Your post reads that the following is ‘Not true”....
.....**As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture. **
Ok...then how would you respond to the following......??
...” Roman Catholic apologists often point to conflicting doctrines within the whole of Protestantism to create need for Romanism, the supposed arbiter of truth. Yet if we lump Rome in with all the rest of Christianity... (and apply her reasoning).... then her disagreements with the Westminster standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the Protestant denominations she would cast doubt upon. ........In response to this Roman Catholics might say that Rome claims infallibility whereas Protestant denominations don’t...... But how does the claim of infallibility establish actual infallibility any more than it points to absolute delusion?
What a conundrum!
Anybody can pose the same ridiculous non-argument "argument". It amounts to a "neener-neener". Here, let me show you:
Christian apologists often point to contradictions within secular humanism to create need for biblical Christianity, the supposed arbiter of truth. Yet if we lump Christianity in with all the rest of religion... (and apply her reasoning).... then her disagreements with the Buddhism's standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the secular humanist thought she would cast doubt upon.
This is nothing more than a very shallow attempt by someone who doesn't know how to construct a real argument to try to rule Catholicism "a priori out-of-bounds" rather than actually say anything constructive or coherent.
****Your post reads that the following is ‘Not true”....
****…..**As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture. ** ****
The problem is that the statement you quoted inaccurately describes a situation as an either-or situation. Catholic teaching has as its basis Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition, which last is a restrictive term referring to those teachings and understandings which have always existed in the Catholic Church.
No Catholic teaching can contradict any one of those three. What happens wrt Scripture in the Catholic Church is that the passage is interpreted in the light of the perennial teaching of the Church by the Magisterium, which has the authority conferred on it by Christ and the protection from teaching error of the Holy Spirit.
What do the Protestants have? (I am not bashing, but asking these questions.) How is it that the Protestants have at least 5 explanations about baptism, from being totally necessary to being merely symbolic? From being conferred upon infants to limited to adults? From needing full immersion to needing only a bit poured over the head? Where did all these different ideas come from, and does it not make Protestants uncomfortable that there are all these different teachings?