what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture? [...] what is so distinct about basis for the claims of Rome [even past the set of beliefs of the Early Church] versus what the Scriptures reveal?
The answer is that the Holy Scripture is that part of the Holy Tradition that was available in written form by the close of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, was wholly consistent with the Deposit of Faith as the Church knew it to be, had clear Apostolic or near-apostolic authorship, and was used in the Liturgy. The rest is the beliefs that the Church held, at least in the sense that she collectively could tell orthodoxy from heresy. For example, as the trinitarian and christological dogmas were decided, they were decided based on the sense of orthodoxy that the Church possessed internally, rather than on the written Word. To that, over time, doctrines are added that clarify points not clearly expressed earlier, or points referring to the issues of the day that come along. For example, the Church could not develop doctrines to do with medical ethics till very recently when certain medical possibilities became reality. That latter part is the teaching of the Living Magisterium.
Annalex: Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
Daniel: And they say they same for Rome
Yes. So we are not Lutheran and they are not Catholic. These demarkations, by the way, do not exclude arguments that are "Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to". They simply mark doctrines that are inacceptable for the benefit of the flock on either side.
your distinctions [between temporal authority of the Jewish rabbis and eternal character of Christ's Church] are irrelevant here
I don't see how the fact that some typological comparisons can nevertheless be drawn between the two, makes the distinction irrelevant.
In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching [used the scripture]
Yes. So does the Infallible Living Magisterium fashioned after the Holy Apostles. It is the function of the Church, among others, to persuade rather than to simply proclaim doctrines.
You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it [etc...]
I am not sure I understand that paragraph, -- I have difficulty grammatically parsing it. The Church Fathers defined what the Scripture is. The Magisterium today is not them, even though it succeeds them. It can, in a thought experiment, go into apostasy. We have a divine assurance that it won't. So far it hasn't. If the Magisterium commits an act of apostasy, we shall find out, -- maybe not everyone, but some informed remnant will find out, and we'll know them by their orthodoxy. This is a part of normal live functioning of the Church where parts self-correct. Consider, for example, the near-apostasy of the Vatican II and how it is being corrected in the past two pontificates quite nicely by forces of traditionalism, often lay traditionalism.
The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased
No, it is not constant, because the Church lifted the centerpiece of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15) and Jesus himself taught His Church to read the Old Testament critically abd be aware of its limited pedagogical nature (Matthew 5-7, Mark 10:5). Yet the Church herself enjoys the promise of infallibility from Christ because she is sent by Christ as Himself (John 20:21, Luke 10:16, 1 Cor 4:16, as well as, of course, Matthew 16:18).
Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter
"Prefigurement" it surely was, but it is Christ's Kingship that "will have no end". You are arguing from a type.
they [bad popes] cannot lay claim to saving faith
So? It is quite possible that there were some popes that went straight to hell. Only some popes are canonized saints; about the rest, you can have any opinion you want.
thanks for the ping.
May try and respond tomorrow.
You mean in 1546 when it first infallibly finalized according to Rome (this has been documernted in previous debates here)? If that is the case, and it includes teachings and practices that were established then, it would include prayers to the departed, purgatory, indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, the secular power of the pope,.. but as these were not something that were either not present or not settled doctrines in the early church circa 325, and as more would come as a result of development of doctrine, and which owe themselves to Rome's AIM over warrant of Scripture, then your question should have been, what is so distinct about basis for the claims of Rome versus what the Scriptures reveal?
The answer is that the Holy Scripture is that part of the Holy Tradition that was available in written form by the close of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, was wholly consistent with the Deposit of Faith as the Church knew it to be, had clear Apostolic or near-apostolic authorship, and was used in the Liturgy.
In principle this is not necessarily a problem, but what Rome derives from that is. If we consider how the faith and the Scripture came to be, then we see that it was because God supernaturally revealed Himself to a man and to men, and confirmed their faith and moral character by the same means, which became a standard for others, and which was passed down by oral tradition, testifying to who the “God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob” was. God later abundantly and overtly confirmed the authority and words of Moses, whose life confirmed he had the same God as Abraham, and who was responsible for putting the law into writing (though approved Roman Catholic scholars subscribe to the liberal “JEPD" hypothesis) codifying and adding complementary laws to that which came before it. That then became the standard by which further revelation was examined and substantiated by, which was a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.)
The authority of Jesus and the apostles who also added complementary revelation was likewise confirmed by a holiness and teachings and Divine attestation which was Scriptural, with them substantiating their claims by Scripture (Mt. 22:42-45; Jn. 5:33-36,39; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 10:37-43; 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 1:2; 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) and God's manifestly supernatural working, confirming the writings which had already been progressively established as being from God (but without an assuredly infallible magisterium). And upon this testable basis is all authority manifest, in proportion to its claims, not pedigree or high sounding claims. (cf. 1Cor. 4:18-21)
Their story and revelation was subsequently written down, it being the practice to write down what God had revealed, and which records were progressively overall established as being from God, with Him giving attestation to them, directly or indirectly, including by believers realizing things which corresponded to the claims of Scripture, which in turn confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures. Councils basically ratified what had been largely manifest as being bread from heaven, but it was and is the Heavenly qualities of Scripture that resulted in their enduring acceptance among those who are born again by it.
