almost month-long thread
It was posted on Halloween, I believe.
Then it may be about time to try to wrap it up and give more attention to other threads and posters.
the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition.
We do, but extrapolating a perpetuated Petrine papacy and formulaic assured infallibility to that office is Rome's interpretation of them, and was a later development, refuted by Scripture and history, and the authority of said interpretation effectively rests upon itself; that her interpretation is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria. This does not mean a church cannot speak infallible truth, but the formulaic assuredly infallibility of Rome is the issue.
But the Church, in the persons of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and the clergy that copied, edited and canonized it produced the New Testament to begin with. You cannot put the product before the producer.
God produced it, and the instruments of Divine revelation are to be subject it. God first revealed Himself to man, and confirmed the faith and holiness of those believed Him, and ensured it would be passed on and become written, and which became the standard by which later men and revelation would be tested by, but at no time did Scripture establish a perpetrated formulaic assuredly infallibility, but God preserved the faith amount a remnant by raising up and confirming certain men from outside those who sat in Moses seat.
As for product versus producer, the stewardship=infallibility principle would require submission to the Jews who consistent to your statement produced the product but were manifestly not infallible interpreters of it. Roman Catholic apologists do claim the infallible magisterium follows the Jewish magisterium. And the latter lost it due to disobedience to what was written, and God can raised children of Abraham from stones. (Mt. 3:9)
Scripture is the only objective authority which were are assured is 100% inspired of God and thus alone is assuredly infallible, and which Jesus reproved those who (were explicitly affirmed to have) sat in Moses seat by, as they supposed they could teach contrary to Scripture.
The RCC claim to producing the Scriptures relies upon her premise to be the New Testament church, the certainty of which claim is based upon her premise to infallibly interpret history, tradition and Scripture. In providing an infallible compilation of Scripture for herself, she could ratified a collection of what had been overall established as being such, but as said before, the majority of Holy Writ was recognized as being without an infallible magisterium.
In addition, Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was penned, with some dissent existing through the centuries and right into Trent, even among some of the best scholars as concerns certain books, such as Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin (among others) writes. While apparently what Trent ratified was not exactly the same canon a what was affirmed by such councils as Carthage and early lists which RCA sometimes assert where infallible.
Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible
But no one forces you to become Catholic; further, if you hold heretical doctrines of Protestantism, we ask you to leave (see Trent). So, no, the teaching of the Magisterium stands or falls on the merit of its content. This is, incidentally, no different than the authority of the scripture: many people read the New Testament and believe it, others read it and don't. Some read it and riducule it. Infallibility is not the same as coercive power.
The claim to the infallibly of the teaching of the Magisterium is not subject to establishment due to its qualities, and or that she is attested to being God's supreme infallible authority due to things like the ground opening up and swallowing all her opponents, but it rests upon her claim that whenever she has or ever will speak within a certain content and scope then she is infallible, making her decree to be infallible to be infallible. We can assent that Rome spoke infallible truth in the Nicene Creed, but not that did always did or always will whenever she speaks according to her formula.
The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine...
That seems self-contradictory, is it not?
At any time a writing becomes established as Scripture, then it becomes the standard by which all is judged, and while Rome makes tradition equal to it, she effectively makes herself the supreme authority, yet she does not have an fallible list of all infallible teachings, or of all tradition, nor had she an assuredly infallible list of all books until 1546.
That is what canonization means, establishing of the Divine origin.
No, as said, Holy Writ becomes effectively established as being such like a true man of God does, by heavenly qualities and Divine attestation, which conforms and complements that which God had prior established by His power. Such is the kingdom of God. (1Cor. 4:20)
Annalex: the [Holy] Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.
Daniel: What magisterium? Most of the Bible was from the Jews, writings being established as Divine apart from an AIM, and even then a large portion came through prophets who reproved the official magisterium, and whose authority did not essentially rest upon hereditary formal conference as with the Levites, but by Divine attestation, and were subject to death for abusing their authority....
