55

    How do you get around that? I guess when it’s up to you to have your own opinion, that’s how.

    “But as the Lord would depart, yet His words which are spirit and life, so souls in Scripture obtain life by believing the gospel of grace, and “live by” Christ by living by His word, (Mt. 4:4), as Christ lived by the Father, thus doing His will by His “meat.” And it is this figurative explanation that is the only one which is consistent with John and the rest of Scripture with its metaphors, interpretive of the last supper.”

    Again, your own opinion. You don’t have authority or “assured veracity.”

    The Jews thought Jesus was being literal. Did Jesus say “Wait! it’s only figurative…I meant “meat” figuratively like I did in Mt 4:4! Come back!” Did Jesus call them back? I mean, He could’ve made it clear in John 6 that He was being figurative…but He didn’t.

    “And what is your original source by which you can prove Ignatius of Antioch was a personal disciple of the apostle, when most of what was written in his name is understood as not being authored by him (but were later compositions), and or suffering many interpolations? Even Eusubious can be dubious. Is the evidence for such on the level we have for the NT?”

    Well, the oldest manuscripts we have of the NT are from the second century, not the first…so you tell me.

    “…unlike many other writings, Biblical mss were far to numerous…”
    Who painstakingly hand copied all those mss? Catholic monks
    You think you know John’s gospel better then John’s personal disciple. You’re not fooling anybody but yourself.

  • James

    Sounds like you think the Catholic Church is wrong because Catholics are sinners. The Protestant churches must be wrong too on the basis that you and all other protestants are sinners too. I guess there is no church at all, and nobody can have “assured veracity.”

    “The church of Rome is not 2000 years old”

    Sorry, but after Peter left Antioch, he settled in Rome and set up his See there, where he and Paul were martyred. His successors have been in Rome ever since.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

    “The John certainly was not writing about the semi-literal Cath. Eucharist in Jn. 6, as nowhere is eating the Lord’s supper, or literally anything physical the means to obtain life, nor is that how the Lord lived, as believers are to do. (Jn. 6:57)”

    Did Our Lord have flesh and blood? Did he live and die in the FLESH for us, so we could be saved? Or was that a figurative Person who was nailed to a cross 2000 years ago?

    “And it is this figurative explanation that is the only one which is consistent with John and the rest of Scripture with its metaphors, interpretive of the last supper. In which men are save to be “bread” for Israel, and literal water is said to be the blood of men, and poured out as an offering unto the Lord. And the word of God is eaten. Etc. (2 Samuel 23:15-17; Num. 13:32; 14:9;Jer. 15:16 ; Ps. 27:2; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9)”
    Is there nothing literal in the Bible? Maybe the Genesis account is figurative too, and the world really is millions of years old…but you don’t believe that, do you?
    You pick and chose because you have no authority or “assured veracity.”

  • James

    “And what is your original source by which you can prove Ignatius of Antioch was a personal disciple of the apostle, when most of what was written in his name is understood as not being authored by him (but were later compositions), and or suffering many interpolations? Even Eusubious can be dubious.”

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

    “While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr’s death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Church History III.36), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: “Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith”, the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, “De morte peregrini”, written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as “testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of” (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).”

    “Is the evidence for such on the level we have for the NT?”
    Evidence for Ignatius’ writings is solid. There’s a lot more mss of the bible, but quantity doesn’t equal assured veracity. You could print trillions of chick tracts but that doesn’t give them assured veracity. Historical criticism is great but it doesn’t offer assured veracity. Either I accept your opinion, or I accept the Church that’s been around for 2000 years. You can guess which one I choose.

  • Peace By JESUS De Maria • a day ago

    No, saying it is the word of God does not answer how you ascertain that it is the word of God.

    Hm? You fail to recognize one thing. It is Jesus Christ who established the Tradition of Magisterium when He sent the Church out to TEACH. That is what Magisterium. TEACHER.

    And yes, it is the Magisterium which taught me that the Bible is the Word of God. Just as the Magisterium taught the Bereans about Jesus Christ:

    Acts 17:
    10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

    Now, ask yourself, “why were the Bereans more noble than the Thessalonicans? The answer:
    in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,

    You might ask me, “Which word? Scripture is also called the word.” The answer:
    The word the Apostles preached.

    You might continue, “How do you know it isn’t the Scripture?” The answer:
    Because they searched in the Scripture to find the Apostles word therein.

    Here is what goes right past Protestants. They don’t even see it because of their presuppositions against the Traditions of Christ.

    1st. The Apostles were Teaching. That is the Tradition we call “Magisterium”.
    2nd. I repeat, the Apostles were Teaching. That means they were passing down the Traditions of Christ by Word. That is simply called, “Sacred Tradition”.
    3rd. The Bereans looked up the Sacred Tradition in Scripture.

    That is the Catholic Teaching of passing down the Faith of Jesus Christ by handing down Tradition and Scripture. That is precisely what St. Paul was talking about when he said:

    1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

    And that, the Three legged stool of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, is what is depicted in the Berean episode. Not Scripture alone.

    Now, I don’t care what you claim people did before Jesus Christ. I follow and obey Jesus Christ and therefore I follow and obey the Church which He appointed to be my Teacher of the Word of God.

  • “Keys” are a symbol of authority and Christ gave those “keys” to Peter. He also sent the Holy Spirit to teach them “all truth.” There’s the “assured veracity.”

    No, it simply it not. As shown in Scripture, having authority simply does not equate to assured veracity/infallibility, including perpetually. That is an attribute of God man is never shown having, nor can you show perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, but which she “infallibly” decreed she has.

    Moreover, the “keys to the kingdom” is obviously that of the gospel, as by faith in it one is translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col 1:13).

    And the power to bind and loose is given to all, (Mt. 18:18) and is not new, but was also given to the OT judges, and thus dissent from it could meat death, (Dt. 17:8-13) and which actually corresponds to Mt. 18:15-18, and thus Christ Himself enjoined general submission to it. Nowhere was perpetual infallibility promised or necessary for this.

    And as such it was not an autocratic authority, as if God must submit to church decisions as RCs imagine, but one that was only just if it was in accordance with God’s will.

    In addition, the work of the promised Spirit is to lead into all truth, which means man must follow, and which God has been doing since the Garden, and will culminate when believers see the perfect revelation of Lord as He is.

    For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

    Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

    Are you saying that YOU have “assured veracity” in these matters but the successors of the apostles don’t?

    No; unlike the presumption of Rome, like the NT church, the veracity of my claims rests upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.

    But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

    A donkey or a high priest could speak the word of God, but no entity but the Lord and Scripture is assuredly inspired and infallible whenever it teaches.

    …Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you… How do you get around that? I guess when it’s up to you to have your own opinion, that’s how.

    Easy, just as i have explained. Show me that souls became born of the Spirit, by which souls obtain spiritual life in them, by taking part in the Lord’s supper, versus believing the gospel of grace.

    And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

    Note that Jn. 6:53 is a “verily verily” imperative command, and thus to be consistent with your literal view, then those who deny the Catholic Real Presence (apparently originally an Anglican term) are spiritually dead and cannot have eternal life. So much for Lumen Gentium 16.

    The Jews thought Jesus was being literal. Did Jesus say “Wait! it’s only figurative.

    Of course not, any more than He corrected those who though He spoke of destroying the literal temple in Jn. 2, and which they even used against Him in His illegal trial.

    For as the Lord said, these things “are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” (Mark 4:12)

    For it was a judgment against those who judged after the flesh, and would not seek understanding, which the Lord gave in explaining that as He lived by the Father: so he that eateth Him, even he shall live by Him, and that “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:57,63)

    And which alone corresponds to what John elsewhere teaches, and the rest of Scripture on obtaining spiritual life and living by His word. But one must be born again to realize that.

    Is the evidence for such on the level we have for the NT?”

    Well, the oldest manuscripts we have of the NT are from the second century, not the first…so you tell me.

    No, you tell me what the earliest extant mss of the church fathers are, nd how early they are dated to as a whole, and how many we have total, and how many even Rome disagrees with versus Scripture and how early they are dated as a whole – and how many are wholly inspired of God.

    Who painstakingly hand copied all those mss? Catholic monks

    Which is a fallacious argument, at presumes what needs to be proved, that these were Catholic as in RC, and that we must submit to the body via its leadership to which these copying belonged. Is that what you want to argue?

    You think you know John’s gospel better then John’s personal disciple. You’re not fooling anybody b ut yourself.

    Only a fool would assert that this is a fact (again, provide your original source) , as well as that his understanding must be correct. Paul actually foeetold, “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things,” (Acts 20:30) which Rome most manifestly has.

  • James

    “No; unlike the presumption of Rome, like the NT church, the veracity of my claims rests upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.”
    It’s a big circle with you. You believe the Bible is true, you admit you don’t have assured veracity when talking about the Bible, until you weigh what you’re saying with what the Bible says…which you yourself don’t have assured veracity to talk about.

  • James

    “And the power to bind and loose is given to all, (Mt. 18:18)”
    He was talking to the Apostles specifically (with and under Peter). That’s what it means when you understand it in the context of Matthew 16. They would’ve understood that. And anyway, who are you to tell me that my interpretation is wrong? Are you infallible? Do you have assured veracity in these matters? You reject Rome’s authority and assured veracity, so why should I accept your opinion? Sound familiar?

  • James

    “No, you tell me what the earliest extant mss of the church fathers are, nd how early they are dated to as a whole, and how many we have total, and how many even Rome disagrees with versus Scripture and how early they are dated as a whole”

    Ok…THAT I can do: http://www.csntm.org/manuscript

    “- and how many are wholly inspired of God.”
    Well…that’s a different story. See, I myself don’t have the authority or assured veracity to decide that. Neither do you. I leave it up to the Church. It doesn’t even say in actual Scripture which writings are inspired. It says “all Scripture” but it doesn’t say WHICH writings those are! So how COULD you even decide on your own!?

  • James

    “Moreover, the “keys to the kingdom” is obviously that of the gospel, as by faith in it one is translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col 1:13).”
    Nope. Can’t be. Christ gave the “keys” to Peter alone.

  • Sounds like you think the Catholic Church is wrong because Catholics are sinners.

    False, that is not what i said, while it is certain she did not possess assured magisterial veracity in any case.

    Sorry, but after Peter left Antioch, he settled in Rome and set up his See there,

    That is simply not Scriptural, as among other things, there was no NT church that looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes in Rome. Peter is not even mentioned by Paul in his epistle to the Romans, even among the list of his many friends.

    While being the leader among the apostles, and exercising a general pastoral role, there is not even one command or exhortation in any letters to the church to submit to Peter as supreme head.

    In Acts 15 Peter sets forth the evangelical gospel of grace as defining salvation, yet it is James who provides the Scriptural sentence of what to so, confirmatory of what Peter and Paul believed.

    And in Gal. 2 Peter is named 2nd among those who only appeared to be pillars, and is the only apostle to be publicly rebuked for his duplicity.

    Nor is there any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) and which was by a non-political OT method Rome has never used. any elected by voting. (Acts 1:15ff)

    And the historical testimony does not make Peter a Roman pope. Scholars as Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

    “New Testament scholars agree…, The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

    That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably ‘no.” More .

    Maybe the Genesis account is figurative too, and the world really is millions of years old..

    Rendering historical accounts as being fables or folk tales is actually RC teaching, so see to thy own house.

  • http://www.newadvent.org/cathe

    My comment that even Eusebius can be dubious is not refuted by your reference, nor does that establish the veracity of your original source by which you can prove Ignatius of Antioch was a personal disciple of the apostle John.

    For the question is not simply whether Eusebius – the first court-appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Roman Empire – actually is the author of some (7 out of 15) of the works attributed to him, which Prots as Lightfoot contend that he is (opposed then by such as Killen ) , but the total veracity of them, What even the apologetical CE which you invoke says,

    “The majority of those who acknowledge the Ignatian authorship of the seven letters do so conditionally, rejecting what they consider the obvious interpolations in these letters.”

    Eusebius, while invaluable, also sincerely believed and recorded as fact (Church History I.13) the “Legend of Abgar,” a story of a correspondence between the Lord and the local potentate at Edessa. Relative to this, even his defender Lightfoot writes of him, http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/lightfoot.htm

    “A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shows itself in diverse ways. He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents.” – http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/lightfoot.htm

    Nor does the 100 year old CE’s unsurprisingly judgment that “the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius) tell the reasons why the total veracity or even authorship of all is yet doubted.

    The Catholic historian Paul Johnson (author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian), writes in his 1976 work “History of Christianity:”

    Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

    Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius…

    Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus…

    Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list…When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.

    And thee is this summation (from the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge), which upholds the authenticity of the 7:

    “In all there are fifteen letters bearing the name of Ignatius, evidently of varying age and value. Seven of these..are found in a shorter and a longer Greek recension. The latter adds five more… and finally there are three found only in a Latin text, two to St. John and one to the Virgin Mary, with her reply to it. These last are wholly worthless, and were probably composed originally in Latin. Of the shorter Greek recension (known as G1) there is only a single manuscript, the Codex Mediceo-Laurentinus, and two copies made from it; but there is also a Latin version (first published by Ussher, 1644, from two manuscripts, of which one has since been lost),…The longer or interpolated Greek recension (G2) exists in several manuscripts,..”

    “There are abundant traces of a recent and as yet incomplete elevation of the episcopate over the presbyterate; it is a local, not a universal, office, and does not carry with it the guardianship of the teaching tradition; it is valued largely as a center of unity for the local church, a safeguard against centrifugal tendencies, and a guaranty for the future permanence and purity of Christianity….”

    “It seems highly probable that even the shorter Greek form has suffered extensive modification, bow extensive no one is in a position to determine. The cautious student of the history of polity and doctrine will decline to base important conclusions on the unsupported testimony of these writings. Even if the reference to Ignatian epistles in the epistle of Polycarp is genuine, this would not prove the authenticity of the epistles in their present form.”

    However, even allowing Eusebius as totally accurate, and much of the 7 can be, does not equate to this being what is Scriptural, as instead to testifies to the progressive deformation of the NT church

  • No, saying it is the word of God does not answer how you ascertain that it is the word of God.

    Hm? You fail to recognize one thing. It is Jesus Christ who established the Tradition of Magisterium when He sent the Church out to TEACH. That is what Magisterium. TEACHER.

    Why do you continue in your superficiality, ignoring that problem of how 1st c. souls knew Jesus Christ was even the Messiah, and thus the validity of the Magisterium.

