How sufficient is the Scripture?

[michaelp]

I have just demonstrated that the Catholic Church has not

started in the same place as you have.

Ummm . . . no you haven’t. Tag . . .

Really, please forgive my reluctance to get into the same issues that I have covered in other threads that were hundreds of posts long. If you would like to contribute to those that I posted earlier, fine.

As Phil has said, we have been through this. I even heard Phil sigh from here when he read that I was at this again.

I think that I have recieved my answer to the question about the Bible’s sufficiency . . . no one agrees . Interesting . . .

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Ummm . . . no you haven’t. Tag . . .

Really, please forgive my reluctance to get into the same issues that I have covered in other threads that were hundreds of posts long. If you would like to contribute to those that I posted earlier, fine.

As Phil has said, we have been through this. I even heard Phil sigh from here when he read that I was at this again.

I think that I have recieved my answer to the question about the Bible’s sufficiency . . . no one agrees . Interesting . . .

Michael

Do we need to agree? Has it been defined as a Dogma? If not, then it is still up for debate.

Peace

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Is scripture sufficient?Sufficient to save you No!Jesus saves you,if you never saw a Bible before in your life and did what God wrote in your heart,Jesus would still be able to put you in Heaven.Sola Scriptura is something that has been around for about 500 years.I have no angst against Protestants, I do wish wish every fiber of my being that they had the fulness of Faith,And the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us.He was confined in the Word for the people although God even then had human leaders like the Pope to be the visible communicator of God’s Word.God cannot be confined to the Bible although it is His word.Jesus said he would not leave us orphans and He would be with us till the consummation of the World,He is The most Holy Eucharist,Manna from Heaven the Bread of Life.A light that can not be extinguished by the lack of belief by some.Oh how I wish you could understand, they walked away from Jesus when He told them and they walk away now:crying: I pray the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of your heart,so you can see.God Bless

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Ummm . . . no you haven’t. Tag . . .
An unsupported assertion. One of a growing list.

michaelp:

Really, please forgive my reluctance to get into the same issues that I have covered in other threads that were hundreds of posts long.

If you have covered those issues on another thread, then why are you attempting to get away with making unsupported assertions on this thread?

Good grief. Show me where on this thread anyone asked you to repost hundreds of posts. You talk as though your hundreds of posts were something that worried us. Believe me, I don’t think it ever crossed our minds. What I have asked you to do and what you have declined to do is to support your as yet unsupported assertions. Finding the material which you have posted before is your

job, not ours.

michaelp:

If you would like to contribute to those that I posted earlier, fine.

What is being asked here is not whether or not I or anyone else for that matter wants to respond to your posts on earlier threads. What is being asked here is for you to support your as yet unsupported assertions.

michaelp:

As Phil has said, we have been through this. I even heard Phil sigh from here when he read that I was at this again.

If you have been through this before then why are you attempting to go through it again while leaving out support for your assertions? The sigh you heard was probably a collective sigh from those of us who are waiting…

michaelp:

I think that I have recieved my answer to the question about the Bible’s sufficiency . . . no one agrees

‘No one agrees’ is an unsupported assertion. A more accurate assessment of the situation would be that

you

don’t agree. Moreover this must be about … what was it you said? … getting the Bible to say just about anything with a little imagination?

. Interesting

Not really.

 

[michaelp]

Ani Ibi:

An unsupported assertion. One of a growing list.

If you have covered those issues on another thread, then why are you attempting to get away with making unsupported assertions on this thread?

Good grief. Show me where on this thread anyone asked you to repost hundreds of posts. You talk as though your hundreds of posts were something that worried us. Believe me, I don’t think it ever crossed our minds. What I have asked you to do and what you have declined to do is to support your as yet unsupported assertions. Finding the material which you have posted before is your

job, not ours.

What is being asked here is not whether or not I or anyone else for that matter wants to respond to your posts on earlier threads. What is being asked here is for you to support your as yet unsupported assertions.

If you have been through this before then why are you attempting to go through it again while leaving out support for your assertions? The sigh you heard was probably a collective sigh from those of us who are waiting…

‘No one agrees’ is an unsupported assertion. A more accurate assessment of the situation would be that

you

don’t agree. Moreover this must be about … what was it you said? … getting the Bible to say just about anything with a little imagination?

