How does Marian devotion save?

[crazzeto]

“Amen amen I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do and still do greater ones than these.”

Also

Mar 11:13 And when he had seen afar off a fig tree having leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find any thing on it. And when he was come to it, he found nothing but leaves. For it was not the time for figs.
Mar 11:14 And answering he said to it: May no man hereafter eat fruit of thee any more for ever! And his disciples heard it.
Mar 11:15 And they came to Jerusalem. And when he was entered into the temple, he began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple: and over threw the tables of the moneychangers and the chairs of them that sold doves.
Mar 11:16 And he suffered not that any man should carry a vessel through the temple.
Mar 11:17 And he taught, saying to them: Is it not written: My house shall be called the house of prayer to all nations, but you have made it a den of thieves.
Mar 11:18 Which when the chief priests and the scribes had heard, they sought how they might destroy him. For they feared him, because the whole multitude was in admiration at his doctrine.
Mar 11:19 And when evening was come, he went forth out of the city.
Mar 11:20 And when they passed by in the morning they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
Mar 11:21 And Peter remembering, said to him: Rabbi, behold the fig tree which thou didst curse is withered away.
Mar 11:22 And Jesus answering, saith to them: Have the faith of God.
Mar 11:23 Amen I say to you that whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed and be cast into the sea, and shall not stagger in his heart, but be believe that whatsoever he saith shall be done; it shall be done unto him.

So moondweller is now:

Completely ignoring the Wedding Feast at Cana,
Can’t answer my questions regarding the Woman and the Serpent (Gen & Rev), nor why Paul would tell Timothy he would crush the serpents head when it’s Christ who won over death on the Cross.

Instead he has been changing the subject, and continuing to grasp at straws. Fairlady I believe is constantly busy with work, so I do understand her silence since her last posting.

 

[LilyM]

Your comment seemed to be made in the spirit of, wearing a scapular is a requriement of being Catholic… If this is the spirit of your comment, you have yet to prove that sir.

He can’t. He can’t even prove that Our Lady at Fatima SAID that people should/must wear the Scapular. Only that Sister Lucia took the fact that she was dressed as Our Lady of Mount Carmel to mean that they should/must. Talk about your classic case of hearsay evidence!

Now Sr Lucia, holy as she might be, was NOT infallible by any means. It’s entirely possible that her interpretation of Our Lady’s appearance as Our Lady of Mt Carmel was incorrect. That’s one reason why these type of private revelations aren’t required belief for Catholics, because they are revelations made to fallible individuals rather than infallible authority.

 

[crazzeto]

He can’t. He can’t even prove that Our Lady at Fatima SAID that people should/must wear the Scapular. Only that Sister Lucia took the fact that she was dressed as Our Lady of Mount Carmel to mean that they should/must. Talk about your classic case of hearsay evidence!

Now Sr Lucia, holy as she might be, was NOT infallible by any means. It’s entirely possible that her interpretation of Our Lady’s appearance as Our Lady of Mt Carmel was incorrect. That’s one reason why these type of private revelations aren’t required belief for Catholics, because they are revelations made to fallible individuals rather than infallible authority.

True, but I wouldn’t doubt Sr. Lucia and honestly I wouldn’t argue that those of us who do accept fatima shouldn’t be wearing scapulars (actually I’ve been meaning to get mine blessed).

But moondweller did veagly suggest that all Catholics are requried to wear them, this is false. All catholics are not required to accept Fatima, nor even the Rosary actually. Personally I think they should, but as no Catholic is required to accept any private revelation you could actually be a Catholic in good standing and reject the Rosary, Scapular, Fatima et. al.

Personally I would lump such Catholics with Evangelicals who reject Our Lady’s assitance in seeking salvation. Sure technically you can do it with out her, but when you have such a great and powerful hand up being offered to you by the Mother of God why would you deny such help?

Claim “I’ll go straight to God” all you want, but if you ask me ignoring the assitance of our Blessed Mother and the Saints is foolish. Seek the help of those who are in heaven with God.

 

[LilyM]

True, but I wouldn’t doubt Sr. Lucia and honestly I wouldn’t argue that those of us who do accept fatima shouldn’t be wearing scapulars (actually I’ve been meaning to get mine blessed).

