Which Catholic Faith? We have traditionalists who pick and and choose from Vatican 2 and other modern teaching based upon their judgment of what historical RC teaching says (including that Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means former RCs as myself are presently lost), and basically require submission to all public papal teaching, but criticize or reject modern popes while telling us we need one.
And then we have modern RCs who calls us brethren, and like their pope, in word or deed sometimes manifest that they share a liberal interpretation of what Catholic teaching means.
Then you have variations in btwn, with all them engaging in varying degrees of interpretation of what Catholic teaching means, all of whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death (even with ecclesiastical funerals), thus manifesting her interpretation of Scripture and canon law.
And Scripturally, what one does and effects constitutes the evidence of what one truly believers. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18)
I was once a lost (raised devout, later weekly mass-going) RC, and only after heartfelt repentance and faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save me on my account did I have an earnest ongoing desire to read Scripture and began to understand it, evangelical radio helping much in my hunger.
Actually is is irrelevant, since SS does not mean all Scripture is easily understood, but that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (Westminster Confession, cp. 1)
And a Reformed
site states,
Question 88 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?” Answer:
The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments and prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
And,
What the church does when it gathers on the Lord’s Day is not incidental; it is vital for the salvation and sanctification of God’s people. The Word, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer are, after all, Christ’s ordinances.
And is seems evident that your idea of what SS means was based more on "Catholic Answers" type propaganda or fringe views than some research.
Since your premise of what SS means is false, then so is your argument.
Wrong, for while it is true that correctly understanding the Scriptures overall requires one to be born from above by believing the Scriptural gospel, yet "Sacred Tradition" is not whatever Catholicism says it is, but must be subject to Scripture, which is the established substantive wholly inspired standard.
Is "profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct" refers to its instrumental use, while since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," (Romans 10:17) then Scripture is how a man comes to be a man of God. Thus as said just before your quote
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)
And the NT church received OT Scriptures to which it appealed from the Jews, but which did not mean that the historical magisterial stewards of wholly inspired writings were essential for recognizing what was of God, nor what such meant. Remember this fundamental reality.
Which is contradictory, for is one can become a new creature in Christ by believing the gospel of Scripture, as one could be by reading and believing a text such as Acts 10:36-43, then he already is found Scripture to be profitable.
Which again, it because that is not what SS means.
That is a poor imitation of the style of Aquinas, and your description is still is not SS, but which is basically defined as meaning,
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Westminster Confession , cp. 1)
And again, while what is necessary may be deduced from Scripture, this does mean all have the same exegetical ability and exclude teachers, and Westminster also says:
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
There are even SS continuationists (who believe all spiritual gifts can still be in use, including the word of wisdom, etc.)
What kind of argument is that? SS does not believe interpreters of Scripture must possess some charism of infallibility, but that souls "may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" by study.
Where do we see an infallible magisterium being essential in order to know and understand what is of God? Don't try to extrapolate it out of "guide thee into all Truth" because the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is not there.
Which is also a problem in Catholicism, as while holding to a few core Truth, both Caths and evangelicals (leaving out liberal Prots since SS is the issue here) can variously interpret their respective doctrinal sources. Yet for years evangelicals have testified to being more unified in basic truths than the fruit of Catholicism.
Actually, SS does not hold that all that is necessary for the life of faith obvious, but it holds that "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" is either clearly propounded or by one may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them in a due use of the ordinary means. Which includes the church.
Westminster also says:
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.[4] (Chapter XXXI)
Manifestly Wrong and blasphemous! Only by your primary heresy, that of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, meaning that Scripture only consists of and means what Rome autocratically says it does.
For 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.
Verses? You cannot even find on prayer being made to anyone else in Heaven but God - except by pagans - despite the Holy Spirit
inspiring the recording of over 200.
Indeed, and contrary to the Catholic premise that being the stewards of express Divine Revelation,and the inheritor of promises of God's presence and guidance means that such is the infallible interpreter of Divine Revelation, 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 by 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.)
And which is certainly not opposed to magisterial authority, but the authority of the NT church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)
Wrong again, you already argued for the necessity of Sacred Tradition as the alternative to (your strawman) SS, but the veracity of Sacred Tradition is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of autocratic ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
Which is as manifestly absurd as arguing that if one differed with though to sat in the seat of Moses than he could not be in the faith. Scripture is the only wholly inspired transcendent preserved substantive authority, by which even the veracity of the apostles preaching was subject to.
Writing, not oral tradition, is God's manifest means of preservation, (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45)
As is
abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Which is also manifestly absurd, as evidenced by the multitudes who have left Rome and found Christ, and and atheists who also became evangelicals.
You can argue that we hold to certain common Truths as expressed in the CF Statement of
faith, but that does not mean we must submit to all else Rome proffers.
Which is a fundamental fallacy! Are these writings wholly inspired of God as Scripture is? No. Does even Rome affirm all that each believed? No.
Instead, what the (incomplete) writings of so-called "church fathers" reveal is not simply that of holding to basic Truths we also find to be Scriptural, and pious faith and morals, but a gradual accretion of traditions of men.
Which are revealed as such in the light of the only wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed, in particular Acts onward, which helps us see how they understood the gospels.
Rather than subjecting Scripture to the uninspired words of men, what Scripture reveals is that the NT church not a church which,
1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial 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 ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured 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 [/FONT]
• 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.
So after all this it is a hit and run.
