Posted on 06/15/2014 4:12:26 AM PDT by markomalley
Go ahead; spit ya little ....
I've got a GUN!!!
Would you agree that all of scripture is inspired directly by the Holy Spirit or not?
No it doesn’t. The question has been answered multiple times by multiple people. Scripture is the final authority and there is none other over it.
The Roman Catholic Church ceased to be the “Church” back around 600AD. While the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are “in communion” today, clearly the today Orthodox Church does not recognize the Pope’s authority or infallibility.
One would think with such a history and tradition, there would be no disagreement over the Pope. Are you prepared to say the Orthodox are wrong when comes to matter of the Pope being infallible?
I wouldn’t hide behind the “tradition” argument. It has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Interesting. Are you saying that the "Roman Catholic Church" WAS "the Church" at one time? If so, how do you know it ceased to be so around AD 600?
If not, then what was "the Church" from AD 30-600?
Actually it wasn’t the church of the time. There wasn’t “one” church but rather a series of independent churches. If there is any doubt then I would suggest reading Revelation and the seven churches of Asia minor. Each operated independently and had their own set of problems (or successes). The scriptures even addresses them as separate entities. Same way with the church of Galatian which was teaching heresy of the worst sort.
But that never stops Catholics from acknowledging the obvious nor ignoring straight forward questions.
With the same error:
Scripture is the final authority
Scripture according to whom, saying what according to whom?
When of course the gates of hell prevailed and the proto-calvinists took over. :)
Orthodox Church does not recognize the Pope’s authority
And neither teaches the authority of Calvin, Zwingli, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura. So join us, either lung.
They must and will of course, and thus the thousand year Tradition War. But to truly keep tradition one must leave Rome. For tradition cannot contradict Scripture, but under sola ecclesia, in which the church is supreme, it autocratically defines what a contradiction.
Thus we have teachings not seen and Scripture and contrary to it. While Scripture nowhere teaches the magisterial office is perpetually infallible as per Rome, and shows an infallible magisterium was not necessary to provide, discern and preserve Truth, and that the church began with common souls recognizing what the stewards of Scripture did not, and acted in dissent from them, and established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power;
Yet Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Thus her fundamental basis for determination of Truth is contrary to how the NT church began.
While Scripture only reveals God as being addressed in pray to Heaven by believers (unlike pagans), and alone having the power to directly hear and respond to the multiplicity of such mental prayers, yet praying to a special class of believers called "saints," (Scripture knows not of) in Heaven is made a doctrine.
To which others can be added.
Thus to really obey tradition one must leave Rome.
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)
Scripture according to scripture. It’s very clear if you read it without the influence of man.
You reading it without the influence of you the man reading it.
If someone cannot see the logical disconnect in your position in this post, there's not much else one can say.
Catholics really don’t understand who the “counselor” really is do they? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not anyone in the Catholic Church.
The problem is that the poster is right: interpretation is always involved, but the RC only sees it as as a Prot problem due to the lack of an infallible interpreter for their supreme infallible authority for Truth, and thus assert the infallible magisterium is the answer for that.
Yet RCs lack an infallible interpreter for their supreme infallible interpreter, and thus engage in variant interpretations even as which and how many infallible teachings there are, and what level each teaching falls under, and thus the level of dissent which is required. As well as their meanings to varying degrees.
In addition the gave a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture as they see fit on order to support Rome, as exampled, and can disagree on a great number of other things.
Meanwhile, the unity she does have is quite limited and largely on paper, while what one really believes is shown by what they do and effect, (Mt. 7:20; Jn. 2:18) and thus what Rome most consistently believes is shown by her treating even prosodomite murders as members in life and in death, with liberals making up her majority .
All of which has been said, but is easier to engage in the absurdity that the veracity of my arguments rest upon the premise of my assured infallibility, as per Rome, versus the weight of evidence, upon which basis the church began and overcame the "competition."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.