But moondweller did veagly suggest that all Catholics are requried to wear them, this is false. All catholics are not required to accept Fatima, nor even the Rosary actually. Personally I think they should, but as no Catholic is required to accept any private revelation you could actually be a Catholic in good standing and reject the Rosary, Scapular, Fatima et. al.

Personally I would lump such Catholics with Evangelicals who reject Our Lady’s assitance in seeking salvation. Sure technically you can do it with out her, but when you have such a great and powerful hand up being offered to you by the Mother of God why would you deny such help?

Claim “I’ll go straight to God” all you want, but if you ask me ignoring the assitance of our Blessed Mother and the Saints is foolish. Seek the help of those who are in heaven with God.

Oh no, I’d agree that Sr Lucia is far more likely than anyone else apart from the other seers to know such things, and that it is fairly likely that this WAS part of the reason behind Our Lady’s appearing as Our Lady of Mt Carmel.

For me personally, my Marian devotion tends to the Miraculous Medal (dating back to receiving one shortly before my end-of-high-school exams and wearing it all the way through) rather than the scapular. And I don’t pray the Rosary daily, although I’m working on it - starting with the goal of praying a minimum of one decade daily.

 

[Tomster]

Nonetheless, when you or any Catholic give me an interpretation of a Scripture passage it’s YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Unless, of course, you’re quoting one of your Magisterium. I haven’t seen one of those quotes yet.

Moon, Moon, Moon,

It is clear you have absolutely no idea what Sacred Tradition is. You clearly know what your false traditions of men are because you continue to publish them daily. But, as far as Sacred Tradition is concerned, you are completely in the dark. That is to be expected though, because as an admitted Sola Scripturist, and not a very good one at that, you depend on yourself and the words written in your defective Bible together with whatever commentary you use (an extra-biblical source by the way) that agrees with your own position.

 

[Tomster]

Moondweller,

To give you an example of Sacred Tradition at work you will need to blow the dust off of your Bible and follow along. And do try and keep up will you.

The New Testament Book we will be working from is the Book of Acts, specifically chapter 15. Here we have what is called the circumcision controversy. What was the genesis of this controversy? In a nutshell, the controversy flared up in the apostolic Church as the result of the increasing number of Gentile converts flooding into the Church in its first two decades. The Church, of course, began as an almost totally Jewish sect. Its members were all Jews, its Lord was a Jew and the only Scriptures it possessed when the circumcision question arose were Jewish Scriptures. Not surprisingly then, the Jewish Christians, confronted with with the problem of all these eager Gentile converts were thrown into a tailspin by the question of how they ought to proceed in admitting them to fellowship. Let us, for a moment, join the Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 and imagine ourselves to be delegates from the supposed Bible-only “hidden church” of the first century, trying to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What is written in our Bible? Well, we read that God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision “as an everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:7). It is a sign that is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon “those who not your offspring” (Genesis 17:12) that is, those who wish to join the Covenant People by conversion (Exodus 12:48). Thus the Patriarchs are all circumcised. Moses is circumcised and the covenant of circumcision is renewed and reinforced in the Mosaic Law (Lev:12:3). All the prophets are circumcised. The Apostles are all circumcised. Even Jesus is circumcised (Luke 2:21). And He Himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any menas pass away (Matthew 5:18). Meanwhile He is remakably silent in issuing any command that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People. Thus, on the basis of Scripture alone it is apparent that the case for circumcision is really very strong. And so, the Church meets in Council and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares . . . . that circumcision for Gentiles is AGAINST the will of God who does not change.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

cont.

How do we Bible-only folks respond? One way to do so is to hold the Council of Jerusalem to the same standard of Bible-only principles as we hold the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility, and cry out in exasperation, "If this doctrine is the teaching of God who does not change, then where the blazes is the Circumcision Exemption for Gentiles in Scripture and why did it not become a teaching of the Church until 48 A.D!?