    And which “Tradition” was based upon the OT and established under Scripture being supreme. The issue is not that Christ preached the oral wholly inspired word of God, but that of this claim to be the word of God was based upon the premise of perpetual assured magisterial infallibility (hencefoth PAMI). And yet once in is written form, it is no longer considered to be wholly inspired of God, having God as its author the same saw Scripture does.

    The whole church went forth preaching the word, as we seek to do. (Acts 8:4)

    “How do you know it isn’t the Scripture?” The answer:
    Because they searched in the Scripture to find the Apostles word therein.

    Here is what goes right past Protestants. They don’t even see it because of their presuppositions against the Traditions of Christ.

    1st. The Apostles were Teaching. That is the Tradition we call “Magisterium”…That means they were passing down the Traditions of Christ by Word. 3rd. The Bereans looked up the Sacred Tradition in Scripture.

    Here is what goes right past Catholics They don’t even see it because
    of their presuppositions against the supremacy of Scripture: It was under the premise of Scripture being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims that the apostle’s claim to veracity was established. Scriptural supernatural attestation also often being part of its substantiation, (Rm. 15:16) subject to examination in the light of the assured word of God.

    This is set in contrast to the premise of assured magisterial veracity, so that “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

    Scripture even provides for oral preaching of the word of God, which form much of Scripture first existed in, and thus for the additional conflative complimentary writings which were be added to it. And which, as with men of God, were recognized and established as being so essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation.

    A SS type preacher can even preach without a Bible, to people without a Bible, and hope that God “speaks” to the people (incldg. during the offering:), but all is subject to examination by Scripture.

    And even pagans can speak spiritual Truth. But which is not the same as even something 1800 years after the event is alledged to have occurred, and which lacks even early evidence of “Tradition,” is made binding Truth based upon the PAMI, which “tradition” is not of Scripture.

    That is precisely what St. Paul was talking about when he said:
    1 Thessalonians 2:13

    But which we know is true because it is in Scripture, and as we have seen therein, the veracity of such preaching was subject to examination by Scripture, and as can be seen elsewhere, such was established upon Scriptural substantiation, and not basis of PAMI.

    Your problem is that of taking such preaching and equating it to Catholic tradition (which also sees some conflict btwn Rome and the EOs) under the premise of Cath. PAMI.

    You also cannot prove that the oral “word of God/the Lord” was not subsequently written, which was it manifestly almost always was.

    And that, the Three legged stool of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, is what is depicted in the Berean episode. Not Scripture alone.

    Wrong, for what Acts 17:11 shows, the written word (Scripture) alone is the supreme standard, and sufficient in its formal and material (which also provides for the church) aspects.

  • More superficiality. That is not a problem at all. Assured veracity refers to the premise that whenever one speaks then he cannot err, which Rome claims whenever the sacred mag. formally speaking universally on faith and morals.

    No one can claim such, but which does not mean one has no credibility, but that it must be based upon warrant, which God provides for His word.

    One therefore does not need assured veracity to have credibility about anything, but he needs to establish it upon evidence, as seen in Scripture.

  • “And the power to bind and loose is given to all, (Mt. 18:18)”
    He was talking to the Apostles specifically (with and under Peter). That’s what it means when you understand it in the context of Matthew 16.

    “All” referred to all the disciples the Lord was speaking to, versus only Peter, and not as flowing from Peter. And which was not unique in Scripture, nor required or inferred Rome’s perpetual assured infallibility.

    And anyway, who are you to tell me that my interpretation is wrong? Are you infallible?

    What manner of absurdity is this? Who is anyone to claim they are right about anything except upon the weight of evidence. Based upon your premise, why should i believe your arguments for Rome?

    Do you have assured veracity in these matters?

    Not any more than you. Again, you are confusing assured veracity as a charism versus warranted credibility.

    You reject Rome’s authority and assured veracity, so why should I accept your opinion? Sound familiar?

    Again, you cannot claim Rome’s premise of assured veracity, so why should i believe your arguments for Rome, except based upon the weight of evidence?

    We are back to the beginning. Under the Roman model for assurance of Truth, why should 1st. century souls have believed that John the baptizer was a prophet indeed, and the Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? Who were they do disagree with those who actually sat in the seat of Moses as the historical magisterium, which rejected these itinerant preachers?

  • Ok…THAT I can do: http://www.csntm.org/manuscrip

    Good resource (with search by century) but all i see is NT mss, not extant mss of ECFs, which was my question.

    See, I myself don’t have the authority or assured veracity to decide that. Neither do you. I leave it up to the Church

    So it remains that your position is that an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God?

    It says “all Scripture” but it doesn’t say WHICH writings those are! So how COULD you even decide on your own!?

    A valid question which you already asked and was answered ,

    “how did souls know that the multitude of OT books upon which the church established its Truth claims upon were inspired?

    Is an infallible magisterium necessary for that?”

    Your answer was, as expected,

    “Yes, otherwise people have to decide for themselves…like you do.”

    Which means that the church began upon the foundation of both men and writings of God being invalidly established, yet they were held as authoritative.

    Which remains a real problem for you and your presumptuous entity. .

  • “Moreover, the “keys to the kingdom” is obviously that of the gospel, as by faith in it one is translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col 1:13).” Nope. Can’t be. Christ gave the “keys” to Peter alone.

    Wrong, and which depends upon interpreting this in isolation. The only means and condition for entering the kingdom is the gospel, which Peter first preached to the Jews and the Gentiles.

    The relates to Lk. 4:18, that of preaching deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, and possessed, etc. And which can be related to forgiveness (Mt. 9:1-7) in the deliverance from chastisement, which intercession all are to be involved with, but primarily presbuteros. (Ja. 5:13-16) – not hiereus.

    Dt. 17:8-13 corresponds to the context of binding and loosing in Mt. 18, in which an unresolved personal matter is brought to the church, whose judgment binds and looses, (Matthew 18:17) with one being in sin and the other vindicated.

    “if there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within their gates,” then it was brought before the Levitical magisterial authority, whose judgment was certainly binding to one, and loosing to the other.

    According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. (Deuteronomy 17:11)

    The Lord also enjoined conditional obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and who claimed the power of dissolving vows, etc. But not as being the supreme infallible standard, thus the Lord reproved their unScriptural judgments by Scripture. (Mk. 7:2-16)

    In Acts 15 we see the doctrinal matter that warranted ecumenical judgment, and which was Scripturally based, and which judgment loosed the Gentiles and bound the Judaizers to obedience.

    But which was not that of making a “remembered” extraScriptural event approx 1800 years after its alleged occurrence, which lacks even early testimony from tradition, a binding doctrine, and teaching its unScriptural theology.

  • James

    “One therefore does not need assured veracity to have credibility about anything, but he needs to establish it upon evidence, as seen in Scripture.”
    Then you have no assurance of the truth…only your opinion.

  • Then you have no assurance of the truth…only your opinion.

    That is absurd, but a conclusion based upon the novel premise that an infallible magisterium is essential for assurance of Truth.

    Therefore answer the question as to how souls could ascertain both men and writings were of God before Rome ever presumed it was essential for this.

    And since they did, contrary to the Roman premise you and your comrade has affirmed, then either the NT church is invalid, or the church is Rome is. There is only once conclusion based upon your Roman reasoning.

    Thus this debate is over (unless you want to contradict yourself).

  • James

    “Assured veracity refers to the premise that whenever one speaks then he cannot err, which Rome claims whenever the sacred mag. formally speaking universally on faith and morals….No one can claim such”

    Says who? You?

    “but which does not mean one has no credibility, but that it must be based upon warrant, which God provides for His word.”
    What exactly would that “warrant” be? Please explain in plain English.

  • Says who? You?

    Then show me in Scripture where this was so in order to provide, discern and preserve Truth, rather than trying to suport is based upon the premise that it was essential for that.

    Appealing to the authority of Rome to establish the the authority or Rome will not do it.

    What exactly would that “warrant” be? Please explain in plain English.

    For instance, “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28)

    “To do so one can do as the Lord and Paul did, And beginning at
    Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures
    the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27)

    “persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts 28:23)

    Which would include texts such as Dt. 18:18,19; Ps. 16:10,11; 22; Is. 7:14; 9:6; 53;Mic. 5:2

    Now show me how souls were convinced these texts were of God without an infallible magisterium which must hold is essential for assurance of Truth.

  • James

    “Good resource (with search by century) but all i see is NT mss, not extant mss of ECFs, which was my question.”

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

    http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/earlychr.htm

    “So it remains that your position is that an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God?”

    Yep. Even the best historians can only say what the historical FACTS are. They can’t determine the SUPERNATURAL TRUTH.
    It’s a FACT that Jesus was crucified 2000 years ago and a FACT that His followers passed on His teachings (in writing, but primarily orally). But it’s a TRUTH claim that we have to believe in Jesus to be saved. That’s something neither you nor any historian can determine.

  • http://www.earlychristianwritihttp://mb-soft.com/believe/txv

    Both of those are also good resources, but only provide the estimated dates of composition, not the extant mss of ECFs, which was my question.

    “So it remains that your position is that an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God?”

    Yep. Even the best historians can only say what the historical FACTS are. They can’t determine the SUPERNATURAL TRUTH..it’s a TRUTH claim that we have to believe in Jesus to be saved. That’s something neither you nor any historian can determine.

    Consistent but damning. Thus it remains that souls recognized SUPERNATURAL TRUTH, of both men and words of God, and became children of God without an infallible magisterium, but upon Scriptural substantiation. And thus the church began contrary to the Roman model.

  • James

    “Again, you cannot claim Rome’s premise of assured veracity, so why should i believe your arguments for Rome, except based upon the weight of evidence?”

    How about the weight of 2000 years of patristic writings and the Bible, vs. just the Bible?

    “Not any more than you. Again, you are confusing assured veracity as a charism versus warranted credibility.”

    You keep changing terms, but ok… Do YOU have a charism of infallibility?

    “why should 1st. century souls have believed that John the baptizer was a prophet indeed, and the Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah?”

    The answer you’re looking for is “the OT scriptures,” but that answer doesn’t help your cause. It begs the question: Who decided that the OT scriptures were inspired? If nobody was assured that they were inspired, how could they trust them? Who gave the assurance? The OT magisterium did.

    “Who were they [t]o disagree with those who actually sat in the seat of Moses as the historical magisterium, which rejected these itinerant preachers?”
    Who was Saint Catherine of Siena to disagree with the Pope? Who was St. Paul to disagree with St. Peter? The leaders in the magisterium aren’t infallible all the time…only under certain conditions. You know that’s what the Church teaches.

  • James

    “Consistent but damning.”
    Damning to YOUR beliefs.
    “Thus it remains that souls recognized SUPERNATURAL TRUTH, of both men and words of God, and became children of God without an infallible magisterium, but upon Scriptural substantiation. And thus the church began contrary to the Roman model.”
    Who wrote the NT scriptures? The NT magisterium. The magisterium (Peter and the other Apostles with and under him) wrote the NT scriptures, not the other way around. That alone is a historical FACT, which historians can and have verified. From there, it’s only logical that the successors of the magisterium (and they did have successors…Acts 1:20), and not just anybody, could and must teach the true meaning of the scriptures (both OT and NT) from then on. Or do you claim that just anybody can teach from the scriptures with assurance of truth?

  • James

    “Then show me in Scripture where this was so in order to provide, discern and preserve Truth, rather than trying to suport is based upon the premise that it was essential for that.”

    Already have. Matthew 16 and John 14:16-17

    “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.” (speaking to the apostles)

    Of course you have your own opinion of what this means…but that’s what happens when you don’t recognize the historical magisterium of the Church.

    “Appealing to the authority of Rome to establish the the authority or Rome will not do it.”

    Like the Government appealing to the Constitution written by the Government?

    “For instance, “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28)….”To do so one can do as the Lord and Paul did, And beginning at
    Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures
    the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27)….”persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts 28:23)….Which would include texts such as Dt. 18:18,19; Ps. 16:10,11; 22; Is. 7:14; 9:6; 53;Mic. 5:2″

    Seems like all you’re saying is that the NT is a fulfilment of the OT. I already know this. That says nothing of whether or not they based their beliefs on scripture ALONE, which is absurd. Somebody had to write the scriptures and somebody had to safeguard their meanings.

    “Now show me how souls were convinced these texts were of God without an infallible magisterium which must hold is essential for assurance of Truth”
    Nobody was convinced WITHOUT the magisterium. It was the magisterium that wrote the scriptures in the first place. It was the magisterium that preserved them and it was the magisterium that taught from them, not just anybody. Common sense.

  • James

    “What manner of absurdity is this? Who is anyone to claim they are right about anything except upon the weight of evidence.”
    It IS absurd, isn’t it? Now you know how I feel about Protestants when they reject Rome’s infallibility and claim they have the right interpretation of scripture. Historical evidence assures us of FACTS, not supernatural TRUTH.

  • James

    All that tells me is that historians disagree on things. Even the Church fathers disagreed on things. They weren’t infallible unless they met the criteria. Most of the time they didn’t. But they were still the successors of the apostles and had more right to talk about the scriptures and tradition than anybody else.

    “However, even allowing Eusebius as totally accurate, and much of the 7 can be, does not equate to this being what is Scriptural, as instead to testifies to the progressive deformation of the NT church”
    Thank you for allowing Eusebius to be accurate. Most scholars do. I never said the extra-biblical patristic writings were INSPIRED, nor does the Church claim that. But they do tell us what the early Christians did and believed back then. They celebrated the Eucharist at Mass, to name one. They also believed in apostolic succession and tradition, and the primacy of Rome.

  • why should i believe your arguments for Rome, except based upon the weight of evidence?

    How about the weight of 2000 years of patristic writings and the Bible, vs. just the Bible?

    So now you agree with me. Please make up your mind. Yet as shown, those writings are determinative for Rome, nor the basis for your assurance of Truth, but the premise of perpetual magisterial veracity is.

    So you are still stuck with showing me how that was essential for souls to recognize spiritual truth before there was a church of Rome. Happy hunting.

    You keep changing terms, but ok… Do YOU have a charism of infallibility?

    There is no change of terms. If you were following the argument here as it is to be supposed you were, then you should have known that the claim of Rome to assured infallibility is what is being referred as assured veracity, which you must know is a gift. Either read more or do not play dumb.

    The answer you’re looking for is “the OT scriptures,” but that answer doesn’t help your cause. It begs the question: Who decided that the OT script ures were inspired? If nobody was assured that they were inspired, how could they trust them? Who gave the assurance? The OT magisterium did.

