Part 1 of 2
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
the fact is that men both spoke Divine Truth infallibly as wholly inspired of God, and common souls assuredly discerned both men and words of God as being so
That fact though does not pertain to an infallible Church teaching or office.
Exactly, meaning God provided and affirmed infallible Truths via as wholly inspired men of God, but never under the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (PMI).
Show me where the OT magisterium was considered to have this charism of ensured infallibility as Rome presumes of herself, without circular recourse to claiming oral tradition teaches it.
The Church from the beginning called their oral tradition and teaching the Word.
As as wholly inspired of God, which your popes and councils are NOT.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
sometimes even in dissent from the historical magisterium - long before a church would presume its magisterium had the charism of infallibility and was essential for providing, discerning, and preserving Truth.
The Magisterium of the Church knew that they spoke the Word of God without error and their successors knew that they taught it without error.
No, they simply did not declared that their knew their judgment was infallible since they had that charism, but James based the veracity of his judgment upon Scriptural substantiation, and the council said of their disciplinary decision that "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" (Acts 15:28)," just as "it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul." (v. 26)
However, we know that this because of it being recorded in wholly inspired-of-God Scripture.
Evidence that it is the work of the Holy Spirit in such cases is that the inspired persons would be compelled to present their Word to the Magisterium If authentic, the Holy Spirit will also compell the Pope to accept it.
Oh. I see. Therefore in principal OT prophets were wrong when they were rejected by the magisterium, including John the Baptist. And the NT church was invalid since it began with the laity following itinerant preachers and a Preacher who were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses/the valid historical magisterium.
Or do you want to assent that there was no PMI before the NT church?
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
, God often raised up men from without the historical magisterium to provide Truth and preserve it, even in dissent from the historical magisterium.
If authentic, the Holy Spirit will also compel the Pope to accept it.
Meaning if the pope accepts it then it was indeed the work of the Holy Spirit, 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. And around and around we go.
And since it held in Catholic theology that one cannot discover the content of the Bible part from faith in the Catholic church, you cannot appeal to that as the word of God in support of your PMI.
Which means the Catholic apologist seeking to avoid circularity (proving the Scriptures by the church and the church by the Scriptures) is forced to appeal to Scripture as merely as reliable historical documentation, by which the souls is to see warrant for submission of faith in said Church.
However, this means that one cannot ascertain what writings are of God, but can ascertain what church is of God. Yet when he sees that
Catholic distinctives are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) then Catholics often argue the absurdity that in essence argues, "we gave you the Bible...we know what it means, not you.")
This is one way the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium. What you present isn't a proof that infallible teaching isn't necessary but an example of how it works.
Rather, I never stated that infallible teaching isn't necessary but exampled of how it works. Which is in contrast to ensured magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
Therefore God can provide infallible Truth without PMI, and rejection of it does not mean Truth and faith will be lost, any more than it meant it before their was a Catholic Truth which presumed PMI.
Without God showing him directly, or without an infallible teaching and office man can't receive infallible truth and know it.
Meaning even that without PMI the believer cannot know and believe what all the writings are of God and put faith in Him until he has made an act of faith in the instruments of its transmission. (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium).
Which means that common souls such as ascertained that John the Baptist was a prophet indeed," (Mark 11:27-33) and likewise prophets before him, actually could not have when they did unless the historical infallible magisterium had accepted them, at least at that time, which they did not. (Matthew 23:31; Acts 7:51)
Meaning once again that you have effectively nuked the church.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
The fact is that the only wholly inspired, infallible, substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed is Scripture.
The words of Scriptures are transitory symbols, so it requires a continuous tradition of understanding the concepts the words symbolize and that understanding must be hamded down from generation to generation to know what the Holy Spirit revealed in the beginning.
Which is both denigrating Scripture in the overall sense, and a implicit misconception of the meaning of the sufficiency of Scripture, and a an argument that is non-sequitur.
For the fact is that while such things as the ability to read and reason/comprehend are obvious needs here, and which we use in every conversation, taking into account context, genre, etc., and which Scripture materially provides for, yet far from the words of Scriptures being all or even mostly transitory symbols, most words retain the same meaning, and with evident context and genre indicating meaning.
And while there is also a need for teachers, which Scripture also provides for, if PMI was essential for to know what the Holy Spirit revealed in the beginning, then souls could not have know this until an infallible church provided it. And God would have also provided it. However, while the supreme magisterium of the OT did indeed have authority, it simply did not possees PMI. ,
Meanwhile, the words of your interpreter, the magisterium, are themselves subject to the need for an interpreter, and rather than solving the problem of division, their interpretation fostered it.
As one poster wryly stated,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
And in reality, while your premise is that an infallible magisterium is essential for correct interpretation of Scripture, just what has Rome accomplished by her i(self-proclaimed) infallible magisterium?
- Has she infallibly defined more than just a few verses out of the over 31,000 verses in the Bible? No.
- Has she produced any infallible commentary on the whole Bible? No.
- Has she infallibly defined anything close to all the Truths found in the Bible? No.
- Has she even product an infallible list of all infallible teachings (and thus all that RCs must provide assent of faith to)? No.
- Is Scripture so obtuse that its essential Truths requires an infallible magisterium, as they cannot otherwise be deduced, with the due use of ordinary means? No.
- Are all infallible teaching so clear that their preclude the need for interpretation, and preclude variant ones? No.
- Can RCs expect timely responses to disputes as to what Scripture means?
- Within basic parameters, do Catholics have a great deal of liberty to interpret (wrest) texts in order to support their church? Yes.
- Are those whom Rome counts and treats as members more unified in basic beliefs than those who most strongly hold to the authority and integrity of Scripture? No.
