But just as Peter was protected from writing error when he penned his epistle so were the Councils protected from error when called to defend the faith against heresy.
I find NO Biblical support for that . . . any more than the religious rulers in Jerusalem were protected from being children of satan . . . though admittedly, Pentecost was after that.
However, Paul's writings were after Pentecost. And he exhorted MANY congregations about error that Holy Spirit did not protect them from. And, the degree to which they ignored Paul's exhortations, they were not protected.
The fantasy of the RC magicsterical being automatically, in all respects theological protected by Holy Spirit from all error is an utterly outrageous fantasy with no Scriptural AND NO HISTORICAL support at all.
THE TRUE UNRUBBERIZED HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EDIFICE MAKES THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
Personally, I think that is by God's design. IF ORGANIZATIONS PLUS GOD whether God in Holy Spirit to leaders or God via Holy Spirit collectively . . . regardless--it would have been sufficient in Moses' time--no rebellion--but there was. Even Aaron helped with the golden calf.
After Pentecost--the same--and in SPIRIT FILLED CONGREGATIONS as with the Corinthians.
I think God makes thereby a vivid object lesson point for all Creation . . . ONLY DAILY DIALOGUE; DAILY TAKING THE FLESH TO THE CROSS; DAILY SURRENDER; DAILY ABANDONMENT; DAILY CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE; DAILY FEEDING ON THE WORD; DAILY WORSHIP; DAILY SUBMISSION TO GOD'S HIGHEST AND GOD'S COMMUNICATIONS TO US--KEEP ANY INIDIVIDUAL AND ANY GROUP OUT OF ERROR. NARROW IS THE WAY.
I think there's ABUNDANT though not screamingly glaring evidence in the New Testament that God had a dim view of organized political structured formal groups to get anything right. AS PAUL MAKES CLEAR IN CORINTHIANS--THE HOLY SPIRIT IS EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE OF EACH AND EVERY MEETING. Boy has that been left in the dust by virtually all congregations of every partiuclar Christian club brand.
You may believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church, we do not.
OF COURSE I DON'T BELIEVE HOLY SPIRIT ABANDONED THE CHURCH! SHEESH. What a false assertion.
NEITHER do we believe that Holy Spirit turned the church leadership or congregations into mindless slave robots doing 100% only His bidding at any particular level.
This is why we differ so greatly in so many of our beliefs. Many Protestants believe there is no visible Church.
BALDERDASH. We believe the visible church is not synonymous with, equal only to THE RC EDIFICE!!!
That each believer is given the Charism to be protected against the error of heresy.
I don't know any Protty that believes that. I've heard of some that do but I don't know any personally. Y'all don't like Prottys telling you what you believe--yet here you feel quite comfortable telling us what we believe. That old RC EDIFICE DOUBLE STANDARD STRIKES AGAIN! Disgustingly so.
That all Biblical passages need no interpertation by anyone outside of the reader.
HOLY SPIRIT DID PROMISE TO LEAD EVERY BELIEVER FOLLOWING HIM CLOSELY INTO ALL TRUTH. HE PROMISED THAT. Protty's didn't. God did. We trust Him to keep His promises IN HIS WAY AND IN HIS TIME AND TO WHATEVER DEGREE, SPEED ETC. HE CHOOSES TO DO SO.
You would never, ever agree on the Catholic definition and understanding of Church. Because of this you are unable to separate the acts of sinful men within the Church from her claim to having the fullness of Truth.
YEAH, when the RC Edifice claims to have a seamless purity and homogeneity in doctrine, dogma, leadership etc. from the gitgo [while History demonstrates that's plainly false] and MANY EXAMPLES THROUGH THE CENTURIES OF CHANGES AND WHOLESALE ERROR AND HERESIES AND CORRUPT MAGICSTERICALS AND CORRUPT EVIL POPES . . .
WELLL DOH! YEAH! the claim of infallibly pure doctrine, dogma etc. is wholesale laughable and brazen hogwash on it's face. Any 4th grader can see that the rationializations and hoops the RC Edifice expects folks to jump through WITH THEM only leads to deeper and deeper depths of convoluted nonsense in Alice's rabbit hole.
I do appreciate your effort to inject some reason from your side. I just have to note . . . the effort seems to have failed miserably on a list of counts--reasonableness being but one of them.
Quix, I will take time to answer later today or tommorow. But I certainly did not mean to make generalizations and should have written that I have heard arguments from numerous Protestants that support what I have written. Not from all mind you but from enough.