    That only begs the question for you, as to be consistent, the OT magisterium had to be infallible, as per Rome, since you have affirmed this is essential to know what is spiritual Truth. And you also need to show when the the OT magisterium did so.

    Who was Saint Catherine of Siena to disagree with the Pope?

    That was your question, so again it is good to see you are arguing with me that one can dissent even if not infallible.

    The leaders in the magisterium aren’t infallible all the time…only under certain conditions. You know that’s what the Church teaches.

    Of course i know that, as i expressed, but your objection was that i could not disagree at all since i did not claim assured veracity, which Rome does.

  • Peace By JESUS De Maria • 5 hours ago

    I said:

    Hm? You fail to recognize one thing. It is Jesus Christ who established the Tradition of Magisterium when He sent the Church out to TEACH. That is what Magisterium. TEACHER.

    Why do you continue in your superficiality, ignoring that problem of how 1st c. souls knew Jesus Christ was even the Messiah, and thus the validity of the Magisterium.

    Even if your claim were true, which it isn’t. Your refusal to submit to the Magisterial Church established by Jesus Christ simply highlights your lack of faith in Jesus Christ and in Scripture.

    You can make any claims you want about how some pre-existing souls learned about Christ, but the fact is that the very same Christ commissioned a Church to make disciples of the world and TEACH all which He commanded. In so doing, He established a Magisterium and I submit to the Magisterium which He established because I submit to Him through that Magisterium.

    Scripture says:

    2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

    You can deny and reject these all you want, but they are plainly spoken in Scripture. The Church is the ambassador for Christ upon this earth. God beseeches us through Her. And the Church prays for us to God in place of Christ.

    This is the Magisterium which provides for us the Wisdom of God and will do so through eternity:

    Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

  • James

    All I see is your own opinion of what the Bible means.
    Acts 1:20…
    “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”

    http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Acts&chapter=1&verse=20
    Bishoprick. The apostles were bishops and they elected successors, like Titus and Timothy, who consequently were bishops…and so on, as recorded in extra-biblical writings.
    “That is simply not Scriptural…”
    It’s one thing to CONTRADICT scripture. Catholic Church teaching doesn’t contradict scripture, only your opinions of what scripture means. It’s another thing for a truth to simply not be found in scripture.
    Show me where it says in Scripture that all revealed truth has to be in Scripture. Please cite book, chapter and verse.

    “Rendering historical accounts as being fables or folk tales is actually RC teaching, so see to thy own house.”

    That’s not Church teaching. It’s the opinion of many modernist theologians, like the Jesuit priest you quoted, for one. Even the pope can have his own opinions and set a bad example, but he still has the conditional charism of infallibility.

  • Peace By JESUS James • 2 days ago

    One some things, that should be manifestly evident.

    That which is manifestly evident is that you don’t understand how New Testament Scripture came to be written.

    Jesus Christ did not write even one word of the New Testament. He established a Church, taught that Church His Traditions and then commanded that Church to teach His Traditions to the world.

    The Church then, turned around and wrote the New Testament based upon pre-existing Traditions of Jesus Christ.

    When the Apostles wrote, “Repent and be baptized! (Acts 2:38)” It isn’t because they were starting a new Tradition of baptism. It is because they were already baptizing in accordance to the command of Jesus Christ and they were recording for us that which they were already practicing.

    The reason why you reject “infant baptism” and the “sacraments” is because you don’t see the words in Scripture. But we know that the author of the Scripture assumed that Catholics would know to baptize infants and to attend the Sacraments. And indeed, history confirms that Catholics have done so from the earliest times of the Church.

    The key to understanding the Word of God in the New Testament is to be steeped in the Sacred Traditions of Jesus Christ which He deposited in the Catholic Church and commanded her to pass on to each generation.

  • James

    “So now you agree with me.”

    Huh? Since when do you accept the patristic writings that prove the early Christians believed in the Eucharist? Is that not what you’re now indicating? If you do accept them, then you should be Catholic…I mean, based on the weight of the evidence.

    “So you are still stuck with showing me how that was essential for souls to recognize spiritual truth before there was a church of Rome. Happy hunting.”

    Not so. There was a Church of Rome as soon as Peter got to Rome. Before that, the Chair of Peter was wherever Peter was at. I might still go hunting. There’s no closed season on coyotes in my state.

    “If you were following the argument here as it is to be supposed you were, then you should have known that the claim of Rome to assured infallibility is what is being referred as assured veracity, which you must know is a gift. Either read more or do not play dumb.”

    With all that sophisticated mumbo jumbo you write, it’s hard to tell. Sorry for not being as edumacated as you.

    “That only begs the question for you,”

    If it doesn’t beg the question for you, then you haven’t taken your reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, like I did.

    “as to be consistent, the OT magisterium had to be infallible, as per Rome, since you have affirmed this is essential to know what is spiritual Truth. And you also need to show when the the OT magisterium did so.”

    If you won’t accept the fact that the NT magisterium did it for the NT scriptures, why should I bother?

    “That was your question, so again it is good to see you are arguing with me that one can dissent even if not infallible.”

    Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never argued that “one can dissent…” I said “disagree.” You even quoted me as saying that, yet you claim I argued “dissent.”
    St. Catherine rebuked her Pope because he was setting a bad example, not for teaching error ex cathedra. Same deal with Paul and Peter. They weren’t “dissenting” like the apostate Luther and others did. Nice try though.

  • James

    Well said.

  • Damning to YOUR beliefs

    Quite the bombast, but the contrary remains the case.

    “Thus it remains that souls recognized SUPERNATURAL TRUTH, of both men and words of God, and became children of God without an infallible magisterium, but upon Scriptural substantiation. And thus the church began contrary to the Roman model.”

    Who wrote the NT scriptures? The NT magisterium. The magisterium (Peter and the other Apostles with and under him) wrote the NT scriptures, not the other way around.

    That simply avoids answering the question. Before there could be a NT magisterium there had to be supernatural truth, upon which the promised New covenant had its basis. Thus the NT is counted to have over 200 references to the OT., with both men, words and writings of God being recognized as being so.

    But since an infallible magisterium was essential to recognize these Truths, it remains that the church began contrary to the Roman model you affirm.

    RCs tend to imagine that the church came before the Scriptures, but it did not, but was dependent upon Scriptural substantiation for its message, and thus for the NT magisterium and the conflative complimentary writings that would also be recognized as being Holy Writ.

    From there, it’s only logical that the successors of the magisterium (and they did have successors…Acts 1:20),

    Rather, only one successor was chosen, which was to maintain the original number of foundational apostles, and which was by casting lots, a non-political method Rome has never used. (cf. Rv. 21:14) After the apostle James was martyred, Acts 12:1,2) no successor is given, nor any manifest preparations made.

    Nor do i know of anyone today who fulfills the requirements of personal discipleship by the Lord and the credentials of the apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)

    Instead, the only commands for ordination are for deacons and presbuteros/episkopos, (1Tim. 3:1-8ff) these two being the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) and the latter are the only manifest successors for the foundational (Eph. 2:20) apostolic leadership.

    However, as Israel chose a king, so the post NT church began to look to one who would be more like a Caesar, and which they thus were given.

    Yet which included men who were grossly immoral men, who were not fit to be even church members, let alone Petrine successors. Which Rome justifies under the premise that such NT leadership can be like that of wicked kings in the OT theocracy, but which it is not.

    I addition are the rival popes and years of absences.

    It is an insult to propose this was the NT church.

    Or do you clai m that just anybody can teach from the scriptures with assurance of truth?

    Do you deny that in Scripture, God rose of non-ordained (by men) men of God from with the magisterium to reprove and preserve faith? He did indeed, and in fact that is how the church began and has often been preserved in salvific faith.

  • James

    “Wrong, and which depends upon interpreting this in isolation.”

    And there you have it. It all comes down to INTERPRETATION. You have yours, other people have theirs. Exactly why there needs to be a magisterium with “assured veracity” as you put it sophisticatedly.

    “But which was not that of making a “remembered” extraScriptural event approx 1800 years after its alleged occurrence, which lacks even early testimony from tradition, a binding doctrine, and teaching its unScriptural theology”
    How about the extra-biblical doctrine that says all revealed truth has to be found in the Bible?

  • “Assured veracity refers to the premise that whenever one speaks then he cannot err, which Rome claims whenever the sacred mag. formally speaking universally on faith and morals….No one can claim such”

    “Then show me in Scripture where this was so in order to provide, discern and preserve Truth, rather than trying to support is based upon the premise that it was essential for that.”

    Already have. Matthew 16 and John 14:16-17

    Really, then those who sat in the seat of Moses must have also possessed assured infallibility. And thus once again you affirm that the NT was invalid, since it began in dissent from them.

    “Now show me how souls were convinced these texts
    were of God without an infallible magisterium which must hold is
    essential for assurance of Truth”

    Nobody was convinced WITHOUT the magisterium. It was the magisterium that wrote the scriptures in the first place. It was the magisterium that preserved them and it was the magisterium that taught from them, not just anybody .

    This goes together with you preceding statements, and thus the conclusion is the same. Since an infallible magisterium is essential to know spiritual Truth, and by which OT souls had faith, then the historical Jewish magisterium which wrote the scriptures had to possesses assured infallibility. And thus those who dissented from it were wrong.

    And otherwise the church began with souls not recognizing the very authority of the law, the writings and the prophets by which the Lord and His church established their Truth claims.

    But if souls were convinced these texts were of God without an infallible magisterium, then such is not essential (versus a fallible magisterium), and principled dissent may be valid.

    These are the honest and consistent options.

    “Appealing to the authority of Rome to establish the the authority or Rome will not do it.”

    Like the Government appealing to the Constitution written by the Government?

    Indeed. That is valid for referencing the basis for one’s laws, but not for establishing that it warrants assent. You do not even prove the Bible is the word of God by invoking its testimony claiming to be so, which is the manner of circularity RCs engage in with their argument by assertion.

    That says nothing of whether or not they based their beliefs on scripture ALONE,

    No, and Reformers examined historical teachings in working to understand what was written, but what it means it the Jews looked to Scripture as alone being the supreme authority, and thus the abundant appeal to it.

  • James

    “That simply avoids answering the question.” What question? About Ignatius? I already went over that in a separate reply. My last response had nothing to do with Ignatius per se. We’re talking about the magisterium.

    “Before there could be a NT magisterium there had to be supernatural truth, upon which the promised New covenant had its basis.”

    Wouldn’t that be Jesus Christ?

    “the NT is counted to have over 200 references to the OT., with both men, words and writings of God being recognized as being so.”

    So?

    “But since an infallible magisterium was essential to recognize these Truths, it remains that the church began contrary to the Roman model you affirm.”

    Peter believed that Jesus Christ was God because he received a special revelation from the Father (Matt. 16:17). Christ then established the Church on Peter, creating the NT magisterium. It began exactly as the Catholic Church says it began.

    “Do you deny that in Scripture, God rose of non-ordained (by men) men of God from with the magisterium to reprove and preserve faith? He did indeed, and in fact that is how the church began and has often been preserved in salvific faith”
    You failed to answer my question: Do you claim that JUST ANYBODY can teach from the scriptures with the assurance of faith?
    To reprove and preserve faith, of course. But not to have their own private interpretation of scripture and start their own man-made religion, like Luther and others did.

  • “What manner of absurdity is this? Who is anyone to claim they are right about anything except upon the weight of evidence.”

    It IS absurd, isn’t it? Now you know how I feel about Protestants when they reject Rome’s infallibility and claim they have the right interpretation of scripture.

    Your absurdity is that of claiming assured veracity is necessary for anyone to claim they are right, but which you have affirmed can be valid, if not in dissent from infallibly defined teaching. But the objection that one has no right to reject it is based on the very claim to possess assured infallibility. Which is the very thing that begs the question/assumes what needs to be proved.

    But no one can know that spiritual Truth that it is infallible, and even that Scriptures that may be invoked for it are of God, unless they submit to it. So much for your cult.

  • But they were still the successors of the apostles and had more right to talk about the scriptures and tradition than anybody else.

    So she autocratically says.

    Thank you for allowing Eusebius to be accurate.

    What part of “can be dubious” warrants that he cannot be accurate?

    But they do tell us what the early Christians did and believed back then.

    As expressed, such testifies to the progressive deformation of the church (though enough faith was preserved that the body of Christ continued), which is set in contrast to the NT church.

  • James

    “Really, then those who sat in the seat of Moses must have also possessed assured infallibility.”
    Under certain conditions, yes. Same with the NT one. They could still have erroneous opinions and set bad examples though.
    “And thus once again you affirm that the NT was invalid, since it began in dissent from them.”
    Your conclusion doesn’t follow. The OT faithful followed the infallible OT magisterial teachings (oral and written). They didn’t follow the bad examples of some of the leaders, but they weren’t “dissenting” from any infallible OT teachings anymore than Paul was “dissenting” from Peter for correcting his bad example.

  • James

    I’m tired of following your circular reasoning, so maybe we SHOULD end the debate

  • Why do you continue in your superficiality, ignoring that problem of how 1st c. souls knew Jesus Christ was even the Messiah, and thus the validity of the Magisterium.

    Even if your claim were true, which it isn’t.

    If you cannot/will not admit that souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God without an infallible magisterium then this exchange will end.

    You can make any claims you want about how some pre-existing souls learned about Chri st,

    Pre-existing souls?

    You can deny and reject these all you want, but they are plainly spoken in Scripture. The Church is the ambassador for Christ upon this earth. God beseeches us through Her.

    You can continue to deny and reject these all you want, but the fact is that the church began because souls did what under the RC model they are not to do, that of recognize what was of God without an infallible magisterium, and in dissent from the historical magisterium in the seat of Moses.

    Therefore the church which you invoke as being the ambassador for Christ cannot be the one true church. Repeating her claims will not make them true.

    Israel was also the instrument to show the known world who the true God was.

    Ephesians 3:10 T

    You tried that twice already and it was exposed as a fallacious argument.

  • James

    “What part of “can be dubious” warrants that he cannot be accurate?”
    Sounds like you don’t know for sure. I’m not surprised.
    “(though enough faith was preserved that the body of Christ continued)”
    How convenient for you! “Just enough faith was preserved” – for 1500 YEARS! – until Luther came along and set thing straight. Right. How convenient. Nevermind all the Catholic saints who were responsible for said preservation of the faith, before during and after the protestant rebellion! (including 81 sainted popes!)

