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!
Seeing as you offered zero that address the issue, then i am still waiting.
You appeared to confuse the teachings of the Magisterium with Papal infallibility
It is you who are confused, as the issue that of the premise that "Christ promised infallibility to the true Church" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), and your basis for assurance that it is, and if Scripture, ..and how you arrive at that from the Great Commission. Neither explaining what i already know about papal infallibility or verbose posting about the CFs on the RP, nor rants about heretical Prots, addreses that issue, but avoid it.
Why will not not answer my fundamental questions. you have about a week already. How can there be exchange on what Truth is unless you make it clear what your basis for assurance really is? And if Scripture, then you can attempt to explain how ou extrapolate your conclusions out of the text, and if it is not Scripture, but the church with its premise of infallibility, then me you can try to answer my question as to where in Scripture such is absolutely necessary to establish writing's as Scripture, and for assurance of Truth.
More diversionary rants simply testifies to you not being able to answer these fundamental questions, and after your last one here will be ignored.
ou find yourself unable to say which of 35,000 assortment of Protestant “teachings” we must accept, how? and why? That is simply a lie, as bedsides the specious 35k denominations charge, i nowhere said i could not show you which truths were essential for salvation, and instead i substantiated that those most committed to Scripture being supreme as the wholly infallible Word of God are more unified in core truths and moral views than Catholics. And that what a church believes is not determined but what its say, but it does and conveys. (Ja. 2:18)
Meanwhile, you seem to be ignorant that in your own church there exists a "hierarchy of truths," (CCC 90), and in non-infallible teachings there can be a varying allowance for dissent depending on what level of the magisterium they fall under, but under your model for determining Truth you cannot even tell me how many -infallible teachings there are, or what level each teaching falls under.
They also all can be subject to some interpretation, and in which there is disagreement (such as canon 915), as you have no infallible interpreter of your infallible interpreter.
In addition, within the parameters of RC teaching, RCs have a great deal of liberty to interpret the Scriptures in order to support Rome, which is a great deal of liberty.
So like the Tammy Faye Bakers; Joel Osteens; Schullers; Swaggarts; Billy Grahams; Jeremiah Wrights, Jim Jones... The rest of your mere assertions, logical fallacies, and false premises, are simply a rant substituting for an actual argument, and as such it indicts you as having no viable one, and instead is another argument against becoming a RC.
You thus have further warranted being marginalized, along with certain other Roman ranters, which did not take you long, You can get back to me when you can answer my fundamental questions asked a week ago and today. More spitballs will be ignored.