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church made a determination to include the Septuagint in her liturgy; Luther later questioned the Deuterocanonicals. These are magisterial acts of the Church, or in case of Luther, an attempt to act as magister. In the case of the New Testament, the Holy Apostles and the Evangelists wrote it under divine dictation not as freelancers but as founders and bishops of the Church, claiming rightly the status of messengers of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; 2 Peter 1:16, Jude 1:1-3).
This does not change the fact that again, while the teaching magisterium and conciliar decrees are helpful, writings were recognized as Scripture without it, while again, Rome's claim to be the 1st century church is based upon her premise that her interpretation of Scripture and history is infallible, and that formal decent confers authenticity.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of Sola Scriptura yet if Sola Scriptura were the true rule of faith, it itself would logically have to be in the scripture.
And it is, as it being the only objective authority which is wholly inspired by God, while it materially provides for the church. And while oral preaching could also be the word of God (and in the informal sense can be today in preaching its truths), yet examining it by the Scriptures is commended, and the Scriptures are abundantly used to examine and establish teaching and persons by. Yet the canon being closed, to hold any body of revelation to be equal with it is to essentially add to the canon, while again, no complete list of all tradition exists, or infallibly defined doctrine.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insisting they are Scriptural
Well, indeed, -- but the Roman (as well as Eastern) Catholics never say that these doctrines automatically derive from the scripture alone. Surely you know that there is no shortage of non-Trinitarian communities of faith that all, -- at least those that came into existence after the Reformation -- claim direct and clear scriptural proof of their heresies.
Actually, non-Trinitarian communities of faith such as the LDS, the WTS and fundamental SDAs, etc., typically manifest, like Rome, a reliance upon an authority, a person or office which effectively presumes supreme infallible interpretive authority, and often require implicit trust in them and sole allegiance to their particular org. The more they do such the more extreme they tend to be. In contrast, churches which manifest they rely upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant and hold to shared core Truths which result in regeneration and interdenominational fellowship, have been foremost defenders of the core truths we both agree upon, and which were formalized in an earlier age with Scriptural validation. But due the their holding to supremacy of Scripture, these Biblicists likewise contend against teachings of those of Rome or cults which fail of Scriptural warrant.
In the case of the Scripture alone, the burden is on the adherent of this strange doctrine to prove it from scripture alone. There is not similar burden on the Catholic Church that has divine authority to explain the scripture.
Indeed they must be subject to Scripture as the supreme judge, being warranted and conformable to it, and thus the concurrence in shared core truths spoken of, while the aberrant tend toward elitism, and assume supremal authority over it by Divine authority, and require implicit submission, all of which they share with Rome.
I don't know what "Jesus only hermeneutics" is or why it is fallacious. We certainly can assume that Jesus encouraged or directed people to write down things but we do not have a scriptural evidence of it, and we do have a scriptural evidence that Jesus established the Church as authority on his behalf (Mt 16:18, 18:18, Mt 28:20, Jn 20:21-23).
It means only what Jesus personally said is authoritative. We see much evidence that writing revelation down was the norm, which is why we know the church was established by God, whose members affirmed this word was from God, and as it is, then it is the only objective source which is assuredly infallible, and does not support Rome's claim to perpetuated formulaic assuredly infallibility. God knows how to preserve the faith by raising up men to correct those who presume too much, as the Jewish magisterium did, and as Rome has done, but like the Jesus, she persecutes those who dare to do so.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)
The error in this statement is "only", and that one comes without a scriptural corroboration.
Thus you deny that only the Scriptures are assuredly the word of God (which of course, is meant the formal sense)? Thus rather than judging all by the Scriptures, you presume Rome is the supreme judge, promulgating teaching which need not be established by Scriptural warrant.
who needs to move?
No one: the Orthodox Church is essentially Catholic as it is. They have some problem with us, we do not have a problem with them.