However, there IS another way to proceed. For we can just as easily hold these supposedly preposterous Catholic doctrinal developements to the standards of of the biblical Council of Jerusalem. We can then propose that what happened at Jerusalem is the model for every single developement of doctrine throughout Catholic history right down to the Assumption of Mary. That is, we can recognize that, despite appearances, dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. In these later developements we can come to recognize whst we already recognize of the Circumcision Exemption: that such developements are always rooted in the Tradition of the Church, both written and unwritten. And that Tradition is not a separate, secret and parallel body of revelation, but the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church,known to all the faithful.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

How does this interplay between the written and unwritten aspects of Tradition work to give such surprising results at the Council of Jerusalem? First of all, there were several elements of apostolic paradosis through which the light of Scritpure was focused like a lens. For example, there was the apostolic paradosis of Christ’s command to preach the Gospel to the whole world (Matthew 28:19); there was the apostolic paradosis of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit(“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]); there was the experience of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12); there was the work of Philip among the Samaritans (Acts 8:4). At Jerusalem, all these facets of the paradosis crystallize as apostles and eldars gather, and it is THROUGH these facets that Scripture is read. That is why, when the Council meets, they do not do a topical Bible study on circumcision and erive their opinion on the matter from Scripture as the sole formally sufficient rule of faith. On the contrary, they begin by arguing clamorously in accord with the old Jewish proverb “Two Jews, three opinions.” When the arguing winds down Peter stands up and appeals, not to Scripture, but to the apostolic Tradition of the Church and to his own Christ-delegated apostolic authority. He says, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the Gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:7-9). Notice that there is no mention of 2,000 years of Scripture here, just an appeal to apostolic authority and the Spirit’s revelation to the Church.

cont.

 

[poetryforjesus]

To the Catholics who have been persevering in this thread, I’m so impressed with your patience, uprightness, and your virtue of hope. You are acting like our Lord because you do not give up no matter how discouraing the situation might be. God bless you in your joyful and patient proclamation of His Kingdom!

 

[Tomster]

Thus through the lens of apostolic Tradition, Scripture that seemed to say one thing about circumcision is suddenly seen to be saying something vastly different. The materially sufficient bricks of Old Testameny Revelation, which at first seemed to build a synagogue of circumcision, are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead. The Council of Jerusalem, just like the Catholic Church, behaves as though Scripture is materiallly, not formally, sufficient to reveal Christ. The Council of Jerusalem, just like the Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of the Church’s Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The Council of Jerusalem, just like the Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to US . . . " (Acts 15:29). And so, the Council of Jerusalem, just like the Catholic Church, makes a step which, to Bible-only eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it. READ ROMANS 3:31 RIGHT NOW!! :hey_bud:

 

[Lev23]

Notice that there is no mention of 2,000 years of Scripture here…

Thus through the lens of apostolic Tradition, Scripture that seemed to say one thing about circumcision is suddenly seen to be saying something vastly different. The materially sufficient bricks of Old Testameny Revelation, which at first seemed to build a synagogue of circumcision, are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead. The Council of Jerusalem, just like the Catholic Church, behaves as though Scripture is materiallly, not formally, sufficient to reveal Christ. The Council of Jerusalem, just like the Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of the Church’s Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The Council of Jerusalem, just like the Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to US . . . " (Acts 15:29). And so, the Council of Jerusalem, just like the Catholic Church, makes a step which, to Bible-only eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it. READ ROMANS 3:31 RIGHT NOW!! :hey_bud:

Tomster, scripture WAS USED to make the decisions that were made at the Jerusalem council. You failed to mention this as you made your point in the last several posts.

**Acts 15:12-21
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
" ‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’
18that have been known for ages.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”**

Amos 9:11-12 and “Moses”(the Torah) preached were specifically used to make the descision. It is interesting to note that the Amos verses refer to the regathering and restoration of Israel to the land of Israel. This will happen at the second advent of Jesus Christ rule over Israel and the whole world as Davidic King.

 

[Lev23]

I forgot to add “Moses” was also read in the synagogues on every sabbath as well as preached in every city from earliest times.

 

[Tomster]

Nonetheless, when you or any Catholic give me an interpretation of a Scripture passage it’s YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Unless, of course, you’re quoting one of your Magisterium. I haven’t seen one of those quotes yet.

Moondweller,

Now that you have gone through this little exercise, would you please answer this question.

When was the last time your sect; pastors, elders, etc., met in Council to infallibly decide on ANYTHING regarding faith and morals, and have the decision placed in the New Testament?

AN ANSWER PLEASE!

 

[Tomster]

Tomster, scripture WAS USED to make the decisions that were made at the Jerusalem council. You failed to mention this as you made your point in the last several posts.

**Acts 15:12-21
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
" ‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’
18that have been known for ages.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”**

Amos 9:11-12 and “Moses”(the Torah) preached were specifically used to make the descision. It is interesting to note that the Amos verses refer to the regathering and restoration of Israel to the land of Israel. This will happen at the second advent of Jesus Christ rule over Israel and the whole world as Davidic King.

cont.

