Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[PeaceByJesus]

All of your interpretations are a new innovation, 1500 years, at least, removed from the death of Our Lord. Therefore, your interpretation, lacking any authority, are not valid,

Which is mere bare bombastic arrogant assertion in the absence of your desperately needed counter argument against the clear teaching of Scripture that 1Cor. 3 refers to the judgment seat of Christ, which does not occur until after the Lord's coming.

And while your own argument that 1Cor. 3 refers to purgatory is not even an indisputable official interpretation, rather than me presuming authority, the authority/validity of what I say rests upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, which is how the NT actually began.

But under the Cath model for authority and determination of Truth, any itinerant preachers who are rejected by the magisterial stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of God's presence, guidance and preservation, were to be rejected by the people.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Again, show us from Catholic teaching that popes with or without councils speak as wholly inspired of God. Silence means you cannot.
Then support the inferred premise that being the historical magisterium and discerner and steward of Holy Writ means all else they teach warrants submission to.

Regarding the last, that's not what I said...

Then what import does the constant "we gave you the Bible" assertion have if it does not mean all else they teach warrants submission to?

Regarding the first,
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops...

How does all this propaganda about infallibility answer my challenge to provide RC teaching that when popes speak infallibly then they are wholly inspired of God, as Scripture, or that councils with popes do so?

What not admit that once again you have no real proof?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

A logical fallacy, as you are confusing the conciliar ratification of a general consensus with needing an authority to know which books were of God. Which was not even how the very writings and men of God the NT church relied upon came to be accepted as authoritative in the first place. Give it up. This discernment/stewardship=infallible authority will not work.

But it has worked, in the Catholic Church, for more than 2000 years. I once had an interviewer ask me how I did something, and when I told him, he said "That won't work." Trouble is, it did, and does work.

That is an absurd argument as it is a mere assertion. I understand that 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.

But which autocratic assertion does not make it so, and my challenge is that for the argument for this assertion to work then you need to show us that being the discerners and stewards of Holy Writ means that they are the infallible authorities on it, and essential for ascertaining which writings are of God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So rather than actual early evidence which is where it should be found, you presume to do better than the church scholars Ratzinger refers to, while all you have are more dubious legends invoked in your pilfered, unattributed article from a priest?

It's funny who you choose to believe. You believe who agrees with you, you pick and choose.

And just how is that wrong, except that they substantively counter your argument by fables?
Paul even quoted a line of Truth from a pagan poet, but which hardly infers agreement with all else he wrote.

Question, though: Why do you think there must be written evidence of this doctrine? Remember, we have Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium

.
Meaning you have the Magisterium and thereby have Sacred Tradition from its selective choosing of parts of amorphous oral tradition, and from which they support their own validity.
However, Orthodox Jews also follow their Tradition which also has its fables, and the Magisterium that sat in the seat of Moses rejected the itinerant preachers and Preachers of the NT church. In short, the RC or Orthodox Magisterial claim for the body of their (somewhat conflicting) Oral Traditions being equal to the wholly inspired Scripture lacks warrant.

Which is why so many Caths end up requiring trust in their Magisterium when Cath traditions are shown being absent from and usually contrary to Scripture. For the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is the real basis for their assurance of RC teaching.

The reasons why i think there must be written evidence of the Assumption is because:

1. 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, as is abundantly evidenced.

2. While men such as the apostles preached the word of God as wholly inspired by God, and often included new revelation, yet even their preaching was subject to verification by the established, written word of God, but popes and councils cannot claim to be preaching as wholly inspired of God.

3. The real basis for the veracity of the Assumption is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, by which Rome declares herself infallible.

4. Oral tradition by nature is supreme susceptible to undetectable corruption over long periods, and God's means of preservation is writing, in which form we see essential oral preaching being subsequently written, as the word of God normally is shown to be.
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24)
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)

5. It is hardly conceivable that belief that was so important for the edification of believers that it was made binding over 1700 years later, would not be at least clearly prophesied in Scripture (and which is contrary to the NT teaching that the bodily res. awaits the Lord's return), and recorded by contemporaries.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Absolutely none of which shows what was stated, that Peter's street-level leadership among the brethren simply does not translate into the church looking to him the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome, or even being enjoined to submit to him, or remember him as their supreme head - despite the extensive press given to Peter until to Acts 16.

And against which early history also testifies.

Thus your list is an argument against the perpetuated infallible Roman papacy, including what it historically developed into. With all the mentioning of Peter it is simply inconceivable that no even one letter to the churches, includes those by the Lord, even mentions submission to Peter as the supreme head of all the churches, and his office as uniquely possessing the charism of ensured individual infallibility as per Rome.

In addition, what your list ignores is that the primary reason why in "Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context" is that he was the only apostle ever shown to be guilty of duplicity and to be publicly reproved for sin (not that i can compare with holy Peter). Thus the claim of preeminence here is a negative one as regards warranting the manner of submission popes have enjoined.

Also,

Including acting as an adversary in seeking (with loving intent) to persuade the Lord from going to the cross.

Preaching like an evangelical, purification of the heart before baptism.

My searching i found "Peter" mentioned by that name 162 times in all of the NT, sometimes together as "Simon Peter," and separately as "Cephas" 6 times, and separately as Simon 17 times at most, for a total of 185, but which includes duplicate accounts and sometimes in the same verse. In addition, a cursory count finds other apostles are mentioned by name about 80 times.

However, by my count Paul is mentioned 163 as "Paul" and 26 times as "Saul" giving him a total of 189 times.

Moreover, he wrote 13 books of Scripture, nearly 50 percent of the New Testament (versus Peter's less than 10%?), and is mentioned after James in Gal. 2:9, and the latter gave the definitive final decree in Act 15, and Peter is not even heard of in Acts after Acts 12, nor in Paul's extensive list of acquaintances in Rm. 16.