Not really.

Wow! Your are really mad now. I did not mean to get you so upset . . . it is just a discussion. Calm down now. Things are going to be OK, you’ll see.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Wow! Your are really mad now. I did not mean to get you so upset . . . it is just a discussion. Calm down now. Things are going to be OK, you’ll see.

Guess you didn’t see mine.:crying:

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

Guess you didn’t see mine.:crying:

Lisa, as always, your message was kind and gracious. There is no need to calm you down, but Ani seems to need a little help calming down. Perhaps you can talk to her through PM. She (or he) is chasing me around wherever I post and sending me letters of encouragement . I think she has it in for me.

Ani, why don’t you just go to my website and see all my views, then respond to them. Here is a LINK: www.thetheologyprogram.com

And here is another link that I think you need to check out:

Hey Ani . . . I am just kidding, calm down . . . again.

Besides Lisa, I was reading your web-site.

I am still praying for you as you pray for me.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Lisa, as always, your message was kind and gracious. There is no need to calm you down, but this other person (Ali ?) seems to need a little help calming down. Perhaps you can talk to her. She (or he) is chasing me around wherever I post and sending me letters of encouragement (NOT). She has it in for me. Hey Ali . . . I am just kidding, calm down again.

Besides, I was reading your web-site.

I am still praying for you as you pray for me.

Michael

You are reading the Divine Mercy:clapping: :dancing: :clapping: Well I won’t bother you then God Bless

 

[teajay]

michaelp:

Hey Phil,

One question: Are you fallible or infallible? If you are fallible then all you have to work with is your own fallible certianty, which by def is guided by moral certianty.

Remember there is nothing wrong with moral certianty. Every decision in life we make is based upon it. Unless you are infallible, that is your only option.

Sorry all . . . I only have a minute to answer. I will be back here and there, but I cannot keep up with this right now. Remember, I am the only Evangelical on this thread.

Have a great day Phil.

Michael

I think that there is an unstated assumption that you make in that comment. That assumption is that because humans are incapable of producing or knowing anything that is truly infallible we will all come to equally erroneous conclusions. In other words, that a lack of absolute certainty implies the presence of absolute uncertainty. But I don’t think that that is true. We can be more certain of some things than we can of others. I believe that a living, breathing mechanism, possessing a temporal dimension, such as the Church, is more capable of providing maximal certainty than the study of Scripture alone. You may disagree with my conclusion, but my belief is not outside the scope of reason.

You regard something infallible, such as Scripture, as a useful, perhaps essential, norm on which to base you moral certainty. I believe that the Catholic Church (Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium) is not just a sure norm, but the surest norm on which to base my moral certainty.

Isn’t that a reasonable belief as to what God would give us? The *surest norm *on which to base our faith?

p.s. I know you will probably disagree and say that the Bible alone is the surest norm, but I don’t seek to alter you belief’s, but simply for you to gain an insight into mine.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Hey Phil,

One question: Are you fallible or infallible? If you are fallible then all you have to work with is your own fallible certianty, which by def is guided by moral certianty.

Remember there is nothing wrong with moral certianty. Every decision in life we make is based upon it. Unless you are infallible, that is your only option.

Michael, Granted, I may be a little dim in this area…It has been a while since I went through all those literary criticism courses back in college (wow–wish I’d been a bit more attentive, but my professor was not the most exciting chap:yawn: ) but that seems to be how you are approaching this and I’m certain that’s how Ali is going at it…

Your question above, I still contend, shows that you have come to the point where you are saying to the effect of: “You must admit you are an imperfect being because to do so would be unreasonable–therefore, what you think is only your personal take (reader response criticism?) of what may or not be actually true.”

Ultimately that is RELATIVE–What you think is what you think and it may be “true” (for you) based on your personal moral certainty. If you apply that everyewhere it is deconstructive–you say you believe there is ABSOLUTE truth, but then by your arguement, we can’t ever know it because our beliefs about it are really only our interpretation Of what we THINK is true.

To accept this, one must believe that God does not want us to “truly” know Him. I don’t believe this and I don’t think you really do either.

