The Bible is not a Catechetical Book!

[PeaceByJesus]

You know, this is an issue where I don't think the Protestants have really pondered the ramifications. The ancient jews didn't have an authoritative canon of sacred writings, as you obviously already know..

What? The Lord and disciples repeatedly quoted from, referenced, and referred them and others to the Scriptures as authoritative, (Matthew 21:42; 26:54,56; Mark 14:49) including reading from one of the established books in the synagogue as Scripture, (Luke 4:21) and men such as Paul reasoned with Jews likewise "from the Scriptures," and men "searched the Scriptures" in order to ascertain his veracity, (Acts 17:2,11) and there were souls who were "mighty in the Scriptures," (Acts 18:34,28) and the Lord substantiated His mission to the disciples by the Scriptures (as a tripartite canon), and opened their minds to the understanding "of the Scriptures," (Luke 24:44,45) yet there was no authoritative canon of sacred writings? Are you serious? There was no indisputable canon (nor for RCs until after the death of Luther), and a larger canon of Scripture would follow (and RCs even speculate whether Trent actually closed the canon) but their manifestly was an authoritative canon of sacred writings.

But Catholics must both essentially add to Scripture as well as subtract from it in order to defend Rome.

So think that through.

You are the one who needs to take that advice.

What does that suggest about ancient jewish religious customs? Well, for one thing it's clear that they didn't hold to any similar notion of sola scriptura. Their unity was expressed other ways.

No, they did not hold to sola scriptura, which could have led them to Christ, thus He called them to search the Scriptures for they testified of Him, (John 5:39) but like Rome, they presumed a level of veracity for themselves above that was written. And to this day look to Jewish tradition in order to justify their rejection of Christ and His reproof, as Catholics to justify their traditions of men.

But they also had a living and active sacred tradition of their own. Hanukkah is a good example, in fact. It's not easy to find authoritative written sources (inspired or otherwise) regarding the revolt. And yet, this hasn't hindered the observance of Hanukkah too much. It's still regarded as an authoritative holy day for jews based on oral tradition.

So... this means it is valid and should be celebrated (it is doubtful the Lord actually was in John 10)?

A Jewish site tells us that the rededication of the Temple was,

led by Judas Maccabeus, third son of Mattathias the Hasmonean, whose successors established the Hasmonean high priesthood dynasty. But which were not a valid high priesthood due to invalid lineage, (Genesis 49:10) being not of the lineage of David, as the Zadoks were, and their line ended up opening the door to the Roman conquest. Their control ended when Herod eliminated every male in the Hasmonean line. (Though The Herodian Dynasty had Hasmonean blood thru two sons and two daughters. through Mariamne.)

Due to the unpopularity of its founders, Hanukkah itself came to be largely ignored within a few decades after its origins. Then when Rome’s crushing power began to be felt in Palestine, the people recognized in Hanukkah a message of hope that new Maccabees would rise and independence would be restored. - The Hasmonean Dynasty | My Jewish Learning

This is something about the Magisterium that I don't think very many Protestants really understand. Considering the narrow parameters wherein infallibility could apply, the vast majority of any given Pope's public statements are not binding upon the faithful.

Specific Catholic doctrines are not up for debate, sure, but when Pope Francis talks about this or that political issue, I'm welcome to either agree or disagree with him as I see fit since those cannot possibly be ex cathedra.
The same holds true for any of the other bishops, really.

Actually, what many Catholics, including you by your infallible=binding, not infallible=not binding answer, do not seem to really understand is that the scope of papal and Catholic teaching that is binding is far far broader then only infallible statements. And based on official papal teaching assent is enjoined upon basically all public papal teaching, including encyclicals, even social ones. Quotes can be provided if desired.

This may be a distinction you're already well aware of (I wouldn't know) but I get the suspicion that most Protestants aren't aware of it.

I think it is you who is ignorant of the teaching of the church you seek to defend.

LovesOurLady said: ↑
I follow versions that follow the Vulgate, namely the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version, although I do tolerate the RSV-CE.

[/COLOR]

Same here.

Then you both want to convert to a church overall shepherded by liberals. No thanks. The the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version is not even on your bishops list of sanctioned translations, while they gave us the NAB, which is what is used on the Vatican's own English version site.

Meanwhile, where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?

That was the only way to ensure continuity of the faith from one generation to the next considering how expensive Bibles have been through the millennia and how widespread illiteracy was until relatively recently

.
Which is refuted by history and does not answer the question.