Which does not take away from Peter's purity, power and humble, non-lordy leadership among brethren. How much we need a Scriptural leader as Peter today. I dare say that if came back today conservative, God-fearing soul-living evangelicals would overall be the first to give heed to his preaching and spread it, while Caths would call him anti-Catholic for his reproofs their misuse of his name, and traditions of men.

Paul didn't write 13 books of Scripture. He wrote 13 letters to churches he began, correcting their mistakes, as a pastor should do. It doesn't really matter how much he wrote, Peter was busy doing what he was commissioned to do. Also, regarding numbers, Peter was mentioned in the Gospels, Paul only in Acts and his letters. Paul wasn't an apostle when the Gospels took place, having been made an apostle afterward.
Look, I don't care whether you agree or not with Peter's Primacy. It's there. You can ignore it all you like, but it's there, staring you in the face.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Again, show us from Catholic teaching that popes with or without councils speak as wholly inspired of God. Silence means you cannot.
Then support the inferred premise that being the historical magisterium and discerner and steward of Holy Writ means all else they teach warrants submission to.

Then what import does the constant "we gave you the Bible" assertion have if it does not mean all else they teach warrants submission to?


How does all this propaganda about infallibility answer my challenge to provide RC teaching that when popes speak infallibly then they are wholly inspired of God, as Scripture, or that councils with popes do so?

What not admit that once again you have no real proof?

Teaching happens in word, mostly, not in writing. Even Paul taught first, wrote letters later. The fact is that nobody disagreed with the fact of infallibility and what it means, and when someone finally did, we nailed it down in writing. That's how all the heresies worked-someone thought up a disagreement with some point of doctrine, then the Church declared it by setting it in stone, leaving the innovators outside the garden.

 

[Root of Jesse]

A logical fallacy, as you are confusing the conciliar ratification of a general consensus with needing an authority to know which books were of God. Which was not even how the very writings and men of God the NT church relied upon came to be accepted as authoritative in the first place. Give it up. This discernment/stewardship=infallible authority will not work.

That is an absurd argument as it is a mere assertion. I understand that 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.

But which autocratic assertion does not make it so, and my challenge is that for the argument for this assertion to work then you need to show us that being the discerners and stewards of Holy Writ means that they are the infallible authorities on it, and essential for ascertaining which writings are of God.

God did promise the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide His one Church into all truth, and that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it. That, alone, settles it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Paul didn't write 13 books of Scripture. He wrote 13 letters to churches he began, correcting their mistakes, as a pastor should do.

Desperate recourse to semantics. Perhaps you should correct the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who list Books of the Bible in Canonical Order.

The point is that while the instrumentality of Peter as leader is used to support the Roman papacy, which it does not, based on that criteria the impressive often unique instrumentality of Paul (who was compelled - due to attacks against the authenticity of his manifest apostleship, which is why he finally went to see James, Peter and John - to state that "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing" - 2 Corinthians 12:11) renders him an authority whose description of Peter does not correspond to the exalted infallible papacy reigning supreme over all the church from Rome, to which all the church looked to.

" It doesn't really matter how much he wrote,"

Of course it does, for despite the vast scope and breadth of the writings of Paul (including the foundation of the church, and positions) - who is not even mentioned in the false claim that "Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together" in your unattributed, pilfered polemic - and unexcelled manifest care and burden for all the churches, he fails to even once enjoin obedience to Peter or present him as the supreme head over all the churches, let alone in Rome, but presents him as the non-lordy, street level leader among brethren.

"Peter was busy doing what he was commissioned to do. Also, regarding numbers, Peter was mentioned in the Gospels, Paul only in Acts and his letters.

Which means the mere mention of Peter (which you make weighty) to be inflated due to duplicate accounts, and makes the close competition of the mention of Paul more weighty, if this itself is weighty.

Paul wasn't an apostle when the Gospels took place, having been made an apostle afterward.

Made sovereignly so by God, not man, whose gospel was given by direct revelation, not man, and who served the Lord for years as a church-planting apostle before going to see the apostles in Jerusalem in the light of those who impugned his ministry, thus endangering the faith of many.

Look, I don't care whether you agree or not with Peter's Primacy. It's there. You can ignore it all you like, but it's there, staring you in the face."

Maybe you really should look, as i affirmed Peter's primacy, but which was simply not that of the church looking to him as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome.

RCs imaginatively extrapolate this from the record of Peter's instrumentality but it simply does not translate into that.

And even esteemed Catholic scholars, among others, provide testimony against that.

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224

Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,

The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....

Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...

With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:

The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...

These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38

For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint.
Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.

Moreover,

The Bishop of Rome assumed [circa sixth century] the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176

Eastern Orthodox scholarship (while maintaining her shared accretion of errors of "tradition" as the "one true church") also adds voice to this,

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development. Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman)... "

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Then what import does the constant "we gave you the Bible" assertion have if it does not mean all else they teach warrants submission to?
How does all this propaganda about infallibility answer my challenge to provide RC teaching that when popes speak infallibly then they are wholly inspired of God, as Scripture, or that councils with popes do so?

Teaching happens in word, mostly, not in writing. Even Paul taught first, wrote letters later.

Which simply does not counter, but affirms what I said and evidenced, that God's chosen mode of preservation is by wholly inspired writing. And which the oral preaching of Paul looked to as the supreme authoritative source.

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

"The fact is that nobody disagreed with the fact of infallibility and what it means, and when someone finally did, we nailed it down in writing.

That is a mere assertion, and to the contrary the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is novel and absent and unnecessary in Scripture.

Moreover, once again, how does all this propaganda about infallibility answer my challenge to provide RC teaching that when popes speak infallibly then they are wholly inspired of God, as Scripture, or that councils with popes do so? Do you think infallibility must equate to being wholly inspired of God?

What not admit that once again you have no real proof?

That's how all the heresies worked-someone thought up a disagreement with some point of doctrine, then the Church declared it by setting it in stone, leaving the innovators outside the garden."

More imagination. It was not because some "innovators" "thought up a disagreement with the Assumption, or on the larger canon that Rome settled it over 1400 years after the last book was penned, but instead the Assumption lacked the needed warrant for it not to see disagreement, as did the larger canon.