Then Paul and Barnabas stand up and describe the events which have maked their missions: miracles, signs and wonders. Like Peter, they also appeal, not to Scripture, but to the apostolic paradosis and to their Christ-delegated magisterial apostolic authority. It is only AFTER this that we finally get around to the Scriptural references, wherein James quotes the prophet Amos. Yet note this: James does not derive from Amos the idea that the Gentiles do not have to be circumcised. Rather, in light of the fullness of Christ’s revelation through the lens of apostolic paradosis, James is able to see in the prophet Amos a WITNESS to this ingathering of Gentiles and to the Council’s decision. In short, James derives the revelation from the apostolic Tradition and magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. James, like everyone else at the Council, places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, saying of the Church’s authoritative judgment that, “The words of the prophets agree with this” (Acts:15:15).

 

[Tomster]

Nonetheless, when you or any Catholic give me an interpretation of a Scripture passage it’s YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Unless, of course, you’re quoting one of your Magisterium. I haven’t seen one of those quotes yet.

You haven’t seen them because you have chosen to remain blind to them.

Let me explain.

Your conception of the Church is vastly different from the what Catholics believe. Catholics believe that the Church has both visible and invisible components. Your conception is strictly the hidden, invisible church of individual believers.

The difficulty with your “hidden, invisible church” theory is that it is a picture perfect example of the absurd separate, secret and parallel revelation it claims Catholic Sacred Tradition is. For, despite all of our faults and failings, we at least know what the supposedly apostate Catholic Church was up to for 15 centuries. In addition to the inevitable sins of its human members, it was busy defending Scripture from people who wanted to destroy it; preserving the doctrine of the Trinity against the assaults of Arianism; holding the Great Ecumenical Councils which settled the most bedeviling questions concerning the person and works of Jesus Christ; withstanding the onslaught of Islam and Viking invasions; laying the foundations for the rule of law in Dark Ages Europe; converting nation after nation to Christ; ordering the reading of Scripture in all of its worship and prayer; renewing arts and science and philosophy; inspiring saints like Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi; building hospitals and universities; evangelizing the New World and working energetically to do all sorts of things commanded by the Gospel. Meanwhile, if any Church lived a separate, secret, and parallel existence, it is the supposed “hidden church of true Christians” which, for 15 centuries, did nothing, said nothing, accomplished nothing, and was so invisible that we do not even find record of opposition to it by the supposedly apostate Catholic Church which usurped its place the moment St. John was dead. Thus, if we want to argue that the memory of the “hidden church” was obliterated by sinister Catholics who won the battle and wrote the history books, we have to account for the mysterious fact that it is only this “hidden church” that seems to have been written out of the historical records. All the other groups the Chruch opposed (e.g., Gnosticism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Manichaeism, Modalism, Paulicianism, the Bogamils, the Albigensians and a host of other movements) show up again and again in the polemical writings of the Church as movements to beware of. Only the “hidden Church” is completely absent from sight. This was the Church whose light so shone that men praised their Father in heaven? This is the city on the Hill that cannot be hid? This is the light of Christ burning for all nations to see?

 

[mark_a]

and that wearing the scapular and praying the rosary daily will “save the world.”

These things must be understood from a Catholic perspective.

Just as when Jesus asked the Father to “take this cup” from him, he wasn’t speaking literally.

 

[anthony022071]

This is quite an intimate insight into Mary and Apostolic evangelical strategy. What’s your original source, Anthony? Or was this personally revealed to you? In a dream, perhaps? A vision?

My insights come from my reading of the history of the Church. It’s a fact that Paul was concerned primarily with preaching Christ and his crucifixion. And it’s a fact that the veneration of Mary came into regular practice in the early Church,and that it helped to sustain the Church during times of persecution,and that it helped to defeat heresies.

 

[anthony022071]

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_in_the_early_church.htm

One of the oldest catacombs contains a drawing of the Madonna and Child dating back to the second century, and the oldest known request to Mary, the “Sub Tuum Praesidium”, dates back to at least 300 AD!

We fly to your patronage, O holy Theotokos2;
despise not our petition in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O ever-glorious and blessed Virgin.

2Means “Godbearer” or Mother of God. This title came into Christian use very early. It simply says that she gave birth to Jesus, who any Christian will agree is God.