  • Really, then those who sat in the seat of Moses must have also possessed assured infallibility.

    How does that follow? Did God say to Moses, “I will build my church upon you and give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, what you bind will be bound in heaven and what you loose will be loosed in heaven and that gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

    Because God said that to St. Peter.

    And thus once again you affirm that the NT was invalid, since it began in dissent from them.

    Where do you get this stuff? Don’t you even believe the Bible that you claim is the sole authority for doctrine? The Bible says that the NT was brought about because Christ fulfilled the OT upon the Cross:

    Hebrews 9:15King James Version (KJV)

    15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

    Do you deny this?

  • The apostles were bishops and they elected successors,

    Indeed, as presbuteros/episkopos, not apostles or hierus (priest), which invalidates those of Rome.

    It’s one thing to CONTRADICT scripture. Catholic Church teaching doesn’t contradict scripture,

    Which is effectively meaningless, as Rome is the autocratic judge of what a contradiction is or even with herself. The specious nature of many of her attempts even with the latter is why you have your sects.

    Show me where it says in Scripture that all revealed truth has to be in Scripture.

    And just where did i make that claim, or hold it is necessary? I never even claimed the place of Scripture was always the case (but to whomsoever much is given, much is required.) Scripture itself says otherwise. In its present contents that it contains all that is necessary in is formal (limited) and material aspects is my claim.

    It is instrumentally used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    That the man of God
    may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy
    3:16,17) and to which the Lord opened the minds of the disciples to, which is never said of tradition.

    “Rendering historical accounts as being fables or folk tales is actually RC teaching, so see to thy own house.”

    That’s not Church teaching. It’s the opinion of many moderni st theologians,

    Listen, lets be real. Rome teaches souls to look to her as the supreme teacher, and most of what they believe and practice is not from the infallible magisterium (according to some), and souls look to lower levels of the magisterium to understand Truth, esp. what Bible texts mean.

    And when you sanction such teaching in your own official Bible helps and notes for 50 decades, then we can say that this is an example of RC teaching, even if it is not infallible, which hardly ever defines Bible texts.

    And which teaching is also done by example, and Biblically such is the evidence of what you really believe, versus paper assent. .

  • James

    What’s absurd is your twisting of what the Church teaches and thinking you can read the Bible and understand what Christ said without following the Church He founded on Peter. So much for your opinion.

  • Jesus Christ did not write even one word of the New Testament.

    DM, you just keep going on with the same warmed over refuted assertions and propaganda.

    Again, until you face the fact that your affirmation that an infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth…, and being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, then you have effectively invalidated the NT church which began in dissent from that, then your responses should be ignored.

  • James

    “And just where did i make that claim, or hold it is necessary? I never even claimed the place of Scripture was always the case…”

    Glad you admit that. Then you should have no problem with dogmas “not being found in Scripture.”

    “Listen, lets be real. Rome teaches souls to look to her as the supreme teacher, and most of what they believe and practice is not from the infallible magisterium (according to some), and souls look to lower levels of the magisterium to understand Truth, esp. what Bible texts mean. And when you sanction such teaching in your own official Bible helps and notes for 50 decades, then we can say that this is an example of RC teaching, even if it is not infallible, which hardly ever defines Bible texts. And which teaching is also done by example, and Biblically such is the evidence of what you really believe, versus paper assent.”
    So, in other words, if the Church teaches something that doesn’t agree with your own interpretation of Scripture, then the Church is wrong.

  • Peace By JESUS De Maria • 22 minutes ago

    Even if your claim were true, which it isn’t.

    If you cannot/will not admit that souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God without an infallible magisterium then this exchange will end.

    Oh no. He doesn’t want to speak to me. Boo hoo.

    Look, be a man. Even if you quit addressing me, I’ll keep pointing out your errors in your responses to other people.

    If you cannot/will not admit that souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God without an infallible magisterium then this exchange will end.

    It is besides the point! Those same souls couldn’t recognize Jesus Christ!

    Do you deny this? Even Jesus pointed it out. The Jews kept reading Scripture but did not recognize Jesus Christ as God. Do you deny this?

    Pre-existing souls?

    What? Are you talking about the Apostles and disciples? They were taught by Christ which OT books were to be used because Jesus Christ used the Septuagint.

    Christ is the Magisterium. The Church is the Magisterium because Christ gave the Church His power to Teach infallibly, His Word.

    You can continue to deny and reject these all you want, but the fact is that the church began because souls did what under the RC model they are not to do, that of recognize what was of God without an infallible magisterium, and in dissent from the historical magisterium in the seat of Moses.

    I told you that you were stuck in the OT. Do you compare Jesus to Moses?

    Hebrews 3 1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; 2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. 3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. 4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. 5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

    You’re stuck in the OT. We, Catholics, live in the New Dispensation of Jesus Christ, with an infallible Magisterium which He appointed to bring us to salvation.

    Therefore the church which you invoke as being the ambassador for Christ cannot be the one true church. Repeating her claims will not make them true.

    They remain true whether you believe it or not.

    Israel was also the instrument to show the known world who the true God was.

    But they did not receive the charism of infallibility.

    Ephesians 3:10 T

    You tried that twice already and it was exposed as a fallacious argument.

    Wishful thinking. Scripture attests that Jesus Christ established an infallible Church and commissioned this Church to Teach all which He commands. All your babbling about what could and could not be done because it was not done in the OT just shows that you don’t understand the wonderful gift we have received from Jesus Christ.

    Hebrews 8:5

    Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

  • James

    PbJ, let’s be real. When the Prophets prophecied in the OT, God was directly revealing truth to them, and it happened over hundreds of years. In the NT however, God gave the remaining revelation directly to the Apostles over the course of just a few years. It was a bit different in the OT. The OT souls had the Prophets to guide them as time went along. Those Prophets were infallible when speaking and writing that truth. They were the TEACHING authority (magisterium). In the NT, the truth was revealed right then and there. The Apostles only lived in the first century, so they could only guide souls in the first century. They had the charism of infallibility when speaking and writing scripture. Are you telling me that God would not provide successors with the same charism so we could have assurance of the truth? Do you really think God would leave His truth to be interpreted however one wants?

    One more thing:

    “If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents. It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions, or to try to show historically that such decisions in certain cases were the seemingly natural and inevitable outcome of existing conditions, moral, intellectual, and political. All that history may be fairly claimed as witnessing to under either of these heads may freely be granted without the substance of the Catholic claim being affected.”

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

  • How about the weight of 2000 years of patristic writings and the Bible, vs. just the Bible?

    “So now you agree with me.”

    Huh? Since when do you accept the patristic writings

    I did not accept them as determinative, nor again does Rome actually, but was responding your statement that i had no standing without assured veracity, but that you should be believed based upon the weight of evidence?, which is actually may basis for ascertaining Truth.

    “So you are still stuck with showing me how that was essential for souls to recognize spiritual truth before there was a church of Rome. Happy hunting.”

    Not so. There was a Church of Rome as soon as Peter got to Rome.

    What universe is this? How does this show me how an infallible mag. was essential for souls to recognize spiritual truth before there was a church of Rome? How was anyone convinced even Isaiah was authoritative?

    With all that sophisticated mumbo jumbo you write, it’s hard to tell.

    It is not very sophisticated nor mumbo jumbo, but if you think so try another poster.

    If it doesn’t beg the question for you, then you haven’t taken your reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, like I did.

    I did indeed, and the problem remains on your end. I asked “why should 1st. century souls have believed that John the baptizer was a
    prophet indeed, and the Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah?” Your response was “the OT scriptures,” which you thought was a problem for me as “Who decided that the OT scriptures were inspired?

    Yet my arguments has always been the souls recognized both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium. Thus as said,

    “That only begs the question for you, as to be consistent, the OT
    magisterium had to be infallible, as per Rome, since you have affirmed
    this is essential to know what is spiritual Truth. And you also need to
    show when the the OT magisterium did so.”

    If you won’t accept the fact that the NT magisterium did it for the NT scriptures, why should I bother?

    That is crass avoidance. You made the claim and the burden is on you to prove it. Just admit you cannot. But my position that the OT mag. was not infallible is beyond dispute.

    The fact is that that by affirming than an infallible magisterium is essential for recognizing spiritual Truth, dissent from which cannot be allowed as valid, which souls did who believed OT men and Scriptures before there was a church of Rome, and thus believed itinerant Preaches who were in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, then you have invalidated the church.

    Nothing more really needs to be said, even if i do.

    Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never argued that “one can dissent…” I said “disagree.”

    Please. “Dissent” basically means “to differ in sentiment or opinion” and certainly RCs can do so, if not publicly, from non-infallible teaching, which is on different levels. Such even continued among scholars on certain books of the Bible right into Trent.

  • Peace By JESUS James • 2 hours ago

    “What manner of absurdity is this? Who is anyone to claim they are right about anything except upon the weight of evidence.”

    Here’s the evidence. Jesus is God. He provided the evidence by His miracles and signs which are recorded in the Scriptures. He then established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His Traditions. This is also recorded in the Scriptures.

    The Church obediently began to Teach according to Christ’s command called that mission “Magisterium”. Because Christ commanded the Church to become the Teacher of God’s wisdom to the world.

    There’s your evidence and its straight from Scripture.

  • James

    “That is crass avoidance. You made the claim and the burden is on you to prove it. Just admit you cannot. But my position that the OT mag. was not infallible is beyond dispute.”

    Magisterium simply means teaching authority. The teaching authority in the OT were those with the gift of prophecy, which is even greater then mere infallbility. I addressed this in a response below with this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

    If you really believe the OT teaching authority (prophets) were not infallible, one has to wonder why you believe the Bible.

    Even Caiaphas, who rejected Christ, was given the gift of prophecy (John 11:49-52; 18:14)

    “Please. ‘Dissent’ means….”

    It sure sounded to me that by “dissent” you meant rejection of INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS.

    “The fact is that that by affirming than an infallible magisterium is essential for recognizing spiritual Truth, dissent from which cannot be allowed as valid, which souls did who believed OT men and Scriptures before there was a church of Rome, and thus believed itinerant Preaches who were in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, then you have invalidated the church.”
    By “itinerant preachers” you mean…Prophets? …because they were the teaching authority (mag). They had the gift of prophecy which was greater then the gift of infallibility. That was OT.
    “How was anyone convinced Isaiah was authoritative?”
    If you’re asking me what went through people’s minds that convinced them, then you’re asking something I can’t possibly know nor could you. What convinces one person that the Catholic Church is the true Church may be different from what convinces another of the same truth. What I do know is that the Prophets worked miracles by the power of God, like Moses parting the Red Sea. Wouldn’t that convince you? How bout all the miracles attested to that were worked by Catholic saints throughout Church history? Ever hear of a Protestant minister successfully casting out a devil in an exorcism? Nope, because they can’t. Only a Catholic priest/bishop can because only they have received the sacrament of Holy Orders.
    “Your answer was ‘the OT scriptures’ which you thought was a problem for me…”
    They looked to the scriptures yes, but it doesn’t stop there. If you believe that the scriptures are authoritative, then logically you have to believe that the people who wrote them had authority to do so, and in the NT, the authors (apostles) appointed successors. Not only is it in their writings, but its in tons of patristic writings for 2000 years. The bible and the rest of history point to Christ and the Catholic Church. Other churches have popped up here and there. The Catholic Church is the only one that goes back to the first century and hasn’t changed its teachings. It’s had some bad popes, but it’s still here. That right there ought to be evidence enough. Some people see it, others don’t. Good will and bad will.

  • Peace By JESUS James • an hour ago

    The fact is that that by affirming than an infallible magisterium is essential for recognizing spiritual Truth, dissent from which cannot be allowed as valid, which souls did who believed OT men and Scriptures before there was a church of Rome, and thus believed itinerant Preaches who were in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, then you have invalidated the church.

    That’s what James means about you writing mumbo-jumbo. Ok. Let’s break it down:

    The fact is that that by affirming than an infallible magisterium is essential for recognizing spiritual Truth,

    The Catholic Teaching is that the infallible Magisterium:

    890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

    You’re insinuating that Catholics claim that no truth can be identified without the Magisterium. I want you to provide the proof of that claim from an official Catholic Doctrine or admit that you have created a straw man which you continue to pound into the ground. But it has nothing to do with the True Catholic Doctrine.

    Ok, let’s move on to your next claim.

    dissent from which cannot be allowed as valid,

    That’s true. God speaks through the Catholic Church. Therefore, if the Catholic Church has declared something true and someone disagrees, that person is disagreeing with God.

    which souls did who believed OT men and Scriptures before there was a church of Rome,

    Not so. You need to do a bit of more studying on the OT.

    The Jews did not put together an OT in one volume until after the time of Christ. Because they couldn’t identify them. Have you ever heard of
    the Apocryphal Books of Moses, Enoch, Adam, David, Elias etc.? The Jews did not condemn them. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church condemned them. Not the OT Jews. If it wasn’t for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the Jews probably wouldn’t have a single volume work of Scripture, today.

    and thus believed itinerant Preaches

    The itinerant preachers were representatives of the Catholic Church. That can easily be proven. You don’t believe that any man can represent God. Nor that any man can represent Christ. Yet, those itinerant preachers believed they were doing just that.

    2 Corinthians 5:20King James Version (KJV)

    20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

    And they didn’t go around proving anything by Scripture alone. They taught the Traditions of Jesus Christ and showed the truth of them in the Scriptures.

    1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

    2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

    Those are the three elements of Church Teaching. Tradition, Scripture as taught by the Magisterium.

    who were in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses,

    They weren’t preaching because they were in disagreement with the Jews. They were preaching because they were sent by Christ so to do:

    Matt 28:19-20

    Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)

    19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

    then you have invalidated the church.

    Nope. You have made void the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which He died upon the Cross to give to you. We submit to His Church and through the Church to Him who established it and authorized it to preach the Wisdom of God to all generations.

  • James

    Ultimately you want me to reject Church teaching and accept your own opinion. That I can’t do.

  • James

    The Bible itself is part of the Magisterium. There’s also all the other Church writings and traditions past on in the last 2000 years. It’s not the Bible alone, it was never meant to be.

  • Then you should have no problem with dogmas “not being found in Scripture.”

    Wrong, as we are not dealing with the giving of the Law and additions to Scripture, or optional practices, but of making binding dogmas and teaching which are not of Scripture. If Jannes
    and Jambres being the reprobates which withstood Moses was never affirmed by being included in Scripture then it could not be a required belief.