Luther was no innovator is rejecting apocryphal books, as he has significant scholarly support right into Trent, and thus, contrary to modern RCs, he was not even condemned for this in the papal Bull of his excommunication.

Nevertheless, i concur that Luther's rejection of James as Scripture (though he included and this and apocryphal books in his bible) was partly due to its seeming contradiction with Romans etc., and Rome's affirmation of 2Mac was partly due to Rome wanting to provide support for Purgatory, which Luther's rejection of this book challenged, though 2Mac 12 only supports praying/offerings for the dead in order for them to see the resurrection, and in this case these being those who died due to mortal sin, for which souls Rome says there is no hope.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That is an absurd argument as it is a mere assertion. I understand that 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.

But which autocratic assertion does not make it so, and my challenge is that for the argument for this assertion to work then you need to show us that being the discerners and stewards of Holy Writ means that they are the infallible authorities on it, and essential for ascertaining which writings are of God.

God did promise the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide His one Church into all truth, and that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it. That, alone, settles it.

That alone settles it?! That is absurd! God has been progressively leading His people into all Truth from the beginning, and will only be concluded when the Lord returns and believers shall know no longer in part, but even as they are known, (1Co. 13:12) and God made promises of preservation to Israel from of old. But which, as with discerning both men and writings of God, did not require ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

Instead, God often raised up souls from without the historical magisterium and whom they rejected. Thus the church began upon such, the Lord of glory and apostles and prophets.

Back to the drawing board for you.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Desperate recourse to semantics. Perhaps you should correct the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who list Books of the Bible in Canonical Order.

The USCCB lists the books of the Bible in Canonical order because the Catholic Church PUT THEM in Canonical Order. The point I'm making is that Peter and Paul had different roles in the Church. Paul was the evangelizer and doer, Peter was the leader.

The point is that while the instrumentality of Peter as leader is used to support the Roman papacy, which it does not, based on that criteria the impressive often unique instrumentality of Paul (who was compelled - due to attacks against the authenticity of his manifest apostleship, which is why he finally went to see James, Peter and John - to state that "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing" - 2 Corinthians 12:11) renders him an authority whose description of Peter does not correspond to the exalted infallible papacy reigning supreme over all the church from Rome, to which all the church looked to.

I understand that you don't appreciate Peter's contributions to the early Church, and that you don't appreciate Mary's role in the Church, but Paul went to see James, Peter and John to ensure he was teaching correctly, meaning that Peter, James and John had already the complete faith and were already protected from teaching error, and that Paul, by the say-so of the other three, became an ordained bishop. So Paul looked to Peter, James and John-those who had been with Jesus and to whom the Truth had been explained directly, as the heads of the Church.

Of course it does, for despite the vast scope and breadth of the writings of Paul (including the foundation of the church, and positions) - who is not even mentioned in the false claim that "Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together" in your unattributed, pilfered polemic - and unexcelled manifest care and burden for all the churches, he fails to even once enjoin obedience to Peter or present him as the supreme head over all the churches, let alone in Rome, but presents him as the non-lordy, street level leader among brethren.

Which means the mere mention of Peter (which you make weighty) to be inflated due to duplicate accounts, and makes the close competition of the mention of Paul more weighty, if this itself is weighty.

You're missing the point completely. Peter is important because God changed his name and appointed him leader of the other apostles. When God changes someone's name, it not only gives them a new moniker, He is making a point about the individual concerned (memorializing their spiritual accomplishments, their spiritual potential, and His blessing of them). So God made Peter the head of His Church.

Made sovereignly so by God, not man, whose gospel was given by direct revelation, not man, and who served the Lord for years as a church-planting apostle before going to see the apostles in Jerusalem in the light of those who impugned his ministry, thus endangering the faith of many.

He was taught by God, and made an apostle by the laying on of hands of Peter, James and John.

Maybe you really should look, as i affirmed Peter's primacy, but which was simply not that of the church looking to him as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome.

If you accept Peter's primacy, and you accept that Peter, with the other apostles, named Matthias to succeed Judas (thus showing apostolic succession), you understand, supposedly, that the apostles had the authority of Christ to do so, and did so when they passed on to their eternal reward in heaven. The fact that Peter was head of the Church (which is what Primacy is-see Isaiah 22 for the authority given- in the infant Church (the acorn) and those after him had the authority over the sapling Church, and that the responsibilities grew along with the growth of the Church (more sheep, more responsibility). But again, you're associating what the Papacy became after Constantine left Rome to be run by the Pope with what the responsibility of a pope is. Augustine put it this way:
You have often learned that all our hope is in Christ and that he is our true glory and our salvation. You are members of the flock of the Good Shepherd, who watches over Israel and nourishes his people. Yet there are shepherds who want to have the title of shepherd without wanting to fulfil a pastor’s duties; let us then recall what God says to his shepherds through the prophet. You must listen attentively; I must listen with fear and trembling.

The word of the Lord came to me and said: Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel and speak to the shepherds of Israel. We just heard this reading a moment ago, my brothers, and I have decided to speak to you on this passage. The Lord will help me to speak the truth if I do not speak on my own authority. For if I speak on my own authority, I will be a shepherd nourishing myself and not the sheep. However, if my words are the Lord’s, then he is nourishing you no matter who speaks. Thus says the Lord God: Shepherds of Israel, who have been nourishing only themselves! Should not the shepherds nourish the sheep? In other words, true shepherds take care of their sheep, not themselves. This is the principle reason why God condemns those shepherds: they took care of themselves rather than their sheep. Who are they who nourish themselves? They are the shepherds the Apostle described when he said: They all seek what is theirs and not what is Christ’s.

RCs imaginatively extrapolate this from the record of Peter's instrumentality but it simply does not translate into that.

And even esteemed Catholic scholars, among others, provide testimony against that.

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

I wonder if you've read the entire book...but Iranaeus tops his opinion: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224

I question Sullivan's opinion, and authority. He had many opinions against what the Church believes.

Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,

The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....

so?

Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...

With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

So?

Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:

The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...

Yes, when Constantine left Rome for Constantinople, the Pope became the de facto ruler of Rome. Perhaps that wasn't expected, but I believe Christ knew what would happen. But so what? (by the way, the Lateran was the palace of a noble family from the time of Nero...)

These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38

So what? Yes, some of the popes became more interested in temporal power than in guiding the church, but the fact remains, the faith didn't change one bit.

For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint.
Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.

Moreover,

The Bishop of Rome assumed [circa sixth century] the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176

Eastern Orthodox scholarship (while maintaining her shared accretion of errors of "tradition" as the "one true church") also adds voice to this,

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development. Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman)... "

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

All you've shown is that the papacy, at times, was more about temporal power than the faith, and we all know this already. Still, God (Jesus) chose sinful men to lead his church, chose sinful men to write His story (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc.), and uses sinful men to carry on His work. None of this means that the Catholic Church isn't the Church Christ founded.
Ephesians 4:1-16
I, the prisoner in the Lord, implore you to lead a life worthy of your vocation. Bear with one another charitably, in complete selflessness, gentleness and patience. Do all you can to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together. There is one Body, one Spirit, just as you were all called into one and the same hope when you were called. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God who is Father of all, over all, through all and within all.
Each one of us, however, has been given his own share of grace, given as Christ allotted it. It was said that he would:
When he ascended to the height, he captured prisoners,
he gave gifts to men.
When it says, ‘he ascended’, what can it mean if not that he descended right down to the lower regions of the earth? The one who rose higher than all the heavens to fill all things is none other than the one who descended. And to some, his gift was that they should be apostles; to some, prophets; to some, evangelists; to some, pastors and teachers; so that the saints together make a unity in the work of service, building up the body of Christ. In this way we are all to come to unity in our faith and in our knowledge of the Son of God, until we become the perfect Man, fully mature with the fullness of Christ himself.
Then we shall not be children any longer, or tossed one way and another and carried along by every wind of doctrine, at the mercy of all the tricks men play and their cleverness in practising deceit. If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow in all ways into Christ, who is the head by whom the whole body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, for each separate part to work according to its function. So the body grows until it has built itself up, in love.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is an absurd argument as it is a mere assertion. I understand that 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.

But which autocratic assertion does not make it so, and my challenge is that for the argument for this assertion to work then you need to show us that being the discerners and stewards of Holy Writ means that they are the infallible authorities on it, and essential for ascertaining which writings are of God.

That alone settles it?! That is absurd! God has been progressively leading His people into all Truth from the beginning, and will only be concluded when the Lord returns and believers shall know no longer in part, but even as they are known, (1Co. 13:12) and God made promises of preservation to Israel from of old. But which, as with discerning both men and writings of God, did not require ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

Instead, God often raised up souls from without the historical magisterium and whom they rejected. Thus the church began upon such, the Lord of glory and apostles and prophets.

Back to the drawing board for you.

Actually, it's the end of the line for you. God didn't promise the guidance of the Holy Spirit to everyone, or to those who obstinately disagree with His Church. He promised the Holy Spirit to certain people in certain situations in which they have authority to do so. Their authority comes from God.

 

[samir]

But he knew there needed to be a hierarchy. He said "If your brother sins, speak to your brother, if that doesn't work, take it to a few of your brothers, if that doesn't work, take it to the Church..." (big-time paraphrase) That Church had authority

Which Church is that? It looks like you ruled out the Catholic Church since it didn't begin until Pentecost and Jesus said to take it to the Church prior to Pentecost when the Catholic Church didn't exist.

Bump for Root of Jesse

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The USCCB lists the books of the Bible in Canonical order because the Catholic Church PUT THEM in Canonical Order.

But which term shows that your rebuke that Paul did not write any books to be vain recourse to semantics, as said. And of what import is your "we gave you the Bible" claim unless your argument is that the historical discerners and stewards of Holy Writ are the infallible authorities on it?

The point I'm making is that Peter and Paul had different roles in the Church. Paul was the evangelizer and doer, Peter was the leader.

But which again simply does not translate into the perpetuated infallible Roman Petrine papacy.

I understand that you don't appreciate Peter's contributions to the early Church,

Another false charge, as i esteem the word and works of Peter in Scripture, but which Rome greatly adds to.

and that you don't appreciate Mary's role in the Church,

Another false charge, as i much esteem Mary as a holy, humble, devout and surrendered virtuous Spirit-filled women of faith, but which Rome greatly adds to, thinking of mortals far "above what is written." (1Co. 4:6)

Paul went to see James, Peter and John to ensure he was teaching correctly, meaning that Peter, James and John had already the complete faith and were already protected from teaching error, and that Paul, by the say-so of the other three, became an ordained bishop.

Wrong again! There simply is no ordination in Gal. 2 but which is wanton eisegesis, only the giving of the "right hand of fellowship" which affirms fellowship in agreement, and nowhere in Scripture is this described as ordination.

The right -handed handshake communicated warmth (Rolf Hurschmann, 'Gestures: Greece and Rome', in Hubert Cancik et al . [eds.] , Brill's New Pauly : Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. Antiquity [15 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002-] , V, pp. 832- 39 [834]), used for greetings and farewells (idem , 'Greeting ', in Brill's New Pauly , V, pp. 1022- 24 [1022]). - http://www.jgrchj.net/volume7/JGRChJ7-3_Keener.pdf

Your reading what you want and need out of Scripture which does not teach it is typical of RCs who reduce Scripture to being an abused servant, compelled to serve Rome.

Nor does seeking affirmative judgment from leadership or a type of court, which is nothing new, infer that such were "protected from teaching error" any more than the judgment of the OT magisterium did. Blithely reading this out of the text is the behavior of a cultist.

Meanwhile, your premise that Paul went to them to ensure he was teaching correctly, based on "I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Galatians 2:2) needs understanding in context.

