Because Christ told us so.
There can only be one Truth. But the men of the Protestant ‘reformation’ – breaking away after 1,500 years from the Church Christ established – discovered a ‘new’ truth and introduced false teachings.
Paul warned us about those introducing false teachings, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
The protestant “reformation” is simply not Biblical:
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 1Cor 1:10-17
You could easily read the above as “One of you says, "I follow Luther"; another, "I follow Calvin"; another, "I follow Wesley"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Christians cannot be “perfectly united in mind and thought” when they have different beliefs on, say, the necessity of water baptism, while others believe “This is my Body” means “This is a cookie”
There can be only one ‘Truth’ – Christ is THE way, THE truth, THE life. One, not many.
And what if you have a disagreement with a brother as to what is ‘The Truth?’ Where do you go to resolve your issue? Scripture tells us what to do:
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Right – the Church.
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
God bless in your journey to the truth.
Who in the world would say they follow those men instead of Jesus Christ? That is as bad as Catholics saying they are Catholics instead of Chistians. I am 71 and have never heard anyone say they are Baptists, Methodists, etc unless asked which church they attend and then they tell the name. Those men do not have anything to do with salvation. Why do y’all keep harping on that?
Scripture also warns against another gospel and another Jesus that Paul taught.
And that is why Roman teachings good Friday instead of passover and Easter Sunday instead of First Fruits is at the most simple test of all things that Rome has another ‘gospel’ and another Jesus..
But protestants would be hard pressed to see it either.. they like Rome when they want to.,
“The protestant “reformation” is simply not Biblical”
Wait, I thought we were not supposed to rely on the Bible. But putting that aside, what is not Biblical was the Catholic church circa 500 years ago.
At times it was engaged in military combat, horrendous unChristlike abuse of heretics, selling absolution, etc.
It was no better than any other monarchy in Europe.
I absolutely do not hand that evil behavior to today’s Catholic church, and consider them Christian bretheren today. I do not agree with some of their doctrines, but I expect to see them in heaven.
Just as it would be retarded to blame a modern German for the 3rd reich, it would be even more idiotic to blame the catholic for the acts of the criminals that ran the church 5 centuries ago.
Likewise, its merely an embarrassment to see someone today stand in solidarty with those monsters. The tormenters of the innocent murdered people of the Salem witch trials were protestant. I have never heard a protestant church defend those monsters. But oddly, I see RCC members robustly defend the persecution of Galileo, the inquistions, papal warfare complete with armies, etc.
I sense that RCC members fear that admitting those were utter crimes would somehow assail infallibility and RCC legitimacy as a Christian faith today.
That’s just my take on it.
Yes, the church of Rome did need a reformation. Thank god there was one. And even that did not go far enough in returning us to a more Christ-like church. It was only a beginning. Luther did Christianity a service, but his thought wasn’t the “end all” solution. I think many of his fans today would be freaked out to know how he would view them. He would think many Christians today were in as deep of error as the Roman church was then. That’s just an indisputable fact. I suspect he would see protestant TV evangelist money grubbing as rather familiar. It has been the work of centuries to return Christianity to something resembling Christ. And the work is still not done.
SO I would tell my fellow modern protestants to drop the mantle of superiority of the RCC by comparing themselves to circa 1517. And I would tell my Catholic bretheren that the evil men that ran the church back then do not impart any taint to you or the modern Catholic church, so you only become foolish in reflexive defenses of them.
This is my fatwa
FOF, the New Testament shows us that the church of Jesus Christ ..the one He founded and of which He the head had no pope no priests, no mass, no 7 sacraments, no "holy water', etc..
The church Christ founded was founded on Him ..He is the cornerstone ...
Men were already teaching false doctrine as Paul wrote that letter.. If you are interested in reading about it you can read Galatians ...where men that believed in Christ, believed He died and was raised from the dead.. were spreading false doctrines..negating the gospel Paul preached of salvation in and through Christ ALONE.. There were preaching a Christ PLUS gospel ..follow the laws..
That is a letter that could be written to Catholics today ... If it is Christ + anything it is a FALSE gospel
It is almost humorous to have a catholic that believes the pope is infallible..that kneel before him and kiss his ring to accuse protestants of following a man... think about it..Are you infallible ??
.
>> “Because Christ told us so” <<
Totally false!
There is only the comforter according to Yeshua. He never said he would send anyone else.
The apostle Yeshua loved told us to try the spirits.
.
Are you infallible?
Because if you aren’t then you are expressing nothing more than your fallible interpretation of the article.
You CANNOT be sure that we are wrong unless you are sure you are right, and if you are fallible, you can never be sure you’re right nor can you be sure if the Catholic church is correct either.
Because Christ told us so.
He did NO SUCH THING! Perpetual ensured infallibility of office as per Rome was never seen in Scripture or was necessary, and instead RCs must extrapolate it out of fallacious reasoning.
There can only be one Truth. But the men of the Protestant ‘reformation’ – breaking away after 1,500 years from the Church Christ established – discovered a ‘new’ truth and introduced false teachings.
Wrong, as instead Rome had largely progressively supplanted the the most essential Truth as well as others with her own accretions of traditions, including her novel unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, under which Scripture, history and tradition infallibly means what she says they do.
..."To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.
“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear.
"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable" (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, , 46-49).
Thus in response to which, no less a papist than Manning asserted,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences. For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. Instead,
...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.”
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
However, nowhere in Scripture is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility seen or promised for discernment and preservation of Truth. Nor is it essential for this, or for authority. The OT magisterium certainly had authority, as do civil rulers today, and to which general obedience is enjoined.