So where do I see it an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God? I see it in history.

Then if an infallible church was essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God, then it means that since the NT church began with common souls having ascertained what/who is of God, or so they thought, holding to a body of books as being inspired by God and men such as John the Baptist being "a prophet indeed" (Mark 11:32) and then an Itinerant Preacher from Galilee, while both were rejected by those who sat in the historical magisterial seat, then they must have been wrong.

And this you have essentially invalidated the NT church. But which in reality invalidates Catholicism as being the one true church (though there were always real believers in it, as a few are now, and thus the body of Christ continued, despite her divisions).

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I don't follow the NAB, it has a blasphemous translation of St. Luke 1:28 (Not that we're debating that!) and many other problems, let alone the modernist, and outright atheistic notes and helps. I follow versions that follow the Vulgate, namely the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version, although I do tolerate the RSV-CE.

Then as I said to your comrade, then you both want to convert to a church overall shepherded by liberals. No thanks. The the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version is not even on your bishops list of sanctioned translations, while they gave us the NAB, which is what is used on the Vatican's own English version site.

And thus I asked your in my first post to identify just what kind of RC you are among the various kinds, from those who agree that the one duty of the laity is to follow your pastors as docile sheep, and which at the least disallows public dissension, and that "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi);

but who believe this does not apply to modern popes. Or those who pick and choose from Vatican Two what they will obey, based upon their judgment of what historical RC teaching means, to those who fully embrace Vatican Two and other modern interpretations by Rome of herself, recognizing this is what she requires. And who call the public dissenters "Protestants," since in essence they are acting as such in ascertain what valid church teaching is based upon their judgment of what the most historical teaching says.

And there there are those in btwn both side.

Off-topic, Ad Ignominiam, and probably the vast majority of "catholics" in that study were modernist heretics, and cafeteria-catholics.

So there you go again. A layman excommunicating those whom Rome counts and treats as members even in death, whom you must therefore own, like it or not unless you go schismatic, thus wanting us to join such an unholy amalgam. While I suspect you also are a type of cafeteria-catholic.
[QUOTE="PeaceByJesus, post: 71843006, member: 325380"
Meanwhile, where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?[/QUOTE]

The same way fallible scholars and preashers are necessary for your ecclesial communities.

Then you deny that an infallible church is essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God. Which denial is correct.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Whaaa? The ancient world prized oration above prose. This is undeniable. A speaker was more accepted than a letter because a speaker could be questioned and then provide answers. What you wrote is so ahistorical that I just can't even.

Read what I said and think again. We are not dealing with what people like the most, and in which case they like singing more than preaching, but the statement was that of what God's chosen means of preservation was. Which is manifestly writing, tas seen by His commands to do so, even so it may be forever, and inspiring men to do so (and it is said "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," not all tradition), thus that is what is so abundantly invoked, not some long term oral tradition.

In modern times, we typically trust the written word because we subconsciously associate it with authority. But the ancients had the total opposite view.

What Bible are you even reading? Or do you choose not to? Rather than your absurd "total opposite view" it is actually that "is written" and like terms that is abundantly quoted as authoritative.

On that basis alone they wouldn't have accepted sola scriptura.

Your problem is that such men as the Bereans, who subjected the veracity of the very apostles to testing by Scripture, certainly held to sola prima and thus would not have held to your alternative of sola ecclesia. And under the principle that what was written was supreme and sufficient for testing and establishing Truth claims, materially provides for more revelation and the discernment and writing of it, then could have become sola scriptura types after written revelation ceased, which does not exclude oral preaching of Scriptural Truths and enjoined obedience to them, as Paul did.

However, men such as the apostles could speaks as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public revelation, neither of which your popes and councils claim to do, and thus what say cannot be equal to Scripture.

 

[redleghunter]

Ah, yes! Thank you!

So in regards to St. Irenaeus' quote and Written Tradition, it's quite simple really. As I've mentioned earlier, the Holy Bible is materially sufficient, that is, it contains all the things that the Catholic teaches (Mary, Purgatory, the Papacy etc.) but it's not spelled out. The Apostles did write-down all that is sufficient for Salvation in Sacred Scriptures, but they did it short-hand, and didn't spell it out, they expected to have their successors, the priests and bishops explain thins for them.

Case in point:


If you like I can explain it more later, but keep in mind I have a busy today. Also Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, the day that Catholics, with the help of Our Lady and her angelic psalter, save Europe from a Muslim invasion, so I kind of what to relax and celebrate today.