Paul clearly stated before he even gets to Gal. 2 that he received the gospel directly from Christ, and which he had been preaching for 14 years, and which was already abundantly Scripturally and supernaturally affirmed, and he even calls it "my gospel," and dams those who preach any other.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:9-10)

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. (Galatians 1:15-17)

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (Galatians 2:6)

This hardly is that of a man who would change his doctrine based upon what men said, and which would impugn all of Paul's revelation, while no Roman papacy would allow a man to famously go around preaching for years without calling him to headquarters, and Paul was not called to do so here.

However, accountability is Scriptural, and especially since as evidenced by Acts 15 and here, Paul's apostolical authority was challenged by bigoted Jewish brethren such as "who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage," (Gal 2:4) who insinuated that his gospel was not the same as that of the apostles in Jerusalem, and which "hyper-dispensationalists" imagine today. Unless this was settled then it could overthrow the faith of his converts, and his labor be in vain (cf. Gal. 4:11; 1Thes. 3:5)

Therefore it was important to personally explain this gospel to the apparent leadership to make sure they were all on the same page, and thus Paul could count on their support against the Judaizers.

Furthermore, Paul's declaration of the Divine origin of his gospel and description of his commission (in which he describes his apostolic mission as been directly from the Lord, and only mentions the laying on of hands by Ananias, and describes the 3 apostles as men who "appeared" to be pillars) does not lend itself to Roman elevation.

And rather than presenting Peter as having some sort of elite protected status, after stating that these apparent pillars added nothing to his gospel and gave him the right hand of fellowship, Paul immediately exposes Peter was one who was not above misleading brethren, so that "the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." (Gal 2:13)

So Paul looked to Peter, James and John-those who had been with Jesus and to whom the Truth had been explained directly, as the heads of the Church.

Actually, according to the Holy Spirit whose words you evidently have no qualms about changing, the order here was James, Peter and John, while accountability to leadership is simply consistent with Scriptural principle of accountability, but which NOWHERE infers, requires or makes leadership as possessing ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

When God changes someone's name, it not only gives them a new moniker, He is making a point about the individual concerned (memorializing their spiritual accomplishments, their spiritual potential, and His blessing of them). So God made Peter the head of His Church.

Erroneous extrapolation again, for besides the difference btwn Petros=Peter and Petra-build My church (see here) 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.

He was taught by God, and made an apostle by the laying on of hands of Peter, James and John.

Wrong again! Just where do you get this wanton eisegesis?, which is not even official RC teaching, but your own personal interpretation. The only persons who are ever recorded as laying hands on Saul/Paul were a certain devout disciple (Acts 9:10; 22:12) and "at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts 13:1-3).

And Paul was called an apostle (Acts 14:6,14) and ministering as such long before he even went to see Peter at Jerusalem, and brought Titus with him, whom he had likely met in Lystra during Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 13:4-52, 14:1-25) , having chosen of his own accord to "go to the Gentiles" after being rejected by the Jews. (Acts 13:46)

Which ministry was the cause of the conflict that necessitated the Gal. 2 meeting, which some make as the same as Acts 15, but in any case it was after Paul and Barnabas were already called apostles. And which apostolic ministry Paul never cites ordination by men for, with only the unknown Ananias having conveyed power to him, but testifies to God calling him to preach. (Acts 22:1-21; 26:9-23; Gal. 1:11-23)

After his baptism Paul "spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." (Acts 9:29-30)

In Acts 11:25-26 Barnabas finds Paul at Tarsus and brought him unto Antioch.In Acts 11:29-30 the disciples at Antioch determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judæa: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11:29-30)

In Acts 12:25 Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem after they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark. (Acts 12:25)

In Acts 13 Paul (and Barnabas) is sent forth by the Holy Ghost thru certain prophets and teachers, and departs unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus where they preach word of God in the synagogues of the Jews, and during the ministry Paul binds a man to blindness.

After passing to to Antioch, the Jews there reject a powerful gospel message by Paul, they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and pronounce judgment on them as a whole, and declare they will go to the Gentiles, and go unto Iconium, where in Acts 14 they go both together into the synagogue of the Jews. "But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles." (Acts 14:4)

Then they fled unto the region of Lystra where they must fend off attempts at worship, "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,... (Acts 14:14)

Which all was done without any mention of Peter except for the initial 15 days Paul mentions in minimizing the influence of man in Gal. 1, but who before Acts 15 was as yet unenlightened as to the inclusion of the Gentiles. Thus your polemical labor here in is in vain.

If you accept Peter's primacy, and you accept that Peter, with the other apostles, named Matthias to succeed Judas (thus showing apostolic succession),

More specious extrapolation, as in reality were no manifest apostolic successors voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) Nor is there any manifest preparation for a papal successor in the light of Peter's impending death.

you understand, supposedly, that the apostles had the authority of Christ to do so,

They had no authority to do what God did not, and which you essentially charge the Holy Spirit with leaving out of Scripture.

The fact that Peter was head of the Church (which is what Primacy is-see Isaiah 22

Which is more private interpretation which RCs reject as a form when it contradicts them.

However, this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy was apparently fulfilled in the OT - as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 36;22, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later].

In addition, the text actually foretells that,

"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)

Who this refers to is irrelevant, forit means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it did not here.

However, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).

For it is Christ, not Peter, who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6)

And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7)

And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)

Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, but if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone in the NT then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.

for the authority given- in the infant Church (the acorn) and those after him had the authority over the sapling Church, and that the responsibilities grew along with the growth of the Church (more sheep, more responsibility).

Which is simply absurd extrapolation. You take a church in Scripture (Acts-Rev.) that did not:
1. teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church
2. practice praying to created beings in Heaven
3. had a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" who went to Heaven while the rest of believers endured postmortem purifying torments in order to atone for sins and become good enough to enter Heaven.
4. offered rote prayers to obtain early release from Purgatory
5. required clerical celibacy as the norm,
6. ordained men distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which was to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life;
7. manifested the Lord's Supper in the life of the church as being the central focus and sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."
8. looked to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome.