    If God as a Trinity of Divine persons, all with the same eternal nature, did not have such collective complimentary support, based upon explicit and implicit texts which collectively only support it, else a contradiction would result, then historically evangelicals not have been foremost defenders of it against cults.

    In contrast are things as praying to created beings in Heaven,

  • James

    “Indeed, as presbuteros/episkopos, not apostles or hierus (priest), which invalidates those of Rome.”

    That’s an old canard.

    “As far as the term “priest” is concerned: it is not surprising that the Christians of the first century would not use the term “priest” (Gr. hiereus) in describing their ministers. This was the same term being used by the more numerous Jewish (cf. Lk. 1:8-9) and even pagan (cf. Acts 14:13) priests. Christians most likely used language to distinguish their priests from the Jewish and pagan priests of their day.”
    http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-there-a-new-covenant-ministerial-priesthood

    “and to which the Lord opened the minds of the disciples to, which is never said of tradition.”

    Really? Where in the Bible does Christ tell the Apostles to write anything down? He told them to preach. Their writing came after they taught the Faith, and most of their gospels and epistles were written to people ALREADY converted to the Faith. That’s why not everything is in the Bible. The people they wrote to already received the sacraments and were already practicing the traditions, which is evident from patristic writings. Hence St. Paul wrote:

    “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thes. 2: 14

    That’s the Word of God, isn’t it? And not only that…

    “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” St. John 21: 25

    The Bible itself tells us that the Faith is not the Bible alone. Plus, it’s common sense.

  • James

    “Wrong, as we are not dealing with the giving of the Law and additions to Scripture, or optional practices, but of making binding dogmas and teaching which are not of Scripture.”
    Wrong. They are not of YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture.

  • James

    “If God as a Trinity of Divine persons, all with the same eternal nature, did not have such collective complimentary support, based upon explicit and implicit texts which collectively only support it, else a contradiction would result,….In contrast are things as praying to created beings in Heaven,”
    Ultimately you want me to reject the Church’s judgment, and accept YOUR OWN. Can’t do that. Sorry.

  • James

    “Which is effectively meaningless, as Rome is the autocratic judge of what a contradiction is or even with herself. The specious nature of many of her attempts even with the latter is why you have your sects.”
    First of all…sects? The Catholic Church doesn’t have “sects.” If they’re sects, then they’re not Catholic. If you’re talking about RITES (like Latin, Eastern, Melkite Greek, etc.), those are all loyal to Rome. You Protestants are the ones with sects.
    “Which is effectively meaningless…”
    The only thing that’s meaningless is your opinion of Scripture, which the Church wrote, not you.

  • James

    “Indeed, as presbuteros…”
    Btw, the word “priest” comes from “presbuteros” too. Anyone can google it.

  • At over 35,000 words, i intend this to be my last series of answers, which are already requiring redundancy. I have tried to obey,

    In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; (2 Timothy 2:25)

    Sorry for lack of meekness.

    And there you have it. It all comes down to INTERPRETATION. You have yours, other people have theirs. Exactly why there needs to be a magisterium with “assured veracity” as you put it sophisticatedly.

    Wrong. You have yet to provide the infallible magisterium by which souls recognized the SUPERNATURAL TRUTH (your caps) which you stated was essential by (in response to the question: ” is that an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God?” – Yep. Even the best historians can only say what the historical FACTS are. They can’t determine the SUPERNATURAL TRUTH.)

    Thus somehow men, words and writings of God were recognized as being so, and by which they has supernatural faith, and which was preserved so that such sous also believed in itinerant preachers who were in dissent from the valid historical magisterium.

    The office of the latter is upheld, as is its civil equivalent, and is given supreme judicial authorial, but such has never been assuredly infallible as per Rome, nor essential to provide, discern and preserve Truth, as is manifest in Scripture. Only God and His word possess assured veracity.

    as you put it sophisticatedly

    What is it so hard for a RC, whose faith abounds with ten dollar words (including supererogation) to comprehend a simple term as assured veracity, which corresponds to assured infallibility?

    As veracity basically means truthfulness, power of conveying or perceiving truth, and assured basically means certainty (though ensured” would be better), then assured magisterial veracity denotes the promise that the magisterium will never be in error.

    And which is what you have affirmed in any case so objections are a little late.

    How about the extra-biblical doctrine that says all revealed truth has to be found in the Bible?

    How about being more technical yourself concerning what i argue for? Are you (or was it DM) again trying argue SS means all truth is in Scripture? Do you only mean formally, and explicitly, or also materially and implicitly?

    And are you talking binding doctrine, or the order of worship, etc.?

    And that SS was always operative, and essential for salvation?

    Do you think SS must deny that “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” (Psalms 19:1-3) (General revelation)

    And that there are some circumstances which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed? (Westminster)

    And that even the lost can know there is a Creator, and obey the essence of the Law though ignorant of Scripture, which teaches they can? (Rm. 1:19-21; 2:14)

    And that God can personally “speak” to souls today (at least during the offering!)

    And that before there even was a written word, then God expressly
    revealed Himself and His will in a limited way to a quite limited number
    of persons, whose authority was established upon supernatural attestation and in virtue.

    SS does not mean it was always operative, or must be, any more than the Law was before Moses, but to more grace is given, more is required.

    But that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    And yet even today souls can be saved even without having the Scriptures, but by hearing Scriptural Truth. For in all cases what is believed must be that which Scripture teaches without contradiction, understood thru precepts and principals.

    I hold that Scripture has always been the supreme standard, and which in its present contents, in its formal and material aspects, sufficiently provides “the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life. Which is either expressly set
    down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
    deduced from Scripture.”

    “…So that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (Westminster)

    Even if you want to make another stream of express Divine revelation equal with Scripture, that being “oral tradition,” seeing as some of Scripture first was passed down that way, then the problem becomes the basis for it being the word of God.

    For unlike as in Scripture, in which the word of God was abundantly recognized and established as being so (due to its power and attestation) without an infallible magisterium, under Rome such is decreed to be the binding word of God under the premise of perpetual magisterium infallibility.

    But which is unknown and unnecessary in Scripture, and is not even part of the “better” covenant which Hebrews expounds on at length. But the assurance that this claim is true is itself based upon the very premise that it is. For as you have argued, souls need the infallible magisterium to determine SUPERNATURAL TRUTH.

  • “Really, then those who sat in the seat of Moses must have also possessed assured infallibility.”

    Under certain conditions, yes. Same with the NT one. They could still have erroneous opinions and set bad examples though.

    Wrong. Show me the conditions (outside of evidential warrant) under which the people would assuredly know that the OT mag. could not err, but that its teachings were and would be infallible, and thus there was no possibility of valid dissent.

    And that apart from that the OT mag. the people could not ascertain and thus believe what was of God. Remember your premise is that assured infallibility, in the context of Rome, is essential to know supernatural truth.

    It is clear that souls discerned men and words of God, of supernatural Truth, even though those who sat in the seat of Moses, which were the OT mag. (Mt. 23:2) rejected them.

    You are moving the goal posts out of necessity. That the OT mag, which Christ identified as the Scribes and Pharisees, were infallible is necessary for you to be consistent with your premise that possession of assured infallibility is essential to recognize supernatural truth, but being able to sometimes speak spiritual truth is not possession of assured infallibility.

    Which for Rome basically means whenever a person or unified body speaks to all its subjects on certain subjects (faith and morals) in a certain way then it is ensured it will be truth and not error.

    And by which the people obtained assurance of Truth, and the possibility of valid dissent was excluded.

    Even a pagan (or a Protestant) can speak supernatural truth, and as high priest Caiaphas only did so spontaneously in the prophetic sense, which he did no mean it to be, and in fact was counseling murder. This is not assurance of perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, which was never provided or necessary for souls the definition, discernment and preservation of Truth and faith.

    “And thus once again you affirm that the NT was invalid, since it began in dissent from them.”

    Your conclusion doesn’t follow. The OT faithful followed the infallible OT magisterial teachings (oral and written).

    It does indeed, as believing things such as the Shema does not mean the OT magisterium possessed of assured infallibility, and if it did, then under the Roman model it certainly was to be followed in its judgment of who the Messiah was, and its rejection of other itinerant Preachers.

    But as the people discerned men and Truth of God as being so when rejected by the OT mag, and which ultimately included John and the Christ, thus an infallible magisterium was not essential for the people to do so, and thus valid dissent is allowed.

    The lack of assured infallibility of office, on which basis the people knew
    there was infallible teachings, did not negate their authority while in
    office, yet neither the possibility of valid dissent. The same is
    true in the authority of civil jurisprudence.

    they weren’t “dissenting” from any infallible OT teachings anymore than Paul was “dissenting” from Peter for correcting his bad example.

    Which presumes a basis for why any OT teaching could be called infallible, which was not that of assured magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

    Moreover, public dissent, while privately tolerated, is censured (at least on paper) by Rome even to the ordinary magisterium, and is certainly disallowed of us by RCs even to changeable canon laws such as clerical celibacy, which is defended as if it were infallible.

  • “That simply avoids answering the question.” simply avoids answering the question.”

    What question? About Ignatius?

    I understand it can be hard to keep up, but look what you are replying to.

    “avoids answering the question” flows from your response to my question ,

    “how did souls know that the multitude of OT books upon which the church established its Truth claims upon were inspired?
    Is an infallible magisterium necessary for that?””

    “So it remains that your position is that an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God?”

    To which you replied ,

    Yep. Even the best historians can only say what the historical FACTS are. They can’t determine the SUPERNATURAL TRUTH..it’s a TRUTH claim that we have to believe in Jesus to be saved. That’s something neither you nor any historian can determine.

    To which i said ,

    Consistent but damning. Thus it remains that souls recognized SUPERNATURAL TRUTH, of both men and words of God, and became children of God without an infallible magisterium, but upon Scriptural substantiation. Souls could know of a Truth that such men as Elijah were of God, and writings. And thus the church began due to this, and contrary to the Roman model.

    To which you replied,

    Damning to YOUR beliefs. Who wrote the NT scriptures? The NT magisterium.

    Which brings us to,

    That simply avoids answering the question. Before there could be a NT magisterium there had to be supernatural truth, upon which the promised New covenant had its basis.

    For it remains that while you hold that an infallible magisterium is essential to recognize supernatural Truth, and believing words and writings were of God, from which faith comes, and thus there were children of God who would believe the Scriptures that revealed Christ, yet there was no infallible magisterium by which they came to believe these Scripture.

    “Before there could be a NT magisterium there had to be supernatural truth, upon which the promised New covenant had its basis.”

    Wouldn’t that be Jesus Christ?

    No, as even faith in Him must have a basis, and since you hold an infallible magisterium is essential for ascertaining supernatural Truth, which DM also affirmed, then and we are speaking about how souls even recognized men and writings as supernatural Truth before Christ, and which spoke of Christ, and to which He referred to so much.

    Contrary to RC imagination, Divine revelation did not begin with the church, nor that of salvation, nor did Christ started a brand new religion, but instead He was preached as the Messiah the recognized Scriptures – not oral tradition – foretold, and whose oral teaching was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

    But under your Catholic model for recognition of supernatural Truth then OT souls could not know what they had to believe in order to be children of God, and be so, or believe the writings by which they believed on Christ.

    “the NT is counted to have over 200 references to the OT., with both men, words and writings of God being recognized as being so.”

    So?

    So?! Typical RC arrogance, which betrays the superfluous status they afford Scripture, esp. the OT. while compelling it to support Rome in condescension to evangelicals who hold t supreme.

    If the NT depends upon the OT then its abundant references are not superfluous, while they also testify to souls recognizing them as supernatural Truth with an infallible magisterium.

    “But since an infallible magisterium was essential to recognize these Truths, it remains that the church began contrary to the Roman model you affirm.”

    Peter believed that Jesus Christ was God because he received a special revelation from the Father (Matt. 16:17). Christ then established the Church on Peter, creating the NT magisterium. It began exactly as the Catholic Church says it began.

    Wrong, as while to Peter it was also revealed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son the living God, yet the church which Christ told him He would build, began at Pentecost (as the new covenant, which it signified with its message and charisms, required the death of the testator: Heb. 9:16) with more than one believer, but with souls who had recognized the supernatural Truth of the OT which Peter preached from in giving the gospel to the 3k+ Jews.

    And not only, but was Peter himself was first told by Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother “We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ,” which was due to souls recognizing the supernatural Truth o the OT, but due to that Nathanael also stated at the beginning of their call, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (John 1:45) And in meeting Christ, he also confessed, a “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” (John 1:49)

    Thus contrary to the idea than infallible mag. was essential to ascertain supernatural Truth, souls had does so before there was a church of Rome, and upon which the NT body of Christ established its Truth claims and gained its members.

    You failed to answer my question: Do you claim that JUST ANYBODY can teach from the scriptures with the assurance of faith?

    “With the assurance of faith? Obviously if you mean assurance that they will be right, as per the assured (in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria) infallibility of Rome, then I have only argued against that for man.

    If you mean as providing assurance by teaching from the scriptures, then have responded to that as in saying that assurance must be based upon warrant.

    Your question then would be like asking if JUST ANY citizen can become president. Any one might, assurance is based upon warrant, versus the premise of a personal charism of infallibility.

    “Do you deny that in Scripture, God rose of non-ordained (by men) men of God from with the magisterium to reprove and preserve faith?

    To reprove and preserve faith, of course. But not to have their own private interpretation of scripture and start their own man-made religion, like Luther and others did.

    But “private interpretation” means contrary to that of the magisterium, which John the baptizer and others did in seeing the OT Scriptures as teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was Him, among other things.

    Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed…Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. (John 7:47,48,52)

    In addition, it is not only direct contrary interpretations of scripture that constitutes dissent, but rejection of certain traditions as being valid in the light of scripture. (Mk. 7:2-16)

    And it is Rome whose inventions are man-made, including the basis for their veracity.

  • “What part of “can be dubious” warrants that he cannot be accurate?”

    Sounds like you don’t know for sure. I’m not surprised.

    Rather, it sounds like you have not been reading.

    “(though enough faith was preserved that the body of Christ continued)”

    Rather, that is Biblical, as it typically is a relative remnant that is saved.

    Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: (Matthew 7:13)

    Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (Romans 11:3-4)

    Likewise there are also those who do not kneel before a statue praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed bymental prayer.

    Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can’t you tell the difference?

    Nevermind all the Catholic saints who were responsible for said preservation of the faith, before during and after the protestant rebellion! (including 81 sainted popes!)