This is rather imaginary. While Rome can define that that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff," (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Bull promulgated on November 18, 1302) to even include Protestants (even if you may not), the refusal of the Orthodox to ascribe the full primacy of the Pope in the Roman sense (despite their present degree of concession), as well as papal infallibility, Mary's IM, etc. is a problem with Rome.
was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values
On "social justice", perhaps. On life and family, the Catholic Church is staunchly conservative. Which other community of faith teaches that contraception is mortal sin or marriage after divorce is impossible?
This was not speaking of official statements, as conservative as they sound, but what is overall effectually conveyed and fostered, and in that case your assertions of overall greater support for moral values over her evangelical counterparts is a consistent myth, especially on birth control. And the and the granting of annulments and the breath of criteria for such fail of Scripture warrant, and potentially means multitudes of married Catholics never really were.
if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?!
Yes, he would be. There is a lot wrong with John Kerry, including his defiance of Catholicism, but Catholicism in itself, and to the extent that he believes like a Catholic, is not one of those things.
Incredible. Even a living dog is better than a dead lion. (Eccl. 9:4) Besides that such would most likely mean a real Christian Kerry, you sound increasingly like a sedevacantist, who reject post Vatican Two changes (and i think they have some historical warrant), in which baptized Prots are overall regarded a separated brethren, who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities.
The latter term used in distinction to churches in the proper sense, such as Orthodox, though by Baptism they are incorporated in Christ and have a certain communion with Rome, albeit imperfect, with the Church. (Dominus Iesus)
Also answer clearly my previous question whether you favor a Roman Catholic monarchy in the US, and as you are a fan of the inquisition, what should they do with Protestants, and if the use of physical punishment of those who doctrinally disagree with Rome was right.
I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment
Yes, of course. But those who vote for pro-death politicians do so against the will of the Catholic Church.
Which openly liberal politicians rarely see any real discipline, which conveys to other members that what is critical is that, despite all the promotion of Catholics about believing in works versus those sola fide types, what really matters is dying in the arms of Rome, versus a manifest conversion by faith resulting in works thereof, such as vast multitudes of conservative worshipful evangelicals (though i wish we all were more so) have realized through the centuries, after departing from Rome, but which you must oppose in loyalty to a particular church, which is sadly largely a dead lion.
You are a serious poster, so it is a pleasure. But yes, I agree that a post in the beginning of a thread is worth much more in terms of its readership than when it is one of 7 thousand other posts. I will, in the spirit of letting this thread go, not dwell on your statements that repeat points already made and commented upon by me.
but extrapolating a perpetuated Petrine papacy and formulaic assured infallibility to that office is Rome's interpretation of [Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32.]
I would say it is the Churchs explanation. Catholics do not interpret, they explain. You are correct, however, in that the scripture rarely explains itself, especially on controversies brought up by the likes of Luther, the Anabaptists et al 1500 years later. The scripture is not the catechism; it is one job of the Church to provide the latter. Regarding the perpetuation of papacy, we have a scriptural evidence and a logical evidence. The scriptural evidence is the oft-repeated promise of Christ that He will not leave us orphans and that Divine advice will remain with the Church for ever (John 14:26); further it is precisely the Church built on Peter (in whatever precise allegorical sense) that shall prevail against gates of hell. Moreover, Peter himself promised to perpetuate his office:
 For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  For which cause I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth.  But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance.  Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me.  And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things.  For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness.Some here insisted that the use of σκηνωμα (tent or tabernacle) somehow is a reference to St Peters body. I dont know if you see through the absurdity of this interpretation, but in any event it is clear that St. Peter intended to perpetuate his role as a witness of Christs greatness through generations.
(2 Peter 1)
The logical argument is twofold. First, it should be the guiding principle of the Church to use the Early Church such as the Holy Apostles set it up, as a model. So if the Early Church had St. Peter as prince of the Apostles, modern bishops should likewise have such prince. Hence the papacy at least in some form, -- and I will easily acknowledge that the precise nature of the papacy can be productively debated with the Orthodox who insist on a less centralized model. It is also consistent with the top-down social organization evedent in the ordination process that we glean form the letters to Timothy and Tutus.