And who imagine that the "tree" called Rome came from this acorn, but which is like getting Sumac from an acorn.

But again, you're associating what the Papacy became after Constantine left Rome to be run by the Pope with what the responsibility of a pope is.

Wrong again, for i am referring to the pope never being what Rome fundamentally construes him to be.

In addition, you are in no position to contradict popes on what they saw their responsibility was as popes, which includes requiring RC rulers to exterminate the heretics.

Augustine put it this way:...true shepherds take care of their sheep, not themselves.

Which premise popes would have no problem with, in justifying their expansive power and unholy means. "It's all for the kingdom."

" I wonder if you've read the entire book...but Iranaeus tops his opinion: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm"

So this is your trump card, a work (among others, even some more attributed to Iranaeus) of questionable authenticity and with sparse copies? His support for Roman apostolic succession is about as believable as the excuse for Paul not mentioning their sppsd pastor Peter at all in his 16 chapter letter to the Romans, despite naming about 30 people in it.

Eamon Duffy, church historian, former President of Magdalene College at Cambridge, finds that,

..the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Duffy, "Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes," pg 2.)

Among others. John F. O'Grady, priest of the Diocese of Albany New York and professor of biblical theology at Barry University in Miami, and author of seventeen books, warns that among others, Iranaeus/Irenaeus cannot be used without some reservation. (Catholic Beliefs and Traditions, pp. 119,125)

In any case, Scripture does not support the Roman papacy.

I question Sullivan's opinion, and authority. He had many opinions against what the Church believes.so?So?

So, so? You question the opinion and authority of learned RC priests and scholars (Sullivan is far from alone), but do not question Iranaeus at all since he supports your preferred version of history, while when you engage in presenting unofficial interpretations as fact. But you have your opinion as a famous RC apologist.

Yes, when Constantine left Rome for Constantinople, the Pope became the de facto ruler of Rome.

Sullivan and others examine possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries.

Yes, some of the popes became more interested in temporal power than in guiding the church, but the fact remains, the faith didn't change one bit.

Nonsense. The basic duty of following the pastors as docile sheep is an integral part of the Cath faith, and if they teach and defend the "two swords" doctrine then RCs are obliged to trust and obey.

All you've shown is that the papacy, at times, was more about temporal power than the faith, and we all know this already.

That is simply superficial. The very foundational papal doctrine that the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered, (CCC 882) means that having such temporal papal power is part of the faith, as is using temporal power for spiritual purposes.

Still, God (Jesus) chose sinful men to lead his church, chose sinful men to write His story (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc.), and uses sinful men to carry on His work. None of this means that the Catholic Church isn't the Church Christ founded.

It does indeed, for while God (Jesus) chose sinful men as described, that simply does not equate into having the gift of ensured infallibility themselves as per popes, nor that this would be passed on via formal succession of office.

Ephesians 4:1-16 ...
Do all you can to preserve the unity of the Spirit

Are you serious? RCs example superior unity of the Spirit? To the contrary, both my own extensive RC experience and that of study after study shows that evangelicals have the strongest basic unity of the Spirit.

There is one Body,

The identification of which is that of all who are born again, whom the Spirit baptizes into one body, (1Co. 12:13) even if they do so in the desert and have no church to go to in their land. Even Rome recognizes this.

There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God who is Father of all, over all, through all and within all.

And if God is the Father of all (and even Rome recognized properly baptized Prots as being children of God) then "one faith" refers to the essential gospel faith that places one in the universal body of Christ, versus anything close to a comprehensive doctrinal unity, which has even been a goal not realized.

And to some, his gift was that they should be apostles; to some, prophets;

Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Co. 6:4-10)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Actually, it's the end of the line for you. God didn't promise the guidance of the Holy Spirit to everyone, or to those who obstinately disagree with His Church. He promised the Holy Spirit to certain people in certain situations in which they have authority to do so. Their authority comes from God.

That is as absurd as your last claim, for indeed God promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to everyone, "For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death" (Psalms 48:14) such as of a humble and contrite heart, "The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way," (Psalms 25:9) and which even lowly servants have realized, (Gn. 24:12-15) while being progressively led into all Truth has always been the case, and culminates at the resurrection, if then.

And as for "those who obstinately disagree with His Church," which presumes the church of Rome cannot be wrong as the historical magisterium, the church began in dissent from the same, even though dissent from a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13) Which in Roman reasoning would be cited as proof of ensured infallibility if the same was promised to her. Which it is not.

You simply have no valid argument for the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, only eisegetical extrapolations.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Bump for Root of Jesse

THE Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But which term shows that your rebuke that Paul did not write any books to be vain recourse to semantics, as said. And of what import is your "we gave you the Bible" claim unless your argument is that the historical discerners and stewards of Holy Writ are the infallible authorities on it?

They aren't BOOKS, they are LETTERS. We read from the book of the prophet Isaiah. We read from St. Paul's Letter to the Ephesians.

But which again simply does not translate into the perpetuated infallible Roman Petrine papacy.

Why not? I mean, I know you just simply want to say "Peter ain't it", but why? If not Peter, then Paul? Why Paul? What did Christ give Paul, other than the teaching He gave Peter and the other apostles? What Christ gave Peter, though, was the keys to the Kingdom, the authority of the Prime Minister to act in the place of the King?

Another false charge, as i esteem the word and works of Peter in Scripture, but which Rome greatly adds to.

How can you add to the body of one's work? We just revere more than what's been written down.

Another false charge, as i much esteem Mary as a holy, humble, devout and surrendered virtuous Spirit-filled women of faith, but which Rome greatly adds to, thinking of mortals far "above what is written." (1Co. 4:6)

I wonder how often you think of Mary, other than at Christmas when you sing Silent Night? Your charges are the false ones-we don't add anything, we merely admit to everything.

Wrong again! There simply is no ordination in Gal. 2 but which is wanton eisegesis, only the giving of the "right hand of fellowship" which affirms fellowship in agreement, and nowhere in Scripture is this described as ordination.

Imposition of hands has always been the sign of ordination.
Christian laying on of hands (Greek: cheirotonia - χειροτονία, literally, "laying-on of hands") is used in Christianity as both a symbolic and formal method of invoking the Holy Spirit primarily during baptisms and confirmations,healing services, blessings, and ordination of priests, ministers, elders, deacons, and other church officers, along with a variety of other church sacraments and holy ceremonies.

In the New Testament the laying on of hands was associated with the receiving of the Holy Spirit (See Acts 8:14-19). Initially the Apostles laid hands on new believers as well as believers. (See Acts 6:5-6). In the early church, the practice continued and is still used in a wide variety of church ceremonies, such as during confirmation.

The right -handed handshake communicated warmth (Rolf Hurschmann, 'Gestures: Greece and Rome', in Hubert Cancik et al . [eds.] , Brill's New Pauly : Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. Antiquity [15 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002-] , V, pp. 832- 39 [834]), used for greetings and farewells (idem , 'Greeting ', in Brill's New Pauly , V, pp. 1022- 24 [1022]). - http://www.jgrchj.net/volume7/JGRChJ7-3_Keener.pdf

Your reading what you want and need out of Scripture which does not teach it is typical of RCs who reduce Scripture to being an abused servant, compelled to serve Rome.

Wrong. Compelled to serve God. Protecting God's teachings, and the authority of His Church to teach what she teaches.

Nor does seeking affirmative judgment from leadership or a type of court, which is nothing new, infer that such were "protected from teaching error" any more than the judgment of the OT magisterium did. Blithely reading this out of the text is the behavior of a cultist.

Meanwhile, your premise that Paul went to them to ensure he was teaching correctly, based on "I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Galatians 2:2) needs understanding in context.

Paul clearly stated before he even gets to Gal. 2 that he received the gospel directly from Christ, and which he had been preaching for 14 years, and which was already abundantly Scripturally and supernaturally affirmed, and he even calls it "my gospel," and dams those who preach any other.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:9-10)
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. (Galatians 1:15-17)

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. Your translation and mine differ, which doesn't surprise me. Translations often change meanings to convey what they wish. What did Paul 'confer' with Peter and James about?

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (Galatians 2:6)

This hardly is that of a man who would change his doctrine based upon what men said, and which would impugn all of Paul's revelation, while no Roman papacy would allow a man to famously go around preaching for years without calling him to headquarters, and Paul was not called to do so here.

I said nothing of changing doctrine. But Paul knew who Peter was and wanted confirmation that he had it all right. It was important that the faith not be taught differently.

However, accountability is Scriptural, and especially since as evidenced by Acts 15 and here, Paul's apostolical authority was challenged by bigoted Jewish brethren such as "who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage," (Gal 2:4) who insinuated that his gospel was not the same as that of the apostles in Jerusalem, and which "hyper-dispensationalists" imagine today. Unless this was settled then it could overthrow the faith of his converts, and his labor be in vain (cf. Gal. 4:11; 1Thes. 3:5)

Therefore it was important to personally explain this gospel to the apparent leadership to make sure they were all on the same page, and thus Paul could count on their support against the Judaizers.

Furthermore, Paul's declaration of the Divine origin of his gospel and description of his commission (in which he describes his apostolic mission as been directly from the Lord, and only mentions the laying on of hands by Ananias, and describes the 3 apostles as men who "appeared" to be pillars) does not lend itself to Roman elevation.

And rather than presenting Peter as having some sort of elite protected status, after stating that these apparent pillars added nothing to his gospel and gave him the right hand of fellowship, Paul immediately exposes Peter was one who was not above misleading brethren, so that "the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." (Gal 2:13)


Actually, according to the Holy Spirit whose words you evidently have no qualms about changing, the order here was James, Peter and John, while accountability to leadership is simply consistent with Scriptural principle of accountability, but which NOWHERE infers, requires or makes leadership as possessing ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

Erroneous extrapolation again, for besides the difference btwn Petros=Peter and Petra-build My church (see here) 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.

The petra/petros argument is ridiculous. Jesus didn't call Peter "Peter", he called him "Cephas".
[/quote]
Wrong again! Just where do you get this wanton eisegesis?, which is not even official RC teaching, but your own personal interpretation. The only persons who are ever recorded as laying hands on Saul/Paul were a certain devout disciple (Acts 9:10; 22:12) and "at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts 13:1-3).

And Paul was called an apostle (Acts 14:6,14) and ministering as such long before he even went to see Peter at Jerusalem, and brought Titus with him, whom he had likely met in Lystra during Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 13:4-52, 14:1-25) , having chosen of his own accord to "go to the Gentiles" after being rejected by the Jews. (Acts 13:46)

Which ministry was the cause of the conflict that necessitated the Gal. 2 meeting, which some make as the same as Acts 15, but in any case it was after Paul and Barnabas were already called apostles. And which apostolic ministry Paul never cites ordination by men for, with only the unknown Ananias having conveyed power to him, but testifies to God calling him to preach. (Acts 22:1-21; 26:9-23; Gal. 1:11-23)

After his baptism Paul "spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." (Acts 9:29-30)

In Acts 11:25-26 Barnabas finds Paul at Tarsus and brought him unto Antioch.In Acts 11:29-30 the disciples at Antioch determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judæa: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11:29-30)

In Acts 12:25 Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem after they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark. (Acts 12:25)

In Acts 13 Paul (and Barnabas) is sent forth by the Holy Ghost thru certain prophets and teachers, and departs unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus where they preach word of God in the synagogues of the Jews, and during the ministry Paul binds a man to blindness.

After passing to to Antioch, the Jews there reject a powerful gospel message by Paul, they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and pronounce judgment on them as a whole, and declare they will go to the Gentiles, and go unto Iconium, where in Acts 14 they go both together into the synagogue of the Jews. "But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles." (Acts 14:4)

Then they fled unto the region of Lystra where they must fend off attempts at worship, "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,... (Acts 14:14)

Which all was done without any mention of Peter except for the initial 15 days Paul mentions in minimizing the influence of man in Gal. 1, but who before Acts 15 was as yet unenlightened as to the inclusion of the Gentiles. Thus your polemical labor here in is in vain.

More specious extrapolation, as in reality were no manifest apostolic successors voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) Nor is there any manifest preparation for a papal successor in the light of Peter's impending death.

They had no authority to do what God did not, and which you essentially charge the Holy Spirit with leaving out of Scripture.

Which is more private interpretation which RCs reject as a form when it contradicts them.

However, this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy was apparently fulfilled in the OT - as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 36;22, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later].

In addition, the text actually foretells that,

"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)

Who this refers to is irrelevant, forit means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it did not here.

However, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).

For it is Christ, not Peter, who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6)

And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7)
[/quote]Yet Christ told Peter "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)

Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, but if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone in the NT then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.

Wrong. Peter, after Pentecost, went on to be confirmed by Christ "Feed my sheep, tend my lambs". He converted, condemned, and healed in the name of Christ. Exactly what was prophesied.

Which is simply absurd extrapolation. You take a church in Scripture (Acts-Rev.) that did not:
1. teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church

your interpretation, wrong.

2. practice praying to created beings in Heaven

shown in Revelation where the saints in heaven take the prayers from earth to God.
3. had a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" who went to Heaven while the rest of believers endured postmortem purifying torments in order to atone for sins and become good enough to enter Heaven.
4. offered rote prayers to obtain early release from Purgatory[/quote]no such thing

5. required clerical celibacy as the norm,

a practice, not a doctrine, could be changed.

6. ordained men distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which was to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life;

that's not what priests do, at all.

7. manifested the Lord's Supper in the life of the church as being the central focus and sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

you finally got one of our beliefs right!

8. looked to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome.

Which you have a problem with, meh!

And who imagine that the "tree" called Rome came from this acorn, but which is like getting Sumac from an acorn.

ah, humor. Bad humor.

Wrong again, for i am referring to the pope never being what Rome fundamentally construes him to be.

I can agree that the papacy became more than what it was, but primarily because Constantine moved his government, and left none in Rome proper. The only available institution was the Church.

In addition, you are in no position to contradict popes on what they saw their responsibility was as popes, which includes requiring RC rulers to exterminate the heretics.

There was no such coercion. The Rulers felt it was necessary in order to maintain good order and discipline.

Which premise popes would have no problem with, in justifying their expansive power and unholy means. "It's all for the kingdom."

So this is your trump card, a work (among others, even some more attributed to Iranaeus) of questionable authenticity and with sparse copies? His support for Roman apostolic succession is about as believable as the excuse for Paul not mentioning their sppsd pastor Peter at all in his 16 chapter letter to the Romans, despite naming about 30 people in it.

Eamon Duffy, church historian, former President of Magdalene College at Cambridge, finds that,

..the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Duffy, "Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes," pg 2.)

Among others. John F. O'Grady, priest of the Diocese of Albany New York and professor of biblical theology at Barry University in Miami, and author of seventeen books, warns that among others, Iranaeus/Irenaeus cannot be used without some reservation. (Catholic Beliefs and Traditions, pp. 119,125)

In any case, Scripture does not support the Roman papacy.

So, so? You question the opinion and authority of learned RC priests and scholars (Sullivan is far from alone), but do not question Iranaeus at all since he supports your preferred version of history, while when you engage in presenting unofficial interpretations as fact. But you have your opinion as a famous RC apologist.

Sullivan and others examine possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries.

Nonsense. The basic duty of following the pastors as docile sheep is an integral part of the Cath faith, and if they teach and defend the "two swords" doctrine then RCs are obliged to trust and obey.

That is simply superficial. The very foundational papal doctrine that the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered, (CCC 882) means that having such temporal papal power is part of the faith, as is using temporal power for spiritual purposes.

It does indeed, for while God (Jesus) chose sinful men as described, that simply does not equate into having the gift of ensured infallibility themselves as per popes, nor that this would be passed on via formal succession of office.

Are you serious? RCs example superior unity of the Spirit? To the contrary, both my own extensive RC experience and that of study after study shows that evangelicals have the strongest basic unity of the Spirit.

The identification of which is that of all who are born again, whom the Spirit baptizes into one body, (1Co. 12:13) even if they do so in the desert and have no church to go to in their land. Even Rome recognizes this.

And if God is the Father of all (and even Rome recognized properly baptized Prots as being children of God) then "one faith" refers to the essential gospel faith that places one in the universal body of Christ, versus anything close to a comprehensive doctrinal unity, which has even been a goal not realized.

Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Co. 6:4-10)

too long, no time to read.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is as absurd as your last claim, for indeed God promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to everyone, "For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death" (Psalms 48:14) such as of a humble and contrite heart, "The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way," (Psalms 25:9) and which even lowly servants have realized, (Gn. 24:12-15) while being progressively led into all Truth has always been the case, and culminates at the resurrection, if then.

What does "humble and contrite" mean to you? To us, it means we submit to Christ's proper authority, the Church.

And as for "those who obstinately disagree with His Church," which presumes the church of Rome cannot be wrong as the historical magisterium, the church began in dissent from the same, even though dissent from a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13) Which in Roman reasoning would be cited as proof of ensured infallibility if the same was promised to her. Which it is not.

You simply have no valid argument for the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, only eisegetical extrapolations.

Actually, we have the only valid argument.

 

[samir]

THE Church.

Oh, you mean the Orthodox Church?

Can't be the Catholic Church since you said it didn't exist when Jesus said to go to the Church prior to it's founding at Pentecost.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Oh, you mean the Orthodox Church?

Can't be the Catholic Church since you said it didn't exist when Jesus said to go to the Church prior to it's founding at Pentecost.

Christ only instituted one Church. That's the Church I'm referring to.