So your argument is now that the NT was insufficient.

 

[redleghunter]

Has anyone explained the following yet, and explained what the words "divorce" and "fornication" mean?:

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."
- St. Matthew 5:32 DR

And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
- St. Matthew 19:9 DR​

Does it mean annulment?

 

[redleghunter]

As I've mentioned earlier, the Holy Bible is materially sufficient, that is, it contains all the things that the Catholic teaches (Mary, Purgatory, the Papacy etc.) but it's not spelled out.

How can something contain all teachings yet not be spelled out?

What you are in effect saying is those doctrines absent from the NT were later enacted and then used Scriptures to find some tangential mention. That is called eisegesis.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Apostles did write-down all that is sufficient for Salvation in Sacred Scriptures,

There was no distinction btwn priests ("presbuteros") and bishops ("episkopos") in the NT church, which words are under interchangeably, and denote those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7: (Acts 20:17,28; Phil. 1:1)

But which distinction is one of the many things latter added by Catholicism, as was using the distinctive Greek word, “hiereus,” which is only used for a sacerdotal class of souls, for their pastors to denote a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers, called "priests" in English.

Which ("priests") is a etymological corruption of the Greek "presbuteros," if with uncertainty, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," which is also distinctively used for Old Testament kohen, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term "hiereus" for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere is hiereus (let alone "archiereus") specifically used for NT pastors, but instead they are called episkopos=superintendent or “overseer," which refers to function; and presbuteros=senior, to seniority implying maturity, or position).

Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "kohen" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary active function. Yet neither presbuteros or episkopos are described as having any unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

An additional imposed deviation from the NT church is that if required (for almost all) clerical celibacy.

but they did it short-hand, and didn't spell it out, they expected to have their successors, the priests and bishops explain thins for them.

Of all people SS believers believe in the shepherds breaking down the hay for the sheep, with typical 45 minute sermons, mid-week Bible study, and extensive classic commentaries. But which is not claiming the same thing as speaking as wholly inspired of God or adding new public revelation thereby, such as men like apostles could do, but not Rome while declaring traditions of men to be the word of God under the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

JesusLovesOurLady said: ↑
As I've mentioned earlier, the Holy Bible is materially sufficient, that is, it contains all the things that the Catholic teaches (Mary, Purgatory, the Papacy etc.) but it's not spelled out.

What you are in effect saying is those doctrines absent from the NT were later enacted and then used Scriptures to find some tangential mention. That is called eisegesis.

Well, just because you cannot see Roman Purgatory or its Papacy in Scripture, and the EOs cannot find it in Tradition, does not mean Rome cannot "remember" it as with the (presumption of the) Assumption.

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.

Thus Manning asserts,

"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...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. " - Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, pp. 227-228.

How can something contain all teachings yet not be spelled out?

Not all that Scripture provides is spelled out ("are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all" - Westminster cp. 1), and which actually pertains to the main and essential Truths. Take whether cannibalism can ever be allowed. Based upon the precepts and principals behind them, and examination of what pertains to an issue in Scripture then what it teaches may, in the words of Westminster, "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."

However, researchers and teachers are also often needed, which Scripture materially provides for, as well as the guidance of the Spirit, etc., but not as contradicting or adding public revelation equal to Scripture (unless God wholly inspired more).

 

[Major1]

Is there a difference between intercession and mediation?

(I already know the answer to this; I'm asking for your benefit, not mine)

Thank you for your concern. Sarcasm and arrogance in one passage is a dangerous combination.

The act of interceding; mediation; interposition between parties at variance, with a view to reconciliation; prayer or solicitation to one party in favor of another, sometimes against another.

A mediator, like an intercessor, is a go-between. However, there is a difference in what the mediator does as a go-between. Whereas the intercessor represents a lowly person to a high authority, the mediator works in the opposite direction. The mediator represents the high authority to the lowly person. When the high authority requires something of the lowly person, the mediator informs the lowly person of the requirement, explains it, and assists the lowly person to obey it.

There is also a need for a mediator, when the lowly person is at enmity with the high authority. The mediator’s task then includes trying to bring about the reconciliation of the lowly person with the high authority.

Jesus is our Mediator. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man as He is the God-Man.

Intercession is the act of going on behalf of someone else that needs help from Almighty God, to be merciful and gracious unto someone else and not self. It most cases it is prayer for those whose situations or circumstances need the mercy and grace of God’s immediate attention.