    RCs tend to see the past with rose colored glasses :

    As early as 366, we have a pope, Damasus 1, who began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a “saint.” Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;

    The sixth century found Rome sunk too low by war and pestilence for many churches to be built; but at this time took place the transformation of ancient buildings into Christian shrines. Instead of despising the relics of paganism, the Roman priesthood prudently gathered to themselves all that could be adopted from the old world. Gregorovius remarks that the Christian religion had grown up side by side with the empire, which this new power was ready to replace when the Emperor withdrew to the East.

    The Bishop of Rome assumed the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. – Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176

    ..in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely ‘deprived of the protection of the Church’, which was (as they termed it) ‘relaxed’, the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a ‘defender of heretics’, and plunged into the perils of the system himself. (Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, p. 253) Cardinal Bellarmine:

    “Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

    Cardinal Ratzinger,

    “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” p.196

  • Really, then those who sat in the seat of Moses must have also possessed assured infallibility.

    How does that follow?

    Again, try to follow the argument before wasting more time.

    The response is to the premise that assured veracity, via an infallible magisterium as per Rome is essential to discern supernatural Truth, which excludes the possibility of valid dissent, and thus the challenge was given as to where this essential so in order to provide, discern and preserve Truth.

    The response was Matthew 16 and John 14:16-17, but if so, then it had to be true before that keeping with the premise this was necessary, and thus it follows that who sat in the seat of Moses must have also had possessed assured infallibility.

    Which the poster actually tried to assert, yet there was no assured infallibility, and no where was the possibility of valid dissent excluded, upon which the church itself began.

    And thus once again you affirm that the NT was invalid, since it began in dissent from them.

    Where do you get this stuff?

    Again, it comes from your RC arguments.

    Your yourself have argued,

    Peace By JESUS
    an assuredly (if conditionall y) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth

    De Maria
    That is correct. Scripture explicitly states that the Church is the instrument by which God conveys His word and wisdom to the world:

    Peace By JESUS
    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    De Maria
    As confirmed in Scripture. Since the Catholic Church continues to hold to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as admonished by the Apostle, so to do:

    Peace By JESUS
    Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    But 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.)

    Thus under your basis for assurance of Truth, and its presuppositions, De Maria has nuked the NT church and replaced it with a false one.

    Don’t you even believe the Bible that you claim is the sole authority for doctrine? The Bible says that the NT was brought about because Christ fulfilled the OT upon the Cross: Hebrew s 9:15..Do you deny this?

    Indeed that is true, but which is another superficial argument due to RCs who seem to think the church began like the earth. For which text and book (esp.) is based upon OT Scriptures which were recognized and believed as being of God long before there was a church of Rome which presumed an infallible magisterium was essential for that.

    And instead of perpetual magisterial infallibility being the basis for assurance of Truth, it was Scriptural substantiation upon which the NT church est. its Truth claims upon.

  • What’s absurd is your twisting of what the Church teaches and thinking you can read the Bible and understand what Christ said without following the Church He founded on Peter. So much for your opinion

    True to how souls believed on Christ in rejecting the mag. which likewise presumed itself to be above that which was written:

    The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? (John 7:46-47)

  • Those Prophets were infallible when speaking and writing that truth. They were the TEACHING authority (magisterium).

    Wrong. The office of a prophets was NOT the office of the magisterium, which the Lord stated were the Scribes and Pharisees, (M. 23:2) which were opposed to prophets such as John. Thus their demand of Christ as to where His authority came from.,

    The prophet class did not have their legitimacy by via aristocracy of learning as with the Pharisees, nor via lineal descent of blood as the priests, but by a manifest call of God which could belong to anyone. Which also meant you ha pseudo prophets, whom the people were to stone.

    This call placed valid prophets outside the control of magisterial control, and which God raised up to reprove (and thus protest against) those leadership. But the church did not begin upon the foundation of the OT magisterium, but upon the Christ they rejected, and the apostles and prophets – all men whom the historical magisterium

    And as akin to against Rome, the Lord warned, “I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. (Matthew 23:34)

    In addition, while the prophets as well as all the writers of Holy Writ were infallible when speaking and writing that truth, yet this is not assured magisterial infallibility. For there was no insurance that whenever the wrote anything on faith and morals then they would be wholly inspired of God. Nor their descendants.

    Moreover, Rome does not claim to be speaking under the inspiration of God as the writers of Holy Writ were. It (and not even the reasoning or arguments behind it) are said to be protected from error.

    “God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.” (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility)

    One more thing:
    “If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents.

    Which argument i was aware of, as even a donkey can speak the word of God, but the false premise i addressed is that the validity of NT leadership is like that of kings under the OT, so that even if
    the pope is wicked then he is yet the head of the holy church militant since he a member of it.

    Requirements and NT authenticity is based upon manifest faith and virtue, not paper professions, thus requirements of 1Tim. 3 for elders deals with his virtues, doctrinal fidelity being a given. Ordination of such by such is valid, but historical decent does not ensure perpetuation when men become perverse, as Rome es. did leading up to the Reformation.

    The apostles could not and did not rest upon historical decent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, for as John said,

    And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)

    And while God will use bad rulers for a time in the absence good men, He is able to raise up stones who effectually confess faith in Christ as the Divine Son of God, to continue to build His church, which body of Christ Rome has much persecuted.

  • Magisterium simply means teaching authority.

    Then that would create division within the Magisterium, which is a problem when that is what RCs present as the solution to it, as prophets, whose teaching authority came from God, not ordination, reproved those who sat in the formal office of judgment. Which sometimes condemned prophets.

    It is obvious that there is the Magisterium refers to an office, and which as said, Christ defined in His time as being the Scribes and the Pharisees, and against which Christ sent prophets.

    And if prophets who reproved those who sat in the supreme position of judgment over Israel, as they did, then it risks the possibility of valid reproof from within the body of Christ of those who claim to sit in the supreme position of judgment, but are rejected. Which is why it is critical for Rome to restrict her supreme magisterial office to exclude being in critical error.

    Furthermore, by making prophets and other writers of Scripture into the magisterium, then you have just affirmed Scripture as the magisterium.

    And as said, a prophet and writer of Scripture was not insured against error whenever he wrote, nor were they ordained by men to do so.

    Nor was the Scripture a project of the magisterium, as unlike a Romish decree, these writings were often the work of individuals, sometimes to individuals, and were not immediately recognized Scripture by the body corporate, but were recognized by some apart from a magisterium. .

    Thus instead of your moving goals posts again to create an infallible
    magisterium by which souls recognized supernatural truth, it remains
    that souls did so without one.

    “How was anyone convinced Isaiah was authoritative?”
    If you’re asking me what went through people’s minds that convinced them, then you’re asking something I can’t possibly know nor could you

    But according to you an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God, and thus while we may not know the thoughts of men, the infallible magisterium must be the instrumental basis for assurance.

    The Catholic Church is the only one that goes back to the first century and hasn’t changed its teachings.

    Pure propaganda, based upon the premise that Rome only can be correct in defining what even history teaches, as Manning expressed, as what an actual change in teaching is.

    I will let the SSPX and SSPV and the legions of sympathizers debate you and that one.

  • Actually, i want to you to be like and do what the Bereans did, in order to ascertain the veracity of RC (or any) teaching, but which you are not supposed to do.

    It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock…the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. – VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

    “The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII, Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur)

    “All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” – “Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means”, (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

    ..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

  • “Indeed, as presbuteros/episkopos, not apostles or hierus (priest), which invalidates those of Rome.”

    That’s an old canard.

    Wrong:

    In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord’s Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) – which He does use for NT pastors – mean “priest.” Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

    What occurred is that “presbuteros” in Greek (presbyter in Latin) was translated into English as “preost,” and then “priest,” but which also became the word used for “hierus” (“sacerdos” in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.

    The Catholic titular use of hiereus/priest for presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy , since “priest” from old English “preost” etymologically is derived from “presbyteros,” due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

    Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions.

    The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to or the same as its original or historical meaning. So that since presbyteros incorrectly became priest from preost, therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors.

    All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere at NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled “hiereus” was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

    Catholic writer Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide,” states, “Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.”

    “When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome’s theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist.” (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

    More. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/Titus_1.html#Titus

    Really? Where in the Bible does Christ tell the Apostles to write anything down? He told them to preach.

    Of course, but not as RCs imagine, as if the Christian faith was a new thing, but as can be plainly and abundantly seen, established its 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.) Under Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) which is is abundantly evidenced to be.

    Hence St. Paul wrote:

    “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thes. 2: 14

    Indeed, that of Scriptural Truths, and the word of God which would be written, as normally is the case. See above link. You cannot show me that what Paul referred to as oral was anything Rome holds as the word of God, but i can abundantly evidence that the fact is that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” St. John 21: 25

    Indeed, which is not contrary to SS, except the typical RC straw man of if, but which holds that was is necessary is contained in Scripture in its formal and material aspects.

    And which what John said in the previous chapter you did not quote supports:

    And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

    The Bible itself tells us that the Faith is not the Bible alone. Plus, it’s common sense.

    What the Bible itself tells us that the Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rn. 10:17) and as Scripture is the only transcendent immutable morphous body of communication which is wholly inspired of God, versus amorphous oral tradition, which rests upon the premise of magisterial infallibility which Rome infallible decreed she has, then it alone as a body is the assured word of God, which judges all things, though it provides for the church, the magisterial office, and for God leading us in conformity with it.

    is not the Bible alone. Plus, it’s common sense.

  • Wrong. They are not able to be shown of Scripture. Thus the contrivances DM had to resort to here in trying to support praying to created beings in Heaven, which God somehow neglected to include even on example to out of over 200 prayers in Scripture, all to the Lord.

    And thus of them having the power to hear virtually infinite amounts of prayer in Heaven, which only God is shown able to do,

  • I do not know how my responses are getting up before i post them, so ignore duplicates, but i already dealt with this charge. As said, this is getting redundant.

  • The Catholic Church doesn’t have “sects.”

    Wrong, you have sects, both formal and informal. See <a href="Mass Locator – District of the USA – Society of St. Pius X “>here, <a href="10.1 Sedevacantist sites “>here and on this site here

  • I’m tired of following your circular reasoning, so maybe we SHOULD end the debate

    The circularity is on your end and Rome’s, as it remains that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare 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.

    Congrats on going the distance.

  • If you cannot/will not admit that souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God without an infallible magisterium then this exchange will end.

    Oh no. He doesn’t want to speak to me. Boo hoo.

    Since you will not own up to what you have affirmed more than once, then no one should consider you fit for exchange, except to expose your insolence.

    If you cannot/will not admit that souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God without an infallible magisterium then this exchange will end.

    It is besides the point! Those same souls couldn’t recognize Jesus Christ!

    Wrong: they did and it actually is the point. OT saints and those who believed the His apostles did so because souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God (which the NT church est. its claims by) without an infallible magisterium.

    The rest of your post ignores your above insurmountable problem.

    “an assuredly (if conditionall y) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth.”

    De Maria
    That is correct.

    Peace By JESUS
    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    De Maria
    As confirmed in Scripture. Since the Catholic Church continues to hold to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as admonished by the Apostle, so to do:

    Peace By JESUS
    Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    But 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.)

    More attempts to deal with you must come to an END.

  • James

    Sedevacantists are in schism. Are they loyal to Rome? No, they reject the pope. Duh

  • James

    Thank you for your opinion and more historians disagreeing with each other. Both sides can argue. All the more reason to need and infallible magisterium. You keep proving me right, simply by responding.

  • James

    Here we go again. Not everything was meant to be in Scripture.

  • They aren’t contrivances. They are merely recognition of the facts. We read the New Testament Scriptures the way they were intended to be read. They are a recording of the actual practices of the Catholic Church after Jesus Christ ascended to heaven. They record what Jesus taught and did in the Gospels and what the Church did in obedience to His Commands.

    The New Testament was written based upon an established Deposit of Traditions which Jesus Christ gave the Church and commanded the Church to Teach.

    It is because Protestants have rejected these Traditions that they understand the meaning of the New Testament.

  • James

    “Wrong. You have yet to provide the infallible magisterium by which souls recognized the SUPERNATURAL TRUTH”
    What planet is this? Who wrote the scriptures? The teaching authority (latin: magisterium). In the OT, they had the gift of prophecy, which is greater than just infallibility (see the article I linked…you know which one). In the NT, they have infallibility.
    This IS getting redundant.

  • James

    Magisterium: Latin, “teaching authority”

    Do you accept the scriptures as authoritative? Who wrote the scriptures?

    Christ Himself told the Apostles to recognize the authority and word of those who sat in the seat of Moses. Do what they say, not what they do…

    “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”
    Matthew 23: 1-3

    So when you say “the church began in dissent,” the only real dissent is from the hypocritical actions of those who sat in the seat of Moses, not dissent from their authority or infallible word.

    Even though Caiaphas was corrupt, God still used him to make a prophecy, and prophecy ranks higher than infallibility, which I already explained and gave a link to in one of my earlier responses, somewhere in this sea of comments. So much for Protestant justification of dissent from the authority and infallible word of the successors of the Christ-appointed Apostles.
    Since it was the case for the OT (that fallible men can be infallible under certain conditions), then it most certainly is the case for the NT, because as you pointed out…Christ did not start a “brand new religion.” He fulfilled the OC and established the NC.

  • James

    I think you meant Protestants DON’T understand the real meaning of the NT…but I gocha. Well said.
    I think PbJ think that an infallible magisterium is essential for using our ability to reason, which neither of us said, nor is that what the Church teaches.
    In the NT, the infallible magisterium is necessary to DEFINE truths that have already been revealed, so that we can understand them better. THAT is something only the Church can do. And once they are dogmatically defined, they’re binding, which means we can’t dissent from them like Protestants do.
    How people merely come to recognize the truth in the first place is different for everybody, plus good will and bad will are factors, as I already explained to PbJ somewhere in this mess of comments.

  • James

    I meant to write “I think PbJ thinks we think…”
    And not to say that the truth wasn’t binding before…just saying that the definition is also binding. And recognizing the whole truth includes recognizing the magisterium that wrote the scriptures that authorizes the magisterium. Just like the recognizing the government that wrote the constitution that authorizes the government.
    I don’t have a Disqus account so I can’t edit my comments haha

  • James

    Plus, your whole explanation is irrelevant, as the Catholic Answers article I quoted and linked explains why the early Christians didn’t use the Greek term “heirus.” Their explanation makes sense to me. Yours doesn’t.