Again…Catholics do NOT have to rely on their own (fallible)interpretation (unlike Protestants). We have faith that the words of Christ (in the Bible) have promised the leaders of our church that the interpretations that they arrive at in matters of faith and morals ARE the Truth from God–all that protecting from the gates of Hell and binding and loosing stuff.

(We’re not ganging up on the lone Evangelical–I think we are impressed by your good natured tanacity–and we want you on our side! )

 

[st_felicity]

So back to your original question and my original answer to that question.

NONE OF THE ABOVE are correct because the whole of Divine Revelation is not accounted for in your poll options. The “trinity” of Scripture, Tradition, and Teaching Offices of the Chuch–are the COMPLETE message from God.

And again, that does not mean that God is unmerciful and those who ***cannot ***receive his complete message are doomed–Only those that hear it (and God judges them to have been capable of understanding it) and reject God’s Truth are doomed by their own choice to turn away.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Michael, Granted, I may be a little dim in this area…It has been a while since I went through all those literary criticism courses back in college (wow–wish I’d been a bit more attentive, but my professor was not the most exciting chap:yawn: ) but that seems to be how you are approaching this and I’m certain that’s how Ali is going at it…

Your question above, I still contend, shows that you have come to the point where you are saying to the effect of: “You must admit you are an imperfect being because to do so would be unreasonable–therefore, what you think is only your personal take (reader response criticism?) of what may or not be actually true.”

Ultimately that is RELATIVE–What you think is what you think and it may be “true” (for you) based on your personal moral certainty. If you apply that everyewhere it is deconstructive–you say you believe there is ABSOLUTE truth, but then by your arguement, we can’t ever know it because our beliefs about it are really only our interpretation Of what we THINK is true.

To accept this, one must believe that God does not want us to “truly” know Him. I don’t believe this and I don’t think you really do either.

Again…Catholics do NOT have to rely on their own (fallible)interpretation (unlike Protestants). We have faith that the words of Christ (in the Bible) have promised the leaders of our church that the interpretations that they arrive at in matters of faith and morals ARE the Truth from God–all that protecting from the gates of Hell and binding and loosing stuff.

(We’re not ganging up on the lone Evangelical–I think we are impressed by your good natured tanacity–and we want you on our side! )

Well argued. As for me being ‘upset’: a projection, I am afraid. michaelp’s responses started to get a little testy, particularly on the papal infallibility thread. I just gave him some feedback on his behaviour. It is a discussion only when people participating actually respond to each other’s posts, instead of sidestepping their claims. michaelp imho wants to teach us without first having negotiated whether or not we agree to be taught and without answering challenges or requests for clarity on what he is attempting to teach us.

 

[Mickey]

michaelp:

Wow! Your are really mad now. I did not mean to get you so upset . . . it is just a discussion. Calm down now. Things are going to be OK, you’ll see.

I sometimes wonder if Michael perhaps gets a kick out of attempting to rile people’s emotions with his revisionist theology. Some people thrive on that sort of thing.

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Hey Phil,

One question: Are you fallible or infallible? If you are fallible then all you have to work with is your own fallible certianty, which by def is guided by moral certianty.

Remember there is nothing wrong with moral certianty. Every decision in life we make is based upon it. Unless you are infallible, that is your only option.

Sorry all . . . I only have a minute to answer. I will be back here and there, but I cannot keep up with this right now. Remember, I am the only Evangelical on this thread.

Have a great day Phil.

Michael

You avoided almost the entire body of my last post - I’m encouraged by this behavior - it means you don’t have much else to fall back on. So you have ignored everything I said and left it up to the question of my “infallibility”. Well let me continue to hammer my point into your brain! Im infallible and fallible. Even better, the degree of fallibility is different between different activities. For example, my degree of fallibility in interpreting Scripture for myself, and my degree of fallibility in interpreting the Magisterium are not the same. This ruins your argument. You have treated fallibility as a fixed state of being without degrees. But this is not the case. I’m infallible at interpreting YES and NO. Im very fallible in interpreting statements like “Do not hinder the children…to such belongs the Kingdom of God” Im infallible in interpreting statements like, “Born with a fallen human nature and tainted with original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism.” CCC 1250 Yup, I’d say Im infallible at undrstanding the implication of this statement: Get your kid baptized ASAP. So returning to your question, “Am I fallible or infallible?” My answer is both depending on what I’m interpreting. My bible interpretation is variably fallible, my CCC interpretation is relatively infallible in most instances and absolutely infallible in many circumstances.

