PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Yet "Bible Christians" (the class whom Catholics mostly attack) testify to greater and stronger unity in core beliefs than Catholics , and which is a more authentic testimony to what Catholicism really believes than paper or perfunctory professions.Well, that's your personal opinion anyway. The truth is that non-Catholics often disagree substantially on what that "most ancient and only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record" means to say.
You mean the Roman Catholic "one true church" or the Eastern Orthodox, "one true church,"which have substantial and irreconcilable disagreements btwn themselves, including on what Tradition says and means? So much for singular and visible, while Catholicism abounds in disagreements and which would be more manifest if her members were more committed to doctrine, as her traditionalist sects are.And my point is that the church Christ established is singular and visible, unified in basic beliefs, traceable to the beginning of the faith,
In addition, do you really want to try argue that,
That the RCC is the church of the NT, despite Catholic distinctives not being manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed?
But that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
And thus a faith which began in dissent from the historical magisterium cannot be the true faith?
"What Christianity?" And "accurately?" Do you really want argue that the uninspired words of popes and councils are more trustworthy than the wholly inspired-of-God words of Scripture?and definitely not based on Scripture alone as if someone could pick up the bible centuries after the church compiled it and fully and accurately come to know what Christianity is all about without the witness of and input from the historical church that came before him.
Or that popes and councils can and do speaks as wholly inspired-of-God and also provide new public revelation thereby as could and did men such as the apostles?
And that the veracity of popes and councils are not subject to testing by Scripture as being the supreme established authoritative standard, as even the preaching of apostles was, and who appealed to it as so? (Acts 17:2,11)
No, that is not "regardless" is your assertions are going to have any real polemical weight.And that's regardless of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church happens to fulfill that definition of church as described above.
You mean its Catechism (which one?) is wholly inspired of God or at least wholly infallible, or that is may contain errors, or have teachings that are subject to later "clarification" (contradictions) as many past RC teachings have , and as your traditionalist brethren earnestly contend?And the unified body of beliefs of the RCC are easily enough found in its Catechism BTW.
Last edited:
Upvote
0