  • James

    Once again you resort to pseudo-history and non-infallible theological opinion.

  • James

    “As expressed, such testifies to the progressive deformation of the church”
    So the early Church was deformed!!?? …and the Protestants (1500 years later!) were NOT!!!??? Which universe are YOU in? Maybe you’re in an alternate dimension, I don’t know.

  • James

    PbJ…

    “Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)….But 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.)”

    You also said in other comments the the NT Church “began in dissent…”

    I already explained in another comment way below:

    “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”
    Christ told them to accept the authority and infallible word of the OT magisterium (those on the seat of Moses…those with the charism of prophecy), but not to follow their hypocritical actions. The only dissent was from bad example, not authority or infallible word (the same with Paul rebuking Peter, and St. Catherine of Siena correcting her Pope). They did NOT dissent from the authority or infallible word of the Pope, like you do.
    And you seem to be misunderstanding us and the Church. You don’t need an infallible magisterium to use your ability to reason and common sense and arrive at the truth, but you do need an infallible magisterium to DEFINE revealed truth. That’s plain even from Acts 15.
    Btw, I don’t know if I missed any of your replies down below, but I can’t answer them down there anymore anyway because I can’t load them. I don’t have a Disqus account so I have to scroll down there and it takes too long to load now because of all the comments.

  • James

    The Scriptures should lead you to accept the Catholic Church. If not, then you’re reading them wrong.

    PbJ: “in order to ascertain the veracity of RC (or any) teaching, but which you are not supposed to do.”

    You utterly misunderstand the purpose of the magisterium. Maybe I wrote something originally and you misunderstood that, or I miswrote, or whatever… Anyway, I explained in my comment below…

    In the NT, the magisterium is infallible so it can define dogmas. We have to accept those dogmatic definitions. If not, you dissent from the authority and infallible word of the magisterium, which is going against what Christ said in Matthew 23: 1-3…

    “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

  • Peace By JESUS James • 2 hours ago

    At over 35,000 words, i intend this to be my last series of answers, which are already requiring redundancy. I have tried to obey,

    In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; (2 Timothy 2:25)

    Sorry for lack of meekness.

    No problem. We’re used to it. People tend to lose their cool when they are proven wrong.

    Wrong. You have yet to provide the infallible magisterium by which souls recognized the SUPERNATURAL TRUTH (your caps) which you statedwas essential by (in response to the question: ” is that an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God?” – Yep. Even the best historians can only say what the historical FACTS are. They can’t determine the SUPERNATURAL TRUTH.)

    I guess the onus is on you to show the list of inspired scripture provided by the non infallible magisterium which you claim selected the Writings of God before Christ. Because the Jews, before Christ, had a volume called the Septuagint, which they later rejected and which you also reject. And many other writings, such as the book of Moses and the book of Enoch, which you reject as well. So, we’re waiting. Provide the list that they agreed and proclaimed were the true Scriptures.

    Til then, we’ll hold that an infallible Magisterium is necessary for the identification of the inspired Scriptures.

    Thus somehow men, words and writings of God were recognized as being so, and by which they has supernatural faith, and which was preserved so that such sous also believed in itinerant preachers who were in dissent from the valid historical magisterium.

    Provide the proof.

    The office of the latter is upheld, as is its civil equivalent, and is given supreme judicial authorial, but such has never been assuredly infallible as per Rome, nor essential to provide, discern and preserve Truth, as is manifest in Scripture. Only God and His word possess assured veracity.

    Except that the people of which you speak provided several lists of Scripture. Then, after the coming of Christ, rejected some of those lists. And that’s not taking into account the other writings which many of them considered the Word of God. So, it is up to you to provide the proof that the fallible magisterium of the Jews before Christ identified an inspired canon of Scripture.

    What is it so hard for a RC, whose faith abounds with ten dollar words (including supererogation) to comprehend a simple term as assured veracity, which corresponds to assured infallibility?

    Its your multiplication of words and complicated sentence constructions compounded with your run on sentences and unorthodox use of language. You can’t seem to construct a simple sentence to save your life.

    We know what supererogation means. We can find it in a dictionary. But look up “assured veracity” in any dictionary, even a religious dictionary. You’ll find nothing official.

    As veracity basically means truthfulness, power of conveying or perceiving truth, and assured basically means certainty (though ensured” would be better), then assured magisterial veracity denotes the promise that the magisterium will never be in error.

    And which is what you have affirmed in any case so objections are a little late.

    And which is proven necessary for the selection of inspired Scripture. As you have yet to produce the list which was declared inspired before the coming of Jesus Christ.

    How about being more technical yourself concerning what i argue for? Are you (or was it DM) again trying argue SS means all truth is in Scripture? Do you only mean formally, and explicitly, or also materially and implicitly?….

    I bow to your superior knowledge about Sola Scriptura. I’ll skip down to your definition of the term.

    SS does not mean it was always operative, or must be, any more than the Law was before Moses, but to more grace is given, more is required.

    So, according to you, Sola Scriptura was not always in force. Ok.

    But that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    By whom? Who does the testing and establishing of truth? Is there a specific agency? A specific person? Who tests the doctrines of men and compares them to Scripture? Or, can anyone do it?

    Here, let me show you what the Westminister Confession says:

    Chapter XXX

    Of Church Censures

    I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.[1]

    II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[2]

    Who are these people to whom the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are committed?

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    Why was there no such group before Jesus Christ came on the scene?

    And yet even today souls can be saved even without having the Scriptures, but by hearing Scriptural Truth.

    So, the Scriptures are not necessary for conveying the Word of God? Isn’t that the Catholic Teaching?

    For in all cases what is believed must be that which Scripture teaches without contradiction, understood thru precepts and principals.

    Are these precepts and principals in Scripture? For instance, where is the precept of Sola Scriptura?

    I hold that Scripture has always been the supreme standard,

    Hm? But didn’t you say that “SS does not mean it was always operative“?

    and which in its present contents,

    Who established the present canon?

    in its formal and material aspects,

    Who provided its formal and material aspects? In other words, who wrote the New Testament?

    sufficiently provides “the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life. Which is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”

    That’s actually Catholic Doctrine. If you add the word “alone” after Scripture, then it becomes the Protestant false doctrine. The Catholic Church says that those things are also taught in Sacred Tradition. By the Church.

    “…So that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain understanding of them.”

    Does that mean that anyone can attain understanding of them? Because Scripture says that one needs to be taught:

    Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

    Even if you want to make another stream of express Divine revelation equal with Scripture, that being “oral tradition,” seeing as some of Scripture first was passed down that way, then the problem becomes the basis for it being the word of God.

    The Church says it is in the Scriptures that she wrote:

    Hebrews 13:7King James Version (KJV)

    7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

    1 Thessalonians 2:13King James Version (KJV)

    13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

    For unlike as in Scripture, in which the word of God was abundantly recognized and established as being so (due to its power and attestation) without an infallible magisterium, under Rome such is decreed to be the binding word of God under the premise of perpetual magisterium infallibility.

    None of that is true. The Jews didn’t derive a canon, except the Septuagint which you reject, before the time of Christ. Or if they did, show me.

    But which is unknown and unnecessary in Scripture, and is not even part of the “better” covenant which Hebrews expounds on at length. But the assurance that this claim is true is itself based upon the very premise that it is. For as you have argued, souls need the infallible magisterium to determine SUPERNATURAL TRUTH.

    Without the revelation of Jesus Christ to His Church, you wouldn’t have the New Testament today. The New Testament is, itself, a work of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is why it is without error. Because Jesus Christ established an infallible Church.

  • James

    Christ told the Jews to accept the OT authority and prophetic word of those who sat in the Chair of Moses. It follows that we in the NT must accept the NT authority and infallible word of those who sit in the Chair of Peter, because Christ didn’t come to abolish but to fulfill.

  • James

    PbJ: “Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (Romans 11:3-4)

    If God simply forbade the making of graven images, then there are problems elsewhere in the Bible. First, in Exodus 25:18-21, God commands Moses to make two statues of angels (cherubim) for the top of the Ark of the Covenant. (We pray to angels, btw.) Later in Numbers 21:8-9, God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent, so that the people who were bitten by snakes could look upon it and be healed (We don’t pray to serpents, but you see how graven images can be used in a good way.)

    PbJ: “Likewise there are also those who do not kneel before a statue praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed bymental prayer.”

    Please. You really think we pray to the statue? You’re a sad case. The statue is there to remind us of the actual person we’re addressing our petitions to, so it’s not as easy to get distracted while praying.

    “Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can’t you tell the difference?”
    I don’t know why Moses would even think of that. Mary didn’t even exist yet. Plus, they didn’t pray TO the dead in the old covenant. Those who died justified went to Abraham’s Bosom (Limbo of the Just) where they had to wait for Christ to come. We only pray to people in heaven, and nobody went to heaven in the OT. They went to heaven in the NT with Christ.

  • GeneDe

    I meant to compliment you earlier, so I’ll do it now: Good show!

  • James

    PbJ: “Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (Romans 11:3-4)

    If God simply forbade the making of graven images, then there are problems elsewhere in the Bible. First, in Exodus 25:18-21, God commands Moses to make two statues of angels (cherubim) for the top of the Ark of the Covenant. (We pray to angels, btw.) Later in Numbers 21:8-9, God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent, so that the people who were bitten by snakes could look upon it and be healed (We don’t pray to serpents, but you see how graven images can be used in a good way.)

    PbJ: “Likewise there are also those who do not kneel before a statue praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed bymental prayer.”

    Please. You really think we pray to the statue? You’re a sad case. The statue is there to remind us of the actual person we’re addressing our petitions to, so it’s not as easy to get distracted while praying.

    “Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can’t you tell the difference?”

    I don’t know why Moses would even think of that. Mary didn’t even exist yet. Plus, they didn’t pray TO the dead in the old covenant. Those who died justified went to Abraham’s Bosom (Limbo of the Just) where they had to wait for Christ to come. We only pray to people in heaven, and nobody went to heaven in the OT. They went to heaven in the NT with Christ.

  • My point in asking that particular question was that, because of the way he worded his statement, it would be practically impossible for anyone to prove he was lying even if he actually was lying. When politicians talk that way, it’s called “plausible deniability.”

    Lol! I gocha as well.

    I don’t have a Disqus account so I can’t edit my comments haha

    I enjoy reading your comments. Do you have a blog or post elsewhere?

  • Thanks!

  • Peace By JESUS James • a day ago

    James said:Magisterium simply means teaching authority.

    Then that would create division within the Magisterium,

    Huh? Actually, the Teaching Authority of the Church prevents division by providing one central and cohesive Doctrine taught throughout the world in accordance to the instruction of Jesus Christ.

    which is a problem when that is what RCs present as the solution to it,

    It is not the Catholic Church who presented that solution, but Christ (Matt 18:17).

    as prophets, whose teaching authority came from God,

    Actually Prophets were the oracles of God. Those who spoke God’s word to the Kings and priests of the Jewish nation. Prophets were not the official magisterium of the Jewish nation. It was the priests who were appointed by God to teach the people:

    Deuteronomy 24:8

    Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe diligently, and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you: as I commanded them, so ye shall observe to do.

    Both the prophets and the priests failed in their duty:

    Micah 3:10-12King James Version (KJV)

    10 They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. 11 The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us. 12 Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.

    not ordination, reproved those who sat in the formal office of judgment.

    The Levitical priesthood was done away in the New Testament and replaced with the Priesthood of Melchizedek.

    Which sometimes condemned prophets.

    True.

    It is obvious that there is the Magisterium refers to an office, and which as said, Christ defined in His time as being the Scribes and the Pharisees, and against which Christ sent prophets.

    There is no “against which. ” Christ sent the Church into the world to Teach what He commanded. They were to teach everyone, starting with the Jews.

    And if prophets who reproved those who sat in the supreme position of judgment over Israel, as they did, then it risks the possibility of valid reproof from within the body of Christ of those who claim to sit in the supreme position of judgment, but are rejected. Which is why it is critical for Rome to restrict her supreme magisterial office to exclude being in critical error.

    You ignore one little detail. Jesus Christ had fulfilled the OT and, as far as God is concerned, from that point on, there was no more authority in Israel.

    Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

    Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

    Furthermore, by making prophets and other writers of Scripture into the magisterium, then you have just affirmed Scripture as the magisterium.

    As a product of the Magisterium. That is, in fact, why Scripture is inerrant. Because it was produced by the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

    And as said, a prophet and writer of Scripture was not insured against error whenever he wrote, nor were they ordained by men to do so.

    What? I’m not sure if that’s an error or if you just questioned the inerrancy of Scripture?

    Nor was the Scripture a project of the magisterium, as unlike a Romish decree, these writings were often the work of individuals, sometimes to individuals, and were not immediately recognized Scripture by the body corporate, but were recognized by some apart from a magisterium.

    All the authors of Scripture were members of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Every single one.

    Thus instead of your moving goals posts again to create an infallible
    magisterium by which souls recognized supernatural truth, it remains
    that souls did so without one.

    In your imagination. But if you understood the true history, you would see that the New Testament, is merely a record of Traditions which were being observed from the moment that Jesus Christ authorized the Church to take action in the Pentecost.

    “How was anyone convinced Isaiah was authoritative?”

    If you’re asking me what went through people’s minds that convinced them, then you’re asking something I can’t possibly know nor could you

    But according to you an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God, and thus while we may not know the thoughts of men, the infallible magisterium must be the instrumental basis for assurance.

    Hm? Let’s go back to your question.

    “How was anyone convinced Isaiah was authoritative?”

    I assume that they were taught by the fallible magisterium of their day.

    But according to you an infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God,

    For Christians today. For example. You didn’t receive your knowledge from Moses, David or from any Levitical priest. You received your knowledge of the Scriptures from the Tradition passed down by Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church.

    and thus while we may not know the thoughts of men, the infallible magisterium must be the instrumental basis for assurance.

    That is correct. Let’s take the example of Luther. He eschewed the Magisterium and the first thing he tried to do was remove the Epistle of James and Hebrews from the Bible. He succeeded in removing the 7 deuterocanonicals.

    The Catholic Church is the only one that goes back to the first century and hasn’t changed its teachings.

    Pure propaganda, based upon the premise that Rome only can be correct in defining what even history teaches, as Manning expressed, as what an actual change in teaching is.

    I will let the SSPX and SSPV and the legions of sympathizers debate you and that one.

    They’ll lose, just as you have.