Secondly, since Jesus wanted to build the Church somehow on the rock of Peter, it would be prudent for us of Christian faith to believe that He succeeded. While it is logically possible that in Christs physical absence the Catholic Church went into heresy or even apostasy, and the Protestant (or Mormon) successor did not emerge till centuries later, such hypothesis would have to postulate that in fact the promise of divine guidance failed to materialize for many generations of Christians.
Instead, the plain evidence of scripture suggests that the Church was meant to be hierarchical, of single doctrine, and sacramental, and to persist all the way to the Second Coming in unity across time and geography. It was meant to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
the stewardship=infallibility principle would require submission to the Jews
It is a matter of faith. For a Jew it would be logical to consider only the Old testament infallible as explained by the Rabbis, and for a Christian it would be logical to consider the Old Testament and the New Testament both infallible with the latter fulfilling the typology of the former and the Catholic Church explaining both.
Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was penned
The so-called African Councils defined the scripture in that local late 4c council as Trent defined it a thousand years later; there was no Bible ever produced without the Deuterocanonical books till the Reformation. It is true that debate preceded the formation of the canon, but so is with any other doctrine of the Church: debate leads to consensus, and if the debate is no longer challenging the faith, no council determination is made, and the issue is considered settled. It is only when debate does not seem to naturally lead to consensus that a council is convened, and at times even an ecumenical Council. The issue of the canon was not debated after the African local councils, and so there was no need for an ecumenical council to fix things. Thus, a de-facto knowledge of the proper canon of scripture existed in the Church since early 4c, but since the Reformers decided to protest everything, Trent had to formulate things for the faithful Catholics. It is a frequent misunderstanding of the Protestants to equate conciliar or papal pronouncements as the beginning of a new doctrine, when the practice of the Church is to so fix a doctrine already fully understood on the grass roots level.
you deny that only the Scriptures are assuredly the word of God (which of course, is meant the formal sense)?
Yes, I do deny it. he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. (John 14:16). That means that even after the Scripture is written and the canon is formed, the divine guidance continues, assuredly, in the Church. The magisterial teaching has disadvantages compared to the Holy Scripture as its origin is not from the immediate circle of the Apostles, but it has the advantage also, and that is that the Magisterium can speak on the issues of the day directly.
refusal of the Orthodox to ascribe the full primacy of the Pope in the Roman sense (despite their present degree of concession), as well as papal infallibility, Mary's IM, etc. is a problem with Rome.
It is a problem but it is not a doctrinal problem. With the Protestants we have a case of heresy: salvation by faith alone, authority of the written word alone, denial of the fullness of the sacraments, absence of valid priesthood or consecrated life. With the Orthodox we have issues of church administration such as papacy or universal validity of dogmas proclaimed in councils the Orthodox dont consider ecumenical. Debate on theological issues is of course possible with the Orthodox (for example, our Thomism versus their Palamism), but it does not exceed the breadth of the debates inside the Western Church. It is, shall we say, a happy and sisterly debate.
[In response that were john Kerry to become a Baptist that would be for him a step toward spiritual death, the same step former Catholics who are now Protestants have made] :you sound increasingly like a sedevacantist, who reject post Vatican Two changes (and i think they have some historical warrant), in which baptized Prots are overall regarded a separated brethren,
A sedevacantist is someone who does not think we have a valid pope in the person of the present Pope, and I am of course no sedevacantist. I am especially fond of the Holy Father Benedict, who I think is among this century greatest. I am critical of the Vatican II as are very many conservative and faithful to the Pope Catholics. However, you are reading the separated brethren language too self-servingly. The distinction needs to be made, and is invariably made, also after Vatican II, between the incomplete faith of the Protestant who grew up in the Protestant environment absorbing its limitations, and the grave error of the Catholics who fall away. The latter is a step toward a spiritual suicide which they should hurry to reverse.
loyalty to a particular church
It is loyalty to Christ, Who built just one Church, mine.