[daniel1212]

Oh, you mean that book that was compiled by the Catholic Church, and canonized by the Pope?

You keep resorting to this polemic, but which has a fundamental premise which you refuse to deal with. For if this assertion is to mean anything of weight, it must be that the stewards of Scripture as the infallible interpreters of it. Thus the unanswered question asked of you before remains: F

or 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??

[Elsie]

You keep resorting to this polemic, but which has a fundamental premise which you refuse to deal with.

Yeah; and it's this:

OOOOops!

We 'forgot' to say that a bunch of traditions, that came along later, were actually supposed to be in the BIBLE; too.

--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(That would have made ALL these pesky PROTESTants shut their clammy little traps!)

[redleghunter]

Hmmm...still no reply to your challenging comments. Shocking! Except from Elsie of course:)