And while unity is most easily attained under the model of ensured magisterial veracity, this is cutic and no Scriptural. In contrast, the limited unity of the NT church was under manifest apostles of God, who could claim that they were proving themselves as the ministers of God, in contrast to "false apostles" which Scripture warns of, and Rome pseudo apostles fail of both the requirements (Acts 1:21,22, 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:12) and attestation of Biblical apostles, (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) while calling for an even greater degree of submission.
But in contrast to the Roman model of authority and unity, in which the historical stewards of Scripture are the infallible authorities on Revelation and all dissent can be disallowed, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Paul warned us about those introducing false teachings,
And Paul's teaching, both oral and written to which he enjoined obedience, was established upon said Scriptural substantiation, (Acts 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 15:19) which in contrast to the accretion of errors under Rome, in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be 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.
2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
I have to marvel at the kind of disconnect from reality RCs evidence when they post such things as applied to Rome. No only was this a prayer for a real church, but whatever unity Rome has is limited and largely on paper, which does not constitute the evidence of what they really believe, which Scripturally is shown by what one does and effects. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)
And Catholicism, exists in sects and schisms, with a variant variety of beliefs finding a home under her umbrella, with Rome counting and treating as members even publicly know proabortion/sodomy/Muslim souls.
And under the unifying modern magisterium, as one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
Nor had the RC model shown itself the solution prior to the Reformation:
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/) You could easily read the above as “One of you says, "I follow Luther"; another, "I follow Calvin"; another, "I follow Wesley"; still another, "I follow Christ." And you could easily read the above as “One of you says, "I follow Francis," another, "I follow Burke," another, "I follow Pius V"; still another, "I follow Mary," but as the the above, these do not mean that all such hold to a decidedly different basic faith. Christians cannot be “perfectly united in mind and thought” when they have different beliefs on, say, the necessity of water baptism, while others believe “This is my Body” means “This is a cookie” The fruit of Rome certainly does, including those who hold to the absolute necessity of water baptism, and submission to the pope, versus allowing for baptism of desire, even that of souls ignorant of Christ. But Peter made it clear that the washing of regeneration before baptism was included under being saved by the grace of God. (Acts 10:43-48; 15:7-10) Meanwhile, while RCs hold variant views on the Eucharist, unity in error in nothing to be boasted of, and the manifest reality is that only the metaphorical view is (easily) consistent with the rest of Scripture . There can be only one ‘Truth’ – Christ is THE way, THE truth, THE life. One, not many. Indeed, and while the convenient RC one-size-fits-all definition of Protestant, which is so broad that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, the evidence is that those who hold most strongly to the most primary distinctive of the Reformation, that of the authority of Scripture as the wholly infallible and accurate word of God, are far more unified in conservative values and core beliefs overall in contrast to the overall fruit of Rome. And in contrast to Rome, such do believe in There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6) One body: Born again evangelicals (BAEs) believe in the one body of Christ, that being the only one true church since it alone 100% consists of true believers, though they visibly manifest their faith in the world, and in visible churches - as do tares therein. One Spirit: BAEs believe in the one Spirit, by which they are spiritually baptized into the one body of Christ. One hope of your calling: BAEs believe the Spirit is the pledge of their one hope of calling, that of forever being with the Lord once absent from the body or at His return, whatever comes first, and being conformed to Him. In contrast to their next postmortem event being that of "purifying torments" in purgatory. and by faith in the one Lord Jesus, making them children of the one God and Father, One Lord: BAEs believe in the one Lord Jesus to save them, nor Mary as some Caths pray, and have earnestly contended for the Deity of Christ , and more actively against those who deny them. One faith: BAEs believe the one essential faith of the gospel, that of faith in risen Lord Jesus to save them as contrite damned+destitute sinners who can only trust to be justified on Christ's account, not obtaining justification on account of their holiness as per Rome, though one is justified as being a true believer in the light of their obedience. . One baptism: BAEs believe in one baptism in identification with the Lord, not any other. One God and Father: BAEs believe that the one basic gospel faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ makes them children of the one God and Father, with no mention of a Heavenly Mother. Who is above all, and through all, and in you all: BAEs believe all true believers are born of the Spirit and thus Christ dwell in them, and thus realize a unique and even spontaneous essential fellowship of the Spirit, due to a shared regeneration with its profound changes in heart and life. Which transcends denominational lines, but which is rarely realized when wee meet RCs, as few of them even know of such a day of salvation. And what if you have a disagreement with a brother as to what is ‘The Truth?’ Where do you go to resolve your issue? Scripture tells us what to do: Under Rome, the local ordinary/hierarchs are likely to be liberal or can disagree with another, and which interpret magisterial teaching. Thus one says liberal pols can receive the Eucharist and another disagrees. As for getting an answer from the Vatican, while impenitent Ted Kennedy received a nice letter from the pope before his death, the average laymen has little hope of that. And liberal Caths are far more likely to feel at home in a Cath church than those in evangelical churches. And in which a dispute can be judged by locals and then higher ups if necessary. Westminster affirms. I. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
However, outside certain core truths, both RCs and evangelical have varying amounts of freedom to interpret Scripture. .' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Which, along with every other attempt of yours, does not translate into an infallible mag,. nor is this even referring to doctrinal judgments, though the principal supports that. This was not new, but flows from the OT in which the mag. judged cases, disobedience to which could be a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) And as seen above, the magisterial office is supported under SS. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15 Yes, the favorite vain recourse of RCs, as if this supports anything more than the church supporting the Truth, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, with the church being supreme over Scripture, which RCs imagine this text means.