  • James

    “Actually, i want to you to be like and do what the Bereans did, in order to ascertain the veracity of RC (or any) teaching, but which you are not supposed to do.”
    You mean “search the scriptures”? Since when does the Catholic Church forbid that? The Church wrote the scriptures and the priests read them at every mass. The Church even grants an indulgence for Bible reading. The point is that it doesn’t stop there. It’s not the Bible alone. We have the patristic writings and the rest of tradition too. Ultimately we have to “hear the Church,” like it says right in the Bible.

  • James

    Thanks. I’m surprised I could reply down here…so many comments it takes forever to load haha. No, I don’t have a blog or anything. I enjoy reading your comments too. Keep it up!

  • James

    I’m surprised I can actually reply this far down. Takes forever to load.

    “The circularity is on your end and Rome’s…”

    Au contraire, De Maria and I have proven you wrong. Anyone who bothers to actually read all these comments will see that.

    You obviously have a problem with the NT magisterium’s authority. I wonder if you would’ve had a problem with the OLD testament magisterium’s authority too, particularly Caiaphas, even though Christ told the Jews:
    “The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”
    Matt. 23: 2-3
    If YOU were told by Jesus Christ to accept and obey a FALLIBLE magisterium, how could you possibly reject the INFALLIBLE magisterium that Christ established in the new covenant? In other words, if you were told by the Son of God to accept the authority and word of those who sat in the Chair of Moses, how could you possibly reject the authority and word of those who sit in the Chair of Peter, which the Son of God Himself established in Matt 16?
    If you really wish to continue, I can answer at the top, but I’d prefer not to keep chasing your circles.

  • Peace By JESUS De Maria • a day ago

    Again, try to follow the argument before wasting more time.

    Just answer the question.

    The response is to the premise that assured veracity, via an infallible magisterium as per Rome is essential to discern supernatural Truth, which excludes the possibility of valid dissent, and thus the challenge was given as to where this essential so in order to provide, discern and preserve Truth.

    Translation. You claim that the Catholic Church has a doctrine that the Magisterium is absolutely necessary for discerning supernatural truth.

    My answer remains the same as in a previous rebuttal. Provide the Catholic Doctrine which says that. Otherwise, it remains a straw man.

    The response was Matthew 16 and John 14:16-17,

    The response to what? Matt 16:18-19 says that Jesus Christ established an authoritative Church with the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.

    And John 14:16-17 says that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit.

    but if so, then it had to be true before that keeping with the premise this was necessary, and thus it follows that who sat in the seat of Moses must have also had possessed assured infallibility.

    On the contrary, Jesus Himself said:

    Matthew 15:3

    But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

    Which the poster actually tried to assert,

    I’m talking to you. Not anyone else.

    yet there was no assured infallibility,

    In the OT. But we follow Jesus Christ. The OT has been fulfilled.

    and no where was the possibility of valid dissent excluded, upon which the church itself began.

    The Church began because Jesus Christ authorized it and commissioned it to Teach and make disciples of the world. Jesus Christ established the Magisterium in the Church and commanded her to make disciples of the world.

    Do you really believe that the Jews still had authority when God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took flesh and came to earth and established the Church to Teach as He commanded?

    And thus once again you affirm that the NT was invalid, since it began in dissent from them.

    Your mistaken. The Catholic Church did not begin in dissent to Judaism. God brought Judaism to a close and established the Catholic Church to Teach the covenants of the New Testament to the world.

    Again, it comes from your RC arguments.

    You don’t understand our arguments.

    I guarantee that neither one of us ever thought of the Church as being started in dissent or rebellion to Judaism. The Church was established by Jesus Christ.

    Your yourself have argued,

    Peace By JESUS
    an assuredly (if conditionall y) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth

    De Maria
    That is correct. Scripture explicitly states that the Church is the instrument by which God conveys His word and wisdom to the world:

    That is true. Notice the present tense in my statement. But you have claimed that I said that my statement made it impossible for the OT Jews to know the authority of Isaiah. So, you have made a straw man argument.

    Peace By JESUS
    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    De Maria
    As confirmed in Scripture. Since the Catholic Church continues to hold to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as admonished by the Apostle, so to do:

    Again correct. But you have stretched that to mean that the Church began in dissent to the Jews, and you’re sorely mistaken. No one speaking in good faith could stretch my statement to mean any such thing.

    Peace By JESUS
    Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    You really need to learn how to communicate clearly.

    By 1st c. souls, you mean 1st century souls. Ok. And I assume you mean the Jews before Christ. Ok. Yes, they looked to the Pharisees and Saduccees for their knowledge of Divine Revelation.

    But then you say:

    But instead they followed an itinerant Preacher

    That’s too simplistic. THEY didn’t all follow the itinerant Preacher of which you speak. Some did.

    whom the magisterium rejected,

    And it wasn’t always clear that the magisterium would reject the itinerant Preacher. When it became clear, many more rejected Him based upon their fear of the ruling party.

    and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16)

    Mark 7:12-16King James Version (KJV)

    12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

    That says nothing about Scripture. The Jews passed down the Word of God by teaching. It is Catholic Church Teaching that the Word of God is Supreme. That is a very different thing than your teaching of Sola Scriptura.

    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.)

    You don’t see the forest for the trees.

    Jesus Christ is teaching the Jews and proving it by Scripture.
    Jesus Christ established a Church to Teach in His place.

    That is the Tradition of Magisterium.

    Thus under your basis for assurance of Truth, and its presuppositions, De Maria has nuked the NT church and replaced it with a false one.

    On the contrary, it is you who is attempting to nuke the Catholic Church.

    Indeed that is true,

    Then why do you keep saying that the Church was teaching in dissent of Judaism?

    but which is another superficial argument due to RCs who seem to think the church began like the earth.

    We keep telling you that Jesus Christ established the Church. What in the world do you mean that we think the church began like the earth?

    For which text and book (esp.) is based upon OT Scriptures which were recognized and believed as being of God long before there was a church of Rome which presumed an infallible magisterium was essential for that.

    That doesn’t even make sense. Salvation history is clear that Jesus Christ established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His commands. That is the Magisterium. And the very Scriptures say that that Church will be Teaching the Wisdom of God, even in eternity.

    And instead of perpetual magisterial infallibility being the basis for assurance of Truth, it was Scriptural substantiation upon which the NT church est. its Truth claims upon.

    Who is going to do the substantiating? Someone has to do it? Even the Westminister confession says that someone was given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Who is that, in your opinion?

  • Peace By JESUS De Maria •

    a day agoSince you will not own up to what you have affirmed more than once, then no one should consider you fit for exchange, except to expose your insolence.

    It is you who is behaving insolently. You make up doctrine as you go along and then try to impose your doctrine upon as though you consider yourself a magisterium. And that is precisely why I am exposing your insolence.

    Wrong: they did

    No. They didn’t. They crucified Christ.

    and it actually is the point. OT saints

    Those who were dead? Ok. They did recognize Jesus.

    and those who believed the His apostles

    Wow! That’s progress. So, those who believed the Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ. Yes, they did believe come to recognize Christ. Notice that they didn’t do this on their own but were taught by the Church.

    did so because souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God (which the NT church est. its claims by) without an infallible magisterium.

    On the contrary, it is because they recognized the authority of the Apostolic Church.

    The rest of your post ignores your above insurmountable problem.

    Look again.

    Peace By JESUS
    an assuredly (if conditionall y) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth

    De Maria
    That is correct. Scripture explicitly states that the Church is the instrument by which God conveys His word and wisdom to the world:

    That is true. Notice the present tense in my statement. But you have claimed that I said that my statement made it impossible for the OT Jews to know the authority of Isaiah. So, you have made a straw man argument.

    Peace By JESUS
    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

    De Maria
    As confirmed in Scripture. Since the Catholic Church continues to hold to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as admonished by the Apostle, so to do:

    Again correct. But you have stretched that to mean that the Church began in dissent to the Jews, and you’re sorely mistaken. No one speaking in good faith could stretch my statement to mean any such thing.

    Peace By JESUS
    Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    You really need to learn how to communicate clearly.

    By 1st c. souls, you mean 1st century souls. Ok. And I assume you mean the Jews before Christ. Ok. Yes, they looked to the Pharisees and Saduccees for their knowledge of Divine Revelation.

    But then you say:

    But instead they followed an itinerant Preacher

    That’s too simplistic. THEY didn’t all follow the itinerant Preacher of which you speak. Some did.

    whom the magisterium rejected,

    And it wasn’t always clear that the magisterium would reject the itinerant Preacher. When it became clear, many more rejected Him based upon their fear of the ruling party.

    and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16)

    Mark 7:12-16King James Version (KJV)

    12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

    That says nothing about Scripture. The Jews passed down the Word of God by teaching. It is Catholic Church Teaching that the Word of God is Supreme. That is a very different thing than your teaching of Sola Scriptura.

    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.)

    You don’t see the forest for the trees.

    Jesus Christ is teaching the Jews and proving it by Scripture.
    Jesus Christ established a Church to Teach in His place.

    That is the Tradition of Magisterium.

    Thus under your basis for assurance of Truth, and its presuppositions, De Maria has nuked the NT church and replaced it with a false one.

    On the contrary, it is you who is attempting to nuke the Catholic Church.

    Indeed that is true,

    Then why do you keep saying that the Church was teaching in dissent of Judaism?

    but which is another superficial argument due to RCs who seem to think the church began like the earth.

    We keep telling you that Jesus Christ established the Church. What in the world do you mean that we think the church began like the earth?

    For which text and book (esp.) is based upon OT Scriptures which were recognized and believed as being of God long before there was a church of Rome which presumed an infallible magisterium was essential for that.

    That doesn’t even make sense. Salvation history is clear that Jesus Christ established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His commands. That is the Magisterium. And the very Scriptures say that that Church will be Teaching the Wisdom of God, even in eternity.

    And instead of perpetual magisterial infallibility being the basis for assurance of Truth, it was Scriptural substantiation upon which the NT church est. its Truth claims upon.

    Who is going to do the substantiating? Someone has to do it? Even the Westminister confession says that someone was given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Who is that, in your opinion?

  • James

    “The Jews thought Jesus was being literal. Did Jesus say “Wait! it’s only figurative.
    Of course not, any more than He corrected those who though He spoke of destroying the literal temple in Jn. 2, and which they even used against Him in His illegal trial.
    For as the Lord said, these things “are done in parables:…”
    Are you trying to say that John 6 was a parable? Are you really saying that? If so, your argument fails miserably. If and when Christ makes a parable, he makes it clear he’s making a parable. If anything were figurative in John 6, it would be the “bread,” because He says that the “bread,” in reality, is His flesh. You can’t use the “meat” in Mt 4:4 and apply it to John 6. He was clearly speaking figuratively in Mt 4:4, but not in John 6. If He was speaking figuratively about the meat in John 6, He would’ve made that clear. He says my flesh is “meat indeed.” In other words He’s saying His flesh really is meat to eat, and His blood really is drink to drink. If the “meat” is figurative, then Jesus’ flesh is figurative. So I ask you again: Was that a figurative Person with figurative flesh and figurative blood Who was nailed to a cross 2000 years ago for our sakes?

  • James

    You nailed it.

  • James

    The NT magisterium wrote the NT scriptures. If you reject the NT magisterium, you reject the NT scriptures. You can’t have just one or the other. It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
    If a person can’t claim infallibility, then how can a book claim it? If the Prophets can’t claim infallibility, then how can a book (which the Prophets wrote) claim it? And if the Catholic Church can’t claim infallibility, then how can a book (which the Church wrote) claim it?
    The bible claims that all scripture is inspired, but it doesn’t provide a list of those inspired scriptures. Therefore people had to (and still have to) rely on extra-biblical tradition to know which books belong in the Bible. Who decides which books? Certainly not the Jews. They have no authority anymore. Try the Church that Christ founded on Peter and his successors, who reside in Rome.

  • James

    “Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation,”

    The point is not who could tell who’s of God. Oftentimes they worked miracles so it would be obvious (like Moses and others in the OT, and many Catholic saints in the NT).
    The prophets were sent to correct those in the chair of Moses, but those in the chair still had authority, and to dissent from it was condemned by Christ Himself (Matt. 23: 1-3). Sure, prophets wrote inspired scripture who weren’t in the magisterium, but the magisterium (Chair of Moses) still had authority.
    Those in the chair of Moses sometimes failed at their job, but they still had God-given authority, and could still make a prophecy if God willed it. Some of those in the chair of Peter have failed at their job (which is why the Church is founded on the person of Peter, not his faith which wavered at times), but they still had authority and could still make an infallible pronouncement if necessary. And again, dissent from magisterial authority was condemned by Christ Himself (Matt. 23: 1-3).

    “which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.”

    In the OLD covenant, yes. But when Christ established His Church on Peter in the NEW covenant and sent them to teach all nations, the chair of Moses became null and void, and the Chair of Peter became the new authority, which Christ promised would last until the end of time. In the NT, the magisterium and the authors of the NT scriptures were one and the same (the Apostles). The OT magisterium didn’t have the charism of infallibility (although they occasionally could prophecy when God willed it, like when Caiaphas prophesied). But that was the OT. We live in the NT, and the NT magisterium does have the charism of infallibility, which when used, is binding on our consciences.

    “And instead of perpetual magisterial infallibility being the basis for assurance of Truth, it was Scriptural substantiation upon which the NT church est. its Truth claims upon.”
    Christ referenced the OT written word and fulfilled the old covenant, but the Church was established based on the words of Jesus Christ Himself, who is the new covenant Himself. Christ gave Peter the perpetual charism of infallibility (which doesn’t mean everything the pope says is infallible, as you well know). Needless to say, the NT scriptures were recorded AFTER this took place, and 1st century souls (and everyone after) was/is taught the word of God primarily by oral tradition and receiving the sacraments. The NT written word doesn’t contain everything that Christ said and did (John 21: 25) nor does it contain everything the Apostles said and did. After all, the NT scriptures were written mainly to those who were already converted to the Faith and had already received the sacraments. That’s the Tradition that St. Paul and the Church fathers wrote about.

  • James

    In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred. The Romans certainly knew who was the head of the Church! A Roman Emperor’s greatest fear was a rival to the throne. Nevertheless, the emperor Decius (249-251 AD), one of the harshest persecutors of the early Catholic Church, made the following remark, “I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another Bishop of Rome.” Decius said this after he had executed Pope Fabian in 250 AD.

    “But evidence of mistaken ideas of some constitute evidence of what was correct, which Scripture does.”
    Read the book “The Mass of the Early Christians” by Mike Aquilina.