There were also feasts in memory of the Assumption of Mary in Antioch dating back to 380 A.D.

We see the genesis of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and the traditional role of Mary as Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix in the early Church. Here are references to Mary by other early church fathers:

Mary, you are the vessel and tabernacle containing all mysteries. You know what the Patriarchs never knew; you have experienced what was never revealed to the Angels; you have heard what the Prophets never heard. In a word, all that was hidden from preceding generations was made known to you; even more, most of these wonders depended on you. (270 A.D., St. Gregory Thaumaturgus),

Blessed Virgin, immaculate and pure you are the sinless Mother of your Son, the mighty Lord of the universe. You are holy and inviolate, the hope of the hopeless and sinful; we sing your praises. We praise you as full of every grace, for you bore the God-Man. We all venerate you; we invoke you and implore your aid…Holy and immaculate Virgin…be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment…you are holy in the sight of God, to Whom be honor and glory, majesty, and power forever (373 AD, St. Ephem of Edessa)

It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him Who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God Master Who was born of you. For this reason you are called ‘full of Grace’…" (373 St. Athanasius)

Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay you with praise and thanksgiving for having rescued a fallen world by your generous consent? …accept then such poor thanks as we have to offer, unequal though they be to your merits. Receive our gratitude and obtain by your prayers the pardon of our sins. Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven and enable them to bring about our peace with God…Holy Mary, help the miserable, strengthen the discouraged, comfort the sorrowful, pray for your people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God. May all who venerate you, feel now your help and protection. …Make it your continual care to pray for the people of God, for you were blessed by God and were made worthy to bear the Redeemer of the world, who lives and reigns for ever. (St Augustine in 430 A.D. )

 

[Fair_Lady]

I already offered moondweller the wedding feast at Cana, at which Christ shows his blessing for marriage at the behests of his mother who felt an urgent need and great pity for that newly wedded couple. I offer you the same challenges I’ve offerend him with this scripture, try explaining it in such away that you don’t wash away completely the meaning of the scripture, while removing the Ever Virgin Mary from the scene. You really can’t do it fairlady, she’s integral to the story in many ways. To do so, is to lose all sense of the importance of faith in Jesus Christ.

I have no problem with acknowledging that Mary was an important figure in that story. But Jesus is the central character of not only that story, but of the whole Bible.

I love Our Lady of Fatima, in fact I was born around her feast day. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us

Who is “Our Lady of Fatima”? What identifies her as being whom you think she is?

Are you so blind that you don’t understand that the following scriptures are for you as well?

The scriptures listed are for me and they are for anyone who will have ears to hear. Why do you suppose I have a blindness towards them?

I suggest you meditate upon these scriptures in your translation of choice.

The seperating of the sheeps and goats:
Matthew 25:31-46

Story of Lazarus and the richman:
Luke 16:19-31

John 5:31-47

Happy to oblige. And I’d like to share what I see in them (briefly):

Matthew 25: 31-46

One day I, along with you and everyone else, will stand before the judgement throne of God. I will be counted in either as one of the goats (non believers) or as one of the sheep (believers in the Lord Jesus Christ). If I am counted as one of the righteous, Jesus will make it known to me that whatever good works I accomplished is this life would be as though it were done towards him. The opposite is true for the “goats” or non believer. If we are found by Jesus to be one of the “goats”, we will be sentenced and sent to eternal punishment in hell. If we are found to be one of His faithful, we will be rewarded with eternity with Him. The judgement of Jesus will be absolutely certain and just.

Luke 16:19-31

A rich man ends up in torment in hell and sees the beggar on Abraham’s side. He longs to be on the other side, but the chasm is insurmountable. He begs to be allowed back to warn his brothers, but is denied with the fact that sending him back to warn his brothers would be useless because if they will not even believe what Mose and the prophets said, they will not believe one who is raised from the dead.

Oops, I’ve got to go now…will continue later.

 

[Tomster]

Moondweller,

Now that you have gone through this little exercise, would you please answer this question.

When was the last time your sect; pastors, elders, etc., met in Council to infallibly decide on ANYTHING regarding faith and morals, and have the decision placed in the New Testament?

AN ANSWER PLEASE!

Moon,

Earth to Moon. Are you out there?

AN ANSWER PLEASE!

(The silence sure is deafening.)