Replies

Pt. 2.

(Remember that Catholics view the Bible as one of two definitive witnesses to divine Revelation. Christ taught many other things to the Apostles that are not recorded in Scripture; we call this Catholic Tradition,

Likewise the Mormons, for whom history etc. is also what they say it is. And in reality, this effectively makes the magisterium the supreme authority, under which fables can be deemed binding doctrine, even an extraScriptural event which is lacking even in early evidence , and was opposed by the Rome's own scholars, but decreed as fact under the premise that Rome cannot err on such and can remember what no one else seems to have for centuries.

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

>But,

subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [because the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via invisible, amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 .

“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.

The famous Protestant historian Philip Schaff also writes,

"It [the Assumption of Mary] rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation. The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was attributed to her. In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours († 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also, even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle" (section 83).

Here are some of the more important Scriptural references that address Church authority... (Mt 28:18-20)..(Jn 20:21)

Which commission does not require what Rome uniquely presumes of herself. Evangelicals have been preaching the gospel Peter preached, (Acts 10:36-43,47) and teaching the only comprehensive wholly inspired body of Truth that the Lord provided.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)

If Peter was called the Rock upon whom the church was continually built and was thus looked as that, rather than “this rock” in Mt. 16:18 referring to the truth of Peters confession and by extension Christ, then we most certainly would see this affirmed in the rest of the NT. However, 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 ancients concur with.

This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors (the Pope), and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors (the other Bishops) in union with Peter. The Acts of the Apostles (a New Testament book) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age (during the lives of the Apostles themselves, after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ). Indeed the latter does ) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age, and which never examples or teaches that souls were to come to the apostles or leadership to obtain forgiveness, which is the primary use Rome claims for its presumed binding and loosing power.

Nor is coming regularly to clergy to obtain forgiveness seen or taught in the rest of the NT, while the only application of that aspect is in Ja. 5, in which, while teaching that God has regard to the intercession of others, primarily elders (not Cath "priests ") confession is only exhorted to each other in general, and for which spiritual binding and loosing is provided, as in Mt. 18:19-20. Only judicial binding/loosing requires the magisterium, yet that is to be in union with the church in general. (Mt. 18:15-18; 1Cor. 5)

Moreover, rather than as in Ja. 5, the Cath sacrament of anointing of the sick is usually a precursor of death.

In Acts, we see repeated examples of the Apostles teaching, governing, and sanctifying (baptizing and confirming, as well as “breaking the bread”).

Never is NT church leadership shown officiating over giving bread to be eaten as one of their unique ordained duties, let alone in order that souls may obtain a sacrifice for sins and obtain spiritual life, nor is the NT ever shown doing so in the entire recorded life of the church, nor that the Lord's Supper is "the source and summit of the Christian life," around which all revolves. The only epistle to a church that even describes the Lord's Supper, 1Cor. 10+11 does not teach that, nor does Scripture in its totality .

One of the most striking passages in Acts tells how the Apostles describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28).

And in which James provided the Scripturally substantiated judgment on what should be done, confirmatory of the exhortation and testimony of Peter, and that of Paul and Barnabas. But the validity of the magisterial office (which Westminster affirms) is not the issue, but the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and the specious claim of Rome to validity of unique magisterial Roman claims. are.