Replies

I think it was a good thing for Vladimir to provide the extra sentence he did. After all, it then clearly demonstrates that the sentence: “It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness” Should be understood as saying... “The Catholic Church rests upon the understanding given to her through both supernatural sources and consistent historical sources.” It doesn’t mean anything like, “The Church decides arbitrarily what is true, to suit her own purposes”

While the latter is your quote, and "arbitrarily" is too broad a term, yet Rome does engage in interpretation to suit her own purposes in the sense that while she invokes tradition, history, and scripture as supporting her claim to be the one true and (conditionally) infallible church. And which means that only her sure interpretation of such can have authority, which is a premise proceeding before she even makes an interpretation. And which interpretation, of course, must support her if she is to claim that that only her interpretation of such can be correct.

In fact I’d argue the sentence “It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness” rests (no pun intended) on its own merits. The author clearly delineates two sources of knowledge (for the Church) in that sentence. One, a supernatural source, (a “supernatual” form of “awareness”, or here an awareness of the supernatural and the role the supernatural plays in the Church). Another, a source of “perpetual consciousness”, which can only be interpreted as a source based on a “perpetual” (or consistent) form of “consciousness” (or awareness, here an awareness of history. )

Which does not change what i said. In dealing with opposition which invokes two sources of knowledge as providing evidence contrary to Rome, Manning resorts to claiming that these interpretations are invalid as only Rome can correctly understand these, and which interpretation supports her assertion that they support her.

But again, vladimir’s extra quote does make this even clearer, that this was Manning’s intention.

The extra quote does not change in the least that which i invoked as supporting , which was not that Rome claims that she has no antiquity, but that "history [antiquity] is what Rome says it is."

The RC protest, and Vladimir's accusation of deception or stupidity, was as if i was claiming Manning's argument was that the church of Rome actually has no antiquity, rather than in the sense of the past being present with her, which distinction i saw as being obvious. but as said, Nor did i purposely leave out any of Manning's words in order to teach what you attack me for. But i will include more the next time, and am sorry if you misunderstood it. .

If a Catholic’s opinion of your quote “counts”. (But yeah, it’s only Catholics who refuse to consider another point)

And where did i say it’s only Catholics who refuses to consider another point? They are not alone, yet RCs here have declared more than once her that they will not look as Prot sites provided in opposition to their argument. (And in time past Rome forbade laymen to engage in public debates on RC doctrine.) And if and after Vladimir responds to my last post to me i look forward to providing Catholic support for Prot. rejection of Mt. 16:18 referring to Peter as "the Rock," and against the perpetuated Petrine papacy.

Isn’t it amazing though we (human beings) can STILL argue about what a (relatively) modern work says, actually means, by only reading that work?

Indeed, and it is i who usually provide such in substantiation, often resulting in vain RC protests that they are invalid, or out of context, when they are not.

But yeah, sola scriptura will never lead to error. < /sarc >

That is another example of resorting to presenting a false argument, by one known as FactChecker no less, as supporters of SS do not claim all conclusions reached under SS will always be infallible, nor was any magisterium so, save for the Lord. But as seen in Scripture, truth or error is established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

And thus souls could have assurance of truth even before there was a church in Rome, and be right in following a holy man in the desert who are insects, and in itinerant Preacher, in dissent from those who occupied the magisterial office. Those are the facts.