I hope your classes are going well. Teaching seems so exciting - I had an interest in teaching but never pursued it. I bet you are very good at it .

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Your question above, I still contend, shows that you have come to the point where you are saying to the effect of: “You must admit you are an imperfect being because to do so would be unreasonable–therefore, what you think is only your personal take (reader response criticism?) of what may or not be actually true.”

Well, I certianly am being misread. Reader response criticism means that everyone sits around in a circle and askes, “What does this mean to you?” “That is nice, what does this mean to you?” And so on . . . I am no advocate of reader response at all. A person must ask “What does this mean?” and then ask “How does this APPLY to you?”

Every text only has one meaning. This meaning if found in the internt of the author. This is call authorial intent hermeneutics. This is the type of hermeneutic that I teach and strongly advocate.

Ultimately that is RELATIVE–What you think is what you think and it may be “true” (for you) based on your personal moral certainty.

You fail to realize the power of moral certianty. Moral certianty is the only option that anyone has who is not infallible. But this does not mean that it is relative.

One person could be certian that the sun is not going to rise tomorrow based upon the slightest chance that the earth is going to fall in to gravitational entrophy (.00000000000000000001). His certianty can only be based upon the weight of the evidence. Now, practically speaking that chance amounts to no chance. Anyone who based their decision upon such a chance would be considered insane.

Another person is morally certian that the sun will rise tomorrow based upon the fact that it always has and that there is a 99.9999999999999999999279 chance that is will rise tomorrow (I don’t know if that is the exact statistics!). This person is absolutely justified and morally obligated to act upon his certianty. To no do so, he or she would be insane. But, the fact remains, that this person is not infallibly certian.

Now this is an extreme illustration to let you know that absolute infallible certianty is not possible for anyone. But this does not mean that the truth of the sun raising is relative at all. It either will rise or it will not. Period.

Truth is by defition objective.

Cont . . .

 

[michaelp]

If you apply that everyewhere it is deconstructive–you say you believe there is ABSOLUTE truth, but then by your arguement, we can’t ever know it because our beliefs about it are really only our interpretation Of what we THINK is true.

Ah, but we can know. But everything that we know is subject to failure since we are fallible.

That is where faith comes in. We look to the evidence and then place our faith in that to which it points. Sometimes it takes more faith, sometimes less.

We could ask this concerning the resurrection of Christ. The evidence points to the fact that Christ rose from the grave. We are compelled by the evidence. Is this evidence absolute? No! But it is absolutely binding on the unbiased observer (if there were such a thing). Therefore, we are compelled to place our faith in Christ based on the fact of the resurrection. Does this mean that the person who decides to disbelieve is just as justified as we in his disbelief? No! Why? because the evidence to the contrary is weak and uncompelling. To decide agianst the evidence would evidence preconcieved ideas that militate his or her decision (e.g. anti-supernaturalistic beliefs, sin, fear, etc.)

(I am assuming that you know the evidence for his resurrection, so I am not laying it out).

To accept this, one must believe that God does not want us to “truly” know Him. I don’t believe this and I don’t think you really do either.

Christ told Thomas, “Do you believe now? Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.”

The idea is that some people will have less evidence than Thomas (i.e. less certianty based on evidence), but they will still believe. Why? Because the evidence is still compelling. The Holy Spirit will bring faith to thier heart.

Again…Catholics do NOT have to rely on their own (fallible)interpretation (unlike Protestants).

Ah, but you do. This does not make it wrong, it is just a fact. First, you rely on your own fallible interpretation of history to determine that the Roman Catholic church is the true Church–can people have a wrong view of history? Of course. How do you know with infallible certianty that you don’t? You can’t. But you can rely on the evidence and have much certianty to the degree that you have all the information and to the degree that you are looking at it unbiasedly. Next, you rely on your own fallible interpretation of Tradition. You say you don’t, but you do. I can see this as I look through all of the various arguements given on this forum about issues of history. Finally, you rely on your own fallible interpretation of the Magisteriums pronouncements.