Intercession requires a giving up and giving unto, as act of God’s love, mercy and compassion. The intercessor must be ready and sensitive to God at all times, totally yielded to Him, and willing to be touched by the infirmities of someone else. Intercession requires you to become selfless, forgetting about your needs, desires and wants.

 

[Major1]

What doctrines spread over the entire Christian world you taking about? There simply were none of the Catholic distinctives spread over the entire Christian world by 90AD, and the later accretion of which was progressive, including the Roman papacy and Catholic priesthood, and since such as these began with them, they would hardly be stamped out by them.

But I would actually like to see a compilation of prayers to created beings (PTCBIH) in Heaven by the majority of early "church fathers."

That is what is thin, for the issue is not the bond that exists between believers through the Lord, but what this means, as manifest in the inspired record of the church, and which leaves you trying to read prayer to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH) into it since the Holy Spirit leave it out, and only teaches addressing God in prayer.

As the premise that PTCBIH was spread over the entire Christian world in the NT church era is false, so is your conclusion that it would be reproved. Since there is no record of it in the inspired record of what the NT believers practiced, then why would we see correction of it? Go find one example among the over 200 prayers in all of Scripture, and you will only find it negatively recorded.

What issues? Some were subject of debate from early one, while others were those which the very ones who would have reproved them had adopted them themselves. Regarding the former, to this very day tradition-based "Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

And there are more, while contrary to Cath sanitizing propaganda of her past, there is testimony to variant positions from ancient times relative to certain Protestant protestations. Pelikan attested,

“...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) p 46-49).

Of all people it should not be, for contrary to faithful Catholics who are not to ascertain the veracity of official Catholic teaching by examination of the warrant for it, for true Protestants it is the weight of Scriptural substantiation that must be the basis for their assurance of Truth. We are to go wherever the Truth leads, with wholly inspired Scripture being the wholly assured word of God. And which is why I left Rome while yet being a weekly mass-going RC, who had recently served as a CCD teacher and lector.

And I will boldly assert that I would and will return if indeed that is what Scripture attests the NT church was. But instead the more I have read Scripture 40 years after actually becoming born again by the grace of God, then i see more clearly I have seen that it is actually Catholic distinctives that are missing from the inspired record of what the NT church believed.

And which is why reliance upon Scripture as the supreme standard is attacked by RCs, who cannot even admit an infallible magisterium is not essential to know and understand what is of God!

Excellent comments as well as a testimony!

 

[Major1]

Bookmark: [URL='https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-bible-is-not-a-catechetical-book.8030034/page-7#post-71838564']The Bible is not a Catechetical Book![/URL]

I'll respond to this, either later today, or tomorrow, depending on my availability, like I said, I have a busy day today, and it's the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, and I want celebrate it. I see a lot of strawmans in this argument.

We only see what we want to see when we approach any situation or conversation with a pre-conceived agenda.

 

[Major1]

Has anyone explained the following yet, and explained what the words "divorce" and "fornication" mean?:

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."
- St. Matthew 5:32 DR

And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
- St. Matthew 19:9 DR​

Has anyone explained to you that " we must be born again"????

 

[Major1]

Are you referring to "Mary-As-Co-Redemptrix"?
You have totally misunderstood this!
"Co-Redemptrix" means Mary Co-operated....with God's plan for Redemption. That in no way makes her equal.
This is about New-Eve / Old-Eve
Old Eve co-operated with The Serpent ("Co-Faller" with Adam if you want)
This did not put Eve equal to Satan or God.
Dare I suggest this is prejudiced conclusion jumping?

You also said.............

"Catholicism portrays Mary as a sinless divine being, who never sinned, never had relations with Joseph, never had any children except Jesus, and then was bodily taken directly into Heaven without experiencing physical death. NONE of these RCC doctrines are taught in the Word of God. NONE!!!!!"

Where did you learn that "The Word of God=The Bible"?
That's not in the bible!
Jesus was also The Word, and He said to those He sent "He who hears you hears me" (The Catholic church) This is all "The Word of God"

Please read my post 144, that deals with Mary's sinlessness,.... if you have any interest in what Catholicism actually teaches or believes.....as opposed to what Protestant myths about Catholicism teach.
Currently you are only destroying Strawmen
And, insofar as you do that, and repeat falsehoods about Catholicism, you may be keeping people from God's truth.
At least learn first, then attack what Catholicism actually teaches.....
if you can.

