Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How is countering your interpretation of the text with Scriptural evidence regarding the authority of its decree not accepting facts fin the holy scriptures? It's your reading into a narrative text an authority structure that isn't there that is being disputed, not the pertinent facts.
That's a false dilemma, and ultimately there is no removing trusting that the self is being led by the Spirit from the equation. Especially since there is no visible church on earth that has not erred in matters of both faith and practice such that it can be called the preserved body of Christ.
That is incorrect; one can believe that the Holy Spirit guides one in one's life without also thinking that the Holy Spirit interprets the meaning of holy scripture for you privately apart from the church.
That is incorrect but incorrect because of a false premise; the body of Christ in this world is the church militant in a battle against the flesh, the world, and Satan the devil. It is bruised and battered, it bears the marks of its battle, and it will do so until the end of this world and the last judgement. Nevertheless it is truly the body of Christ and truly the Church of Jesus Christ built on the foundation that Christ made. It is visible, it is troubled by tares (weeds), and it is fruitful in the good deeds that Christ calls his Church to produce. If you do not see it then look harder.
To the first, as I said you present a false dilemma because one can accept the communal lead of the Holy Spirit without accepting a church magisterium, but the leading of the individual cannot be separated from the question since if we trust in an institutional church we must trust that it was the spirit that led us to that church.
Technically one can do whatever one wants; no one is compelled to accept any Church teaching, they are free to depart, to self excommunicate, and follow their own course into whatever they want. Practically one is compelled to accept the Church's magisterium when one desires to remain in communion with the Catholic Church and all that is implied by remaining in communion with the Church.
That doesn't address what I've said in any way, and the church catholic and the Roman Catholic Church are not the same thing since no believer can be excluded from the church catholic. So once again, unless your contention is that there exist no members of the body of Christ outside of the Roman Catholic Church then the Roman Catholic Church cannot be the body of Christ. So what you are attempting to do is present a false dilemma between accepting the(in my view illegitamate) authority of the Roman Catholic Church and being a spiritual maverick. It is entirely possible to accept the larger tradition of Christian history without submitting to the authority of a magisterium that has asserted itself as authority over both the Scriptures and tradition itself.
This post portion is nonsense; of course you write of a "catholic church", even though the term is not biblical, and capitalise "Roman Catholic Church" in an attempt to make the Catholic Church just another "denomination", denomination is another non-biblical term, so that you can pretend that there is some kind of "invisible" "catholic church" that's out there somehow. It ought to be troubling to you to use these non-biblical terms in your apologetic for what is essentially a plea for holding to a "bible only" theology.
Rejecting a magisterium is not holding to a "bible only" theology, it is simply rejecting the authority of human beings who insist that they must stand between Christ and myself. The Roman Catholic Church's magisterium is not a preservation of tradition, since it recognizes there are fallible traditions and insists the only way to know the difference is by consulting them(and what do you know, the tradition they insist on as "Sacred Tradition" fully endorses the authority of those men. Big shock, there.) Christ said "call no man on earth your father," so whose authority should I trust His or the men insisting that I call them father?
Saint Paul called himself "father", was he so ignorant of Christ's teaching that he needs your posts to instruct him never to be called "father"?
What can I say but sorry for confusing you with one who adheres to the "bible only" - I may have confused you with another who wrote asking what was wrong with using the bible only.
You missed the forest for the trees with that one, since my objection is not with the title but the role that the clergy has taken for themselves.
I agree that scripture was not separated from Tradition originally. And it is not so now. Because Sacred Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition and always has been. Sacred Scripture arose from the Church's Sacred Traditions and became written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Scripture remains a part of Sacred Tradition today. I disagree with the idea of "a living witness to them" because it is a part of them, Sacred Tradition is not separated from the Sacred Scriptures, it is not a witness it is the whole of which Sacred Scripture is a part.
You seem to have glossed over my main problem with the Roman notion of "Sacred Tradition," which is not that it has been separated from Scripture(which I would actually agree with your description here if it were possible to independently verify when tradition is "Sacred Tradition" and when it is simply ecclesial tradition that is consistent with history and doesn't require glossing over massive problems with the notion that such tradition belongs to a single extant institution.) My issue is one of authority, and the fact that Roman Catholic(or Eastern Orthodox, for that matter) distinctive articles of faith don't mesh with the historical evidence.
Disagreed.
Which is precisely why we can't accept the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has exclusive claim to "Sacred Tradition" since the historical evidence shows them taking positions that are contradictory with Scripture and needing correction. So while it may be true that whatever "sacred tradition" is it must be in agreement with what is written in Scripture we cannot presume that what the Roman magisterium declares is "Sacred Tradition" actually is. And all you seem to be doing is trying to argue in a circle by asserting that sacred tradition is what the magisterium of the Roman church says it is, and then claiming that the Roman church's magisterium gets its authority from its self-defined "Sacred Tradition." There are just too many areas where history has to be denied to maintain such a claim, from the fact that none of the apostles appear to have been monarchical bishops including Peter, to the various times there were multiple "popes" or the abandonment of Rome for a period or the various extended vacancies of the episcopal position in Rome. That is of course not getting into the massive shift in doctrine that came with Vatican II.
Whatever reasons you claim, the truth is, that the Catholic Church is God's church.
Sacred Tradition has its content from God, it has authority because it is from God.
Amen, like the claim that Sacred Scripture is from God.
Every one of your criticisms applies to the claim that Sacred Scripture is from God.
Affirming Scripture doesn't involve denying the historical picture, though certainly if I were debating/discussing whether Scripture was inspired by God I wouldn't think it legitimate to simply assert it to be the case in the face of criticism. If all you have is an assertion, then your claim can simply be dismissed and there's no point in you trying to argue in its favor.
