RCC doctrine is flawed and deceptive. I will not need to bring Scripture to bear here, but if time and space permitted, it would be overwhelming. Your interpretation and arguments are fatally flawed, but I believe that this demonstrates a more serious problem underlying your beliefs.

I already answered your question concerning 2 Thess and what scriptures were “infallibly” defined in my last post.

If I was you, I would find it more interesting and troubling at the amount of different doctorines and interpretation in Protestantism (some baptise, some don’t, some believe in the Trinity, some don’t, some believe in once saved always saved, some don’t, some believe in faith alone and some don’t…The list goes on and on and on..So scripture is clear to only some people like yourself..right? The fruits of sola scriptura is mass confusion and schism..

As Martin Luther said:

Commentary on St. John, “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.”

“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet” De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.

“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 – 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

Just as Judaism had an Oral Tradition alongside the written scriptures, so too does the Church of the New Covenant. If you look in Matthew 2:12 it reads:

23 He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.”

The verse “He shall be called a Nazorean” was an Oral Tradition that is found no where in the Old Testament, but you can agree that it was true, I hope?

So too, were things passed down from the apostles such as how to celebrate the “breaking of the bread”, how to and when to administer the sacraments, etc..Because we see them in the early Christian writings like the didache (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm) and many others and speak of the teachings coming from the Apostles..

Read below..

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

And I understand why you wouldn’t give your translation on St. Augusine’s statement about The Catholic Church..

I think I can assume then that the RC church has never given an infallible interpretation of 2 Thes 2:8-12. So any interpretation of this passage by you or other RCs is merely a private interpretation, and therefore has no binding authority. A meaningful interpretation of the passage is difficult to produce if we do not even know who the “lawless one” is, and the RC church cannot tell us who it is.

Since you have still not answered my first question, I will also assume that the RC church has never listed a single oral tradition Paul passed on to the Thessalonians that was not committed to writing. So us Protestants are told that we must submit to some abstract notion of Sacred Tradition, supposedly deduced from 2 Thes 2:15, but when the RC is asked to produce an example of such oral tradition taught by Paul, he cannot. So much for Sacred Tradition.

Simon

Here is what I included from my source, which I included in my original post and below, as well.

“I wll be quoting the writings of Dr. Robert J. Schihl and Paul D. Flanagan below”

(Here is their explanation for including it)

The Catholic Church accepts the authority both of Divine Revelation and of