Indeed you are immature and silly. Do you really think i am ignorant of the conditional nature of infallibility? Of course, since you steadfastly refused to answer my questions in which the infallibility was stated to be conditional, such as what the basis is for "your assurance that Rome is the one true church, with its (conditionally ) infallible magisterium," (eph. added) then i suppose you have some excuse, as well as being a relative stranger to these religious forums it seems until recently.
And unlike your explanation that pertains only to the pope, I also know that infallible teaching is not restricted to the pope (though it requires him), but also pertains to ecclesiastical infallibility, that of (briefly) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in communion with each other and in union with the Holy See, and ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope, authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, with teachings of the former being hard to establish as infallible, while in practical application the latter has been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, along with those of the pope itself.
Thus your entire lecture on this is silly and superfluous as a way of actually answering the question , that the “Great Commission” equates to a perpetual infallible magisterium.
Since you seem to affirm this does by invoking Scripture, then it needs to be examined by Scripture, but once again, the question must be asked, what is the basis for your assurance that Rome is the one true and (conditionally!) infallible church?
If it is Scripture, then show from Scripture how the Great Commission being given to the apostles, (Mt. 18:19,20; Mk. 16:15,16 Lk. 24:47,48) and in which other disciples were present, (Lk. 24:13-53) equates to a perpetual (conditionally) infallible magisterium.
And on what basis you have assurance that Rome has that magisterium.
If your basis for assurance is not Scripture, then as we do look to Scripture as supreme, then show us where your basis for assurance is necessary for that.
SECOND: The very foundational infallibility that informs as to what books constitute the Holy Bible does not disappear into its interpretation.
Where did i say that it did? This simply avoids dealing with your premise behind the "we gave you the Bible" polemical statement, and answering the question i asked relevant to that often invoked assertion:
So once again i ask, are you arguing (by "we gave you the Bible") that those who recognize writings as being Scripture (leading to a canon) are the infallible or assuredly trustworthy interpreters of it? Affirm or deny.
THIRD: The list of authors you cite don’t even make for a footnote in major scholarship publications.
Really! And what "major scholarship publications" in this field of Bible commentary are you referring to, and what does Rome collectively have in similarly popular approved commentaries in comparison to these works and others? Do you recommend the notes in the Catholic New American Bible if they have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat?
Here’s a definitive compendium of writings that has withstood centuries of scholarship and research and caused hundreds of Protestant theologians to convert to Catholicism.
Yet everyone is about the so-called "Real Presence," not a uniformity of Peter being the rock of Mt. 16:18, or the first of a line of (conditionally!) infallible popes, among the mutltuds of other things that lack the "unanimous consent of the fathers ? . Meanwhile if so many of them (from what relatively little we have of all CFs wrote ) could be so manifestly deluded in this matter, even if not necessarily a salvific error, then it is no surprise these overall pious men variously held to other errors (as did their Jewish counterparts). Do you want me to provide even holy Jerome's absurd exegesis in trying to support his unbalanced views on virginity versus marriage? And that of Augustine?
Oh, but don’t tell this to the low-information Al-Sharpton Christian Protestants!
EVERYtime you engage in to this absurd "sophmoric" recourse you weaken your RC nation. If you want to debate those in such churches go to Huffington Post, but here you are manifestly not debating such liberals, nor a particular church such as you are bound to defend, but faith in which Truth is determined in the light of Scriptural substantiation, which the church began under, thus a corresponding level of contention against those who deny what is most foundational and manifest. Thus my questions to you which you ignored.
Apparently all the proof in the world isn’t enough for you. You appeared to confuse the teachings of the Magisterium with Papal infallibility and now you appear worse confounded.
The central problem in your analysis is not with the Church but rather with the sources of authority as reflected in the Great Commission, and the teachings and traditions of the early Church. You find yourself unable to say which of 35,000 assortment of Protestant “teachings” we must accept, how? and why? And of course, some of them are now found to be so rotten that their former adherents, be it the large exodus of Anglicans, or Lutherans whose now accept Gay and Lesbians Bishops as authentic scriptural are now converting to Catholicism.
You refuse to acknowledge the great thinkers and theologians from Newman (Anglican) to Richard Newhaus (Lutheran) who have renounced their former scholarship and beliefs as being in error. Nor do you accept the profound exegetical treatises from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to Benedict XVI, referred to as a theological Einstein of our times.
Having acknowledged it were the early Church fathers whose “interpretation” based on the Petrine authority and guided by the Holy Spirit decided which books constitute the Bible (infallibility), they may now no longer continue to engage this interpretative exercise. The absurdity of your argument is plain.
Instead, what you keep doing is peddling isolated texts and passages of scripture and repeating the refuted teachings embraced by one brand of Protestantism although we aren’t sure what brand it is. In the end, by your lights, every person is free to pick and choose their “own” interpretations of Christ’s teaching (as you appear to do) to suit “their” own needs and beliefs This is precisely the rot of Protestantism that has the seeds of it own destruction implanted within it.
So like the Tammy Faye Bakers; Joel Osteens; Schullers; Swaggarts; Billy Grahams; Jeremiah Wrights, Jim Jones’; and David Koresh’s, you may as well now go get yourself an old garage, convert it into a meeting hall, have some inviting schrubbery in front, have a plaque with a cross painted on it, call it the “First Church of Christ” or whatever other name you choose, advertise for “Sunday Services,” get yourself a nice rockn’ band (this is important: clapping swaying, and feet stomping is a plus), fill the pantry with coffee and doughnuts, and there you have it. You now have your own unique new brand of Protestantism according to Daniel1212. And with that kind of a name how could you go wrong.
Just be sure you have a Bible in your hand, dress the part up as a pastor, or as TD Jakes does like a Bishop, tell the few low-information folks that at first trickle into the hall as to why Catholicism is all so wrong (heck, there’s no one to rebut you and these mush-heads will absorb anything you tell them- just ask Joel Osteen), and before long who knows who may be able to enrich yourself like the Osteens or (that’s only if you preach the prosperity gospel) and be like Jeremiah Wright depending on the demographic you wish to attract, or try writing an Oprah-like best seller like Rick Warren, and you just got yourself a nice and comfortable job. With some luck before long, you have a gig on TV like that fellow traveler, Huckerberry!