Post 144 also shows scripture showing Mary as Queen in Heaven

Also learn about "Gebirah" The Davidic King's Mother-Queen whose role with the Davidic King was intercessor-for-her-people, who is never refused. Then understand Cana in this light.....Why Jesus says "Woman" and why he demurs to her intercession for the people without wine.

Matthew 4:4 ............
"But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

2 Timothy 3:16 .............
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".

1 Thessalonians 2:13 ................
"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."

 

[Major1]

I do try giving Protestants patience with that. After all, I used to be one of them.

It isn't easy though because I eventually discovered the truth about Mother Church and the reflexive response I had was outrage that I had been lied to about the true faith.

But still, sola scriptura is the default from which a lot of Protestants begin. Showing them how illogical, counter-intuitive and unworkable sola scriptura is may take a while.

You do error by not knowing the Scriptures.

1 John 2:19...............
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

 

[Major1]

You can ignore my arguments but you cannot ignore God's arguments.

I agree with that thought. However, that is exactly what the RCC in fact does.

God says in Exodus 20:4-5............
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me".

But every time you go into your church you do exactly that.

God says in 1 Timothy 3:2............
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach."

But the RCC does not allow the bishops and priests to marry.

Jesus said in Matthew 23:9............
"And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."

But ALL Catholic call their priests "FATHER".

Now YOU will of course have an excuse so as to allow you to continue to do those things and when YOU do .......YOU are ignoring God!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You are a typical bible worshiping Protestant, you throw words around like "infallible, and "tradition" as if you know what the terms mean.
You don't. CCC 76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

Neither your arrogant assertion nor your reference to oral and written tradition - which I already knew was how tradition was defined - makes your charge true, which it is not. And instead it is often RCs whom I debate who need education in Catholic teaching, which I often provide.

What I said is not contrary to how Tradition is defined: "You cannot see Roman Purgatory or its Papacy in Scripture [the poster's source of Divine revelation], and the EOs cannot find it in Tradition [both Scripture and oral tradition]."

As for Bible worshiping, no, I do not sing to, or address the Bible in prayer, imploring it for mercy and supernatural aid, nor ascribe to it Divine power to hear prayers, or tell it I am here to serve it, all of which Catholics to with Mary. And if they deny that they worship Mary, then how much less can they charge me with worshiping the Bible, though it is God who has magnified His word above all His name. (Psalm 138:2)

And as for not knowing why infallible means, bring forth the evidence, as I can that I do know, and the criteria for it, as well as the different kinds of assent required for different magisterial levels of teaching.

So much for your spurious trolling charges. Now where is your apology?

 

[redleghunter]

Matthew 4:4 ............
"But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

2 Timothy 3:16 .............
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".

1 Thessalonians 2:13 ................
"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."

Indeed...

2 Timothy 4:
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Then as I said to your comrade, then you both want to convert to a church overall shepherded by liberals. No thanks. The the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version is not even on your bishops list of sanctioned translations, while they gave us the NAB, which is what is used on the Vatican's own English version site.

And thus I asked your in my first post to identify just what kind of RC you are among the various kinds, from those who agree that the one duty of the laity is to follow your pastors as docile sheep, and which at the least disallows public dissension, and that "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi);

but who believe this does not apply to modern popes. Or those who pick and choose from Vatican Two what they will obey, based upon their judgment of what historical RC teaching means, to those who fully embrace Vatican Two and other modern interpretations by Rome of herself, recognizing this is what she requires. And who call the public dissenters "Protestants," since in essence they are acting as such in ascertain what valid church teaching is based upon their judgment of what the most historical teaching says.

And there there are those in btwn both side.

So there you go again. A layman excommunicating those whom Rome counts and treats as members even in death, whom you must therefore own, like it or not unless you go schismatic, thus wanting us to join such an unholy amalgam. While I suspect you also are a type of cafeteria-catholic.

Off-topic, and a complete and total strawman! If you must know what Vatican II really teaches, see the following: Fr. Smith's Vatican 2 Series | Christian Forums

[QUOTE="PeaceByJesus, post: 71843006, member: 325380"
Meanwhile, where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?

Then you deny that an infallible church is essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God. Which denial is correct.[/QUOTE]
But you don't recognize these things as infallible.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

So your argument is now that the NT was insufficient.

No.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Does it mean annulment?

Deflection.