The rest is the beliefs that the Church held, at least in the sense that she collectively could tell orthodoxy from heresy. For example, as the trinitarian and christological dogmas were decided, they were decided based on the sense of orthodoxy that the Church possessed internally, rather than on the written Word. To that, over time, doctrines are added that clarify points not clearly expressed earlier, or points referring to the issues of the day that come along. For example, the Church could not develop doctrines to do with medical ethics till very recently when certain medical possibilities became reality. That latter part is the teaching of the Living Magisterium.
That Christians and the ecclesiastical magisterium are to judge truth claims and formulate doctrine is Scriptural, but the problem is that an assuredly infallible magisterium itself cannot be judged, but its claims are as from God Himself, and assume the implicit trust He alone is worthy of. Simply because He used men to manifest His power and truth does not render them assuredly infallible, but by such presumption the AIMs claim to authority rests.
The premise that the establishment of divine holy writ required an AIM is false, as is the position of this AIM to effectively being a higher authority than Scripture. Truth is established by its demonstrable conformity to what was prior established by the aforementioned means, and its attestation, by “manifestation of the truth.” And where the gospel is preached evident Biblical regeneration is realized, with its accompanying effects.
Tares are allowed to grow among the wheat, and the discernment of men is appealed to in establishing authority rather than requiring implicit faith in an AIM, infallibly claiming it is infallible, because the New Testament church is constituted to overcome by spiritual means and unfeigned faith and testimony, not by particular ecclesiastical self promotion and fostering confidence in itself.
Annalex: Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
Daniel: And they say they same for Rome
Yes. So we are not Lutheran and they are not Catholic. These demarkations, by the way, do not exclude arguments that are "Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to". They simply mark doctrines that are inacceptable for the benefit of the flock on either side.
What i am saying is Scripture strips her claim to be assuredly infallible, and require her to establish claims and authority by Scripture and it attestation.
your distinctions [between temporal authority of the Jewish rabbis and eternal character of Christ's Church] are irrelevant here
I don't see how the fact that some typological comparisons can nevertheless be drawn between the two, makes the distinction irrelevant.
Because what this shows is that the promises of God are eternal, and will be accomplished even by putting down one instrument and raising up another. The temple ordinances were forever, as is the commands to the church, God promises will be fulfilled, but Mt. 16:18 does not established Rome as the OTC, but His church is perpetuated by the obedient in faith, and His promises will be realized by the same. The error of the Pharisees was that of assuming formal historical decent conferred validity, and that their position allowed them to teach things which had no Scriptural warrant and were contrary to it. Of course, those who assume a formulaic infallibility render this charge to be ipso facto invalid.
In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching [used the scripture]
Yes. So does the Infallible Living Magisterium fashioned after the Holy Apostles. It is the function of the Church, among others, to persuade rather than to simply proclaim doctrines.
Cults claim the same. But the validity of them is not established by its means.
You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it [etc...]
I am not sure I understand that paragraph, -- I have difficulty grammatically parsing it.
An authority which claims to infallibly define both the extent of Scripture (the canon) and its meaning is effectively making themselves the superior authority over it.
The Church Fathers defined what the Scripture is. The Magisterium today is not them, even though it succeeds them. It can, in a thought experiment, go into apostasy. We have a divine assurance that it won't. So far it hasn't. If the Magisterium commits an act of apostasy, we shall find out, -- maybe not everyone, but some informed remnant will find out, and we'll know them by their orthodoxy. This is a part of normal live functioning of the Church where parts self-correct. Consider, for example, the near-apostasy of the Vatican II and how it is being corrected in the past two pontificates quite nicely by forces of traditionalism, often lay traditionalism.
The magisterium is beyond the possibility to err when it defines something in accordance with its criteria. Those who would accuse it of erring in such a case cannot possibly be right without impugning upon the very doctrine of infallibility so that other teachings could be judged as in error, and affirming Luther was right. And your sedevantists will strongly argue Rome is in apostasy.
The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased
No, it is not constant, because the Church lifted the centerpiece of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15) and Jesus himself taught His Church to read the Old Testament critically abd be aware of its limited pedagogical nature (Matthew 5-7, Mark 10:5). Yet the Church herself enjoys the promise of infallibility from Christ because she is sent by Christ as Himself (John 20:21, Luke 10:16, 1 Cor 4:16, as well as, of course, Matthew 16:18).
It is transcendent as per above, and Rome lost what she presumed, while the faith is preserved as it was in the Old Testament, not only by those who occupy the office of overseers but by God raising up men who correct them, with Scripture and God attesting to their correction. Men like Huss were such but whom Rome killed, like as did the Jewish magisterium to its reprovers, and Rome persecuted or killed some of her own.
Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter
"Prefigurement" it surely was, but it is Christ's Kingship that "will have no end". You are arguing from a type.
Those are not my words, but those of Roman Catholic apologists as yourself. One more disagreement. But it is Christ's Kingship that shall have no end.
they [bad popes] cannot lay claim to saving faith
So? It is quite possible that there were some popes that went straight to hell.
So?? If such cannot qualify as Christians they cannot be real church members let alone successors to Peter. This is not the Old Testament.