Not so! Whenever you assert that "such-and-such" is or is not "Biblical" you're making your own personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture into Magisterial Teaching. Or not. But if not, if it really is just your own, personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture then it's no better than anyone else's. Under such circumstances, to dismiss the other guy's claim as "nonsense", and to do so with extreme derision is the height of hubris.
If that's where you're at, fine. Just sayin' ...
Now ... would you mind telling me what the Rock-Ola Company means by "historical infallibility"? I've never heard that term before.
Not tonight. Late.
If I forget, you’re welcome to remind me.
The RC edifice will have to speak for itself . . .
But my sense of “historic infallibility” from y’all’s pontifications as well as a long list of other RC’s I’ve known . . .
is that
MONOPOLISTIC, EXCLUSIVISTIC, PRESUMED “Most Holy Tradition”
plus
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FLAVOR OF A MAGICSTERICAL
plus
SCRIPTURE RIGHTLY INTERPRETED [sounds rather Mormonish]
= HISTORICAL INFALLIBILITY
AND TRUMPS SCRIPTURE any time there’s a seeming conflict.
= = =
And you want to throw the hubris rock at others?????!!!
LOL
ROTFLOL
GTTM
Sigh.
As though the Old Testament wedded and associated versions of such pontifications were not insulting enough to the Blood of the Living Word.
Traditions of men, indeed.
. . . As Christ said . . . render the Scriptures of no effect.
GOD have mercy.
Not Mary—her’s wouldn’t last a microsecond in the fires of God’s Justice,
GOD have mercy.