This is OK to admit. It does not mean that you are a subjectivist, relativist, or even a skeptic.

We have faith that the words of Christ (in the Bible) have promised the leaders of our church that the interpretations that they arrive at in matters of faith and morals ARE the Truth from God–all that protecting from the gates of Hell and binding and loosing stuff.

Based upon your fallible opinion that the Magisterium is infallible.. Again, this does not make it wrong, it just means that the system must be justified by the evidence, which I have failed to see. Expecially since no one even knows what statements are infallible and which are not.

(We’re not ganging up on the lone Evangelical–I think we are impressed by your good natured tanacity–and we want you on our side! )

Thanks. I really do appreciate the gracious dialogue.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Ah, but we can know. But everything that we know is subject to failure since we are fallible.

That is where faith comes in. We look to the evidence and then place our faith in that to which it points. Sometimes it takes more faith, sometimes less.

We could ask this concerning the resurrection of Christ. The evidence points to the fact that Christ rose from the grave. We are compelled by the evidence. Is this evidence absolute? No! But it is absolutely binding on the unbiased observer (if there were such a thing). Therefore, we are compelled to place our faith in Christ based on the fact of the resurrection. Does this mean that the person who decides to disbelieve is just as justified as we in his disbelief? No! Why? because the evidence to the contrary is weak and uncompelling. To decide agianst the evidence would evidence preconcieved ideas that militate his or her decision (e.g. anti-supernaturalistic beliefs, sin, fear, etc.)

(I am assuming that you know the evidence for his resurrection, so I am not laying it out).

Christ told Thomas, “Do you believe now? Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.”

The idea is that some people will have less evidence than Thomas (i.e. less certianty based on evidence), but they will still believe. Why? Because the evidence is still compelling. The Holy Spirit will bring faith to thier heart.

Ah, but you do. This does not make it wrong, it is just a fact. First, you rely on your own fallible interpretation of history to determine that the Roman Catholic church is the true Church–can people have a wrong view of history? Of course. How do you know with infallible certianty that you don’t? You can’t. But you can rely on the evidence and have much certianty to the degree that you have all the information and to the degree that you are looking at it unbiasedly. Next, you rely on your own fallible interpretation of Tradition. You say you don’t, but you do. I can see this as I look through all of the various arguements given on this forum about issues of history. Finally, you rely on your own fallible interpretation of the Magisteriums pronouncements.

This is OK to admit. It does not mean that you are a subjectivist, relativist, or even a skeptic.

Based upon your fallible opinion that the Magisterium is infallible.. Again, this does not make it wrong, it just means that the system must be justified by the evidence, which I have failed to see. Expecially since no one even knows what statements are infallible and which are not.

Thanks. I really do appreciate the gracious dialogue.

Michael

Have you ever considered for a moment that Jesus meant what He said to Peter?Have you ever wondered why Peter is indeed buried under the Basilicas main alter at the vatican?Have you ever wondered Michael if you are wrong about it?God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Sorry Phil, I did ignore this because we did go over it for so long in the other thread. But for you I will go over it again!!

Here we go again Michael! I don’t wanna get going on apples again, but you are truly comparing apples to oranges when you speak of “interpreting” the magisterium in the same manner that you “interpret” the Bible. Every time we have this discussion you choose obtuse topics to demosnstrate the inherent lack of clarity of the teachings of the Magisterium.

I will admit that the Magisterium is of great practical advantage if it was justified. But I would not go so far as to say that when it speaks, it speaks with absolute clarity.

It just isn’t true and I believe these examples will refute your logic above. Lets take some BASIC issues that Protestants can’t agree on and use the terms that you can find in, say, the CCC and see if there is any “interpretation” required. Ready?

No, because you are lumping all Protestants together. You are defining Protestants as non-catholics. I fall in line with the Evangelical church which I believe finds its roots in history, carrying on the regula fidei of the apostle through the Creeds and confession of the church.

Q1. Is Sunday the Lord’s Day? A1. Yes

No disagreement among evengelicals

Q2. Is it a sin not to go to Church on Sunday? A2 Yes, unless you are sick or have a dispensation.

No disagreement among evangelicals. We would say that the principle is to make the day holy. This does not necessarily necessitate “going to church” as if that in itself makes anything holy. (As an interesting side note, Evangelical church attendence is higher than Catholic even though we don’t say that anyone would go to hell if they missed–or perhaps because we don’t).

Q3. Is the Eucharist simply symbolic? A3. No

No disagreement among evangelicals. We would say that it does not actually turn into the body and blood. The rest is open to discussion.

Q4. Is it proper to baptize infants? A4. Yes

No disagreement among evangelicals concerning the effects of baptism. The mode and age is much less significant. Like some of your issues, this is open to interpretation.

Q5. Is abortion a sin? A5. Yes

No disagreement among evangelicals

Q6. Is it a sin to be gay? A6. No

No disagreement among evangelicals. We would say that all people are sinners and have particular inclinations to certian sins.

Q7. Is it sinful to be actively gay? A7. Yes

No disagreement among evangelicals.

Q8. Is it a sin to divorce? A8. Yes, unless you get an annulment first.

Some disagreement. But this is something that we allow to be discussed without division.

I could go on and on with simple questions(which Protestants will vary on) with simple answers that do not require interpretation.

I think that you do need to go on and on because there is no problems here. And there is nothing here that I see necessitates a Magisterium. Most of these issues are pretty clear in Scripture and if they are not, we can and need to discuss them. Nothing wrong with discussion.

Cont. . . .

 

[michaelp]

There is no “fallible interpretation” required. They are stated in the affirmative or negative.

Yes, and there is no true knowledge gained since you are spoon feed your theology. You come to agreement based upon your submission to someone elses teaching.

We come to agreement based upon discussion in the Body of Christ–like the early Church. They did not need a Magisterium or infallibility to come to their conclusions, neither do we.

You are confusing DESCRIPTIVE terminology with AFFIRMATIVE terminology (I just made those terms up!)

I like it Phil. You do need to teach!!

There is no interpretation required with YES and NO.

Well, I would disagree. If someone said, “is mission mass a sin.” You say, “if you did not have a valid excuse.” “Like what,” they say. “Well if you were too sick to go” you respond. “Well, how sick is too sick?” You say, “it is relative according to your situation. You ultimately have to decide.”

You see, it sounds absolute, but then it turn into an individualistic interpretation of the word “sick.”

But this does not even deal with the really difficult issues of “extra ecclesia nulla salus” and the defining of what statements are infallible and what are not, and what does co-redemptrix mean, and what about the interpretation of Gen 1, and so on.

You end up making your own decisions led by the Holy Spirit hopefully based upon the principles of right and wrong, not the rules themselves. You must then live according to the “spirit of the law” in interpreting these issues such as the definition of “sick.”

Even the Bible says so…Let your Yes be yes and your no be no…

This passage is speaking about unneccesary oaths, not what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, the Bible is unclear on some of these topics - like infant baptism

That is OK. It is unclear about alot of things. Why do you have to have SO MUCH clarity. There are already so many things that are clear. God intends to place some unclarity in our daily lives, why not illustrate this with the Bible. For example, no one knows what Paul means by "baptism for the dead in Cor. Does this mean that we MUST find out what it means? No. God left somethings unclear in life. Remember, “We see in a mirror dimly” only then “face to face.” But most issues are very clear in Scripture.

I follow Austine on this:

“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

This refutes your contention that we, as Catholics, “fallibly interpret an infallible magisterium that interprets an infallible Scripture” and therefore your “moral certainty” concept of being OK in your self acknowledged fallible interpretation of (Scripture) is a house of cards.

I happen to disagree with you Phil. But, as always, it is a pleasure.

We still love you anyhow…

“We” . . . what about “I”

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Have you ever considered for a moment that Jesus meant what He said to Peter?

No . . . becuase I don’t read it with Roman Catholic eyes.

Have you ever wondered why Peter is indeed buried under the Basilicas main alter at the vatican?

Double no.

Have you ever wondered Michael if you are wrong about it?

Yes.

Michael