But the thing is though, you were making claims that "whatever we know" or use as a source against you is from Catholic sites, and here you are backing up your claims using links to Protestant sites and also your own. It's not that I'm not reading it, but why can't I use the same style of dismissal towards what you provide?
If i understand your objection correctly as relating to your claims that i relegated to being "Catholic propaganda" regarding Luther and the canon, you could the same style of dismissal if you understood this "style of dismissal" and operated on the basis of my dismissal of "Catholic propaganda." Which was
not that is why propaganda because it came from Catholics,
nor that all that is from Catholics is propaganda, for i myself substantiated some of my rejection of this Catholic propaganda from esteemed Catholic sources. Which itself should have enabled you to realize I was not dismissing things just bcz they were Catholic.
Instead my substantiated refutation was of propaganda which was mainly from Catholics, that of many apologists, and Catholics helped refute it! But of of course since after laborious substantiation of correction and your misrepresentations, you confessed you intentional engaged in a "bit of error," you should be appreciate we even engage in more exchange with you.
You said (and linked) that praying to saints and other created beings in Heaven is one of them. However, there are some protestant denominations and EO that do: Anglican/Episcopal praying to Mary
Some of those Protestant denominations also have priests and bishops.
Indeed, which also tells you that my rejection of this tradition is not simply because it comes from Catholicism (by way of pagans and some latter-day erroneous Jews), but because it is not Scriptural, as
shown .
Clement I (who died before 100AD) also wrote about it, he was even considered a Bishop by Irenaeus and Tertulian. So why do you have the same, fallacious protestant arguments about this as examples of "unscriptural-man created" teachings by the Catholic church?
Why? Simply because they are! For what you are doing is invoking the uninspired writings of a post-apostolic man, which is one of those who testify to the progressive accretion of traditions that are simoply not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
So now, since these are not just exclusive to catholicism, then by your logic, those other protestants are also guilty of unscripture regardless of Sola Scriptura being the main principle and ruling of faith?
This is indeed true, and which should not be shocking to you unless you insist that concurrence with what entity doctrinally believes means one must affirm all it believes, which is still absurd.
Maybe they are following it's just you align to the interpretation of your denomination which is why you see them as unscriptural?
Which charge is either desperation or you seeming inability to allow that a believer does not need to affirm all that a church believes if he affirms some things they do believe. The fact is, whether you want to accept it or not, is that i reject it because it is simply not Scriptural, it is not what either what faithful Jews of Scripture or the NT manifestly believed, despite over 200 prayers being in Scripture.
When I am saying "not following Rome/the church", i am speaking on the subject of Theology and Apologetics.
But despite your recourse to selective obedience, social teaching also requires assent if part of the Church’s moral teaching. If you disagree with the likes of (
Laudato si' being so, then it shows how Catholicism is subject to variant interpretations. And if you do, then other RCs will show you that.
The point of that argument was just to show you that "you are following rules of a church" that you accuse of scriptural violations..
Which is as absurd as saying that since I agree with the judgment of the Baseball Writers' Association of America on just who is worthy to be called a legendary player then i am following their rules, and also (as per your whole argument) must therefore submit to all it like judgments.
If I was stating who the Hall of Fame has elected as to it roster, then I would have to go by their whole list in making that statement as factual. But concurring with some of its judgments simply does not mean that I affirm it is wholly trustworthy and always will be, and thus that I must assent of all its judgements as true. If i were a member and it claimed to be the only true authority on who qualified to be a legendary player, required this assent then that would be a different case.
But that all must assent to all like judgements if the concur with one (or some) is indeed the RC argument as regards us the canon and Rome, built on a series of false premises ("the NT canon shows an infallible magisterium;"[false] because of this you have actual assurance on the NT canon; [false]; not everything is written, and not every thing Christ did or said could fit in a book, and the apostles gave the word of God through oral and written format, and Roman church authority alone authoritatively tells what both consists of, "[false] and since you agree with the NT canon she defined, then you must thus assent to what Rome teaches is oral tradition. "[false])
I should not have to continue to explain why your premises and logic are erroneous.
but some these accused "unscriptural traditions" with in the catholic church are agreed by other protestant denominations. All of you have a different opinion on what teachings are "unscriptural". Praying to saints, belief in Sacraments, infant baptism, and if someone can lose their salvation are examples.
And? This exists in Catholicism also, since (for one reason) there is no official Catholic commentary on the whole Bible, let alone for each of its approx. 31,000 verses, Meanwhile the sanctioned notes and study helps in the official RC Bible for America have
taught for decades such liberalism as relegating OT historical accounts to being fables" or "folk tales."
In addition to which are the variant interpretations of both the magisterial level of certain teachings as well the meaning, unclarified by the magisterium, and when it did engaged in clarification, well, as one poster wryly put it,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan,
Against The Grain
And then there the wide scope of clear disagreements with what Rome has rather clearly taught, which she implicitly sanctions by her manifest attitde toward Ted Kennedy RCs.
Meanwhile, while trying to impugn SS, although you continue to resort to the tactic of invoking the vast tent called "Protestantism" which consists of many who hardly esteem Scripture as the supreme authority as the accurate wholly inspired word of God, rather than this stance being the cause of division, then as said and substantiated , they
attest to being more unified in basic beliefs corespondent to their esteem of it.
Thus your argument fails, for under both sola ecclesia and SS you have unity as well as divisions. And while the strongest and widest unity is seen in sola ecclesia groups such as the so-called Jehovah's Witnesess, the limited unity of NT church was not under men claiming the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), but under manifest men of God (2 Corinthians 6:4-10) who substantiated their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Whom we need today (I am not much of one).
Some protestants have this on their list of unscriptural teachings from Catholics while other protestants think this is scriptural.
And Catholicism consists of at least, in your own words, two "completely different churches and [who] have been for many years...We have a different view of which church is more accurate to the line of the apostles."
Now, if this is not agreed on, then you can't argue with someone who has skepticism towards the Bible. Your site shows all the the violations with in the RCC, look at how untrustworthy they are.. so logicallly why should someone trust any of their decisions, which include the 27 books?
Sigh. Why or why is it that you somehow can only allow either assent to all that a church teaches or rejection of all that it teaches? If you got a item of food from a supermarket you did not find good would say everything had had was no good? Or if you liked their selection of cheeses would you affirm all that is in the store is and will forever be good?
That is why it isn't me that making a logical fallacy: If the Catholic church doesn't follow scripture/apostolic tradition at 100%, then why would they canonize these books and putting the proof against them for the world to see?
The only logical fallacy is the one you penned! Again, the Scribes and Pharisees were right on some things, including that the body of Scripture which the Lord and His own used was authoritative, yet they disagreed with the interpretation of the latter.
But it does not follow that affirming a body of writings as being of God means that you affirm whatever the interpretation of them is, any more than affirming a class of firearms as being from Remington means affirming how ever one may use them. Thus the logical fallacy is in you. But at least you tried to come up with one after being faced with your own.
Moreover, like as a thief can use a policeman's uniform to abuse his authority, so the devil, Rome as well as others can affirm Scripture as being the word of God and abuse its authority in attempting to make it support what it does not actually teach, which is the servant-position many Catholics subject it to when trying to contend with evangelical types. Which often leads to or accompanies invoking so-called church "fathers," but since what they say is only authoritative if supports what Rome says, then the real basis for the veracity of RC teaching is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
And i think you have taken too much of my time in attempting to make you see what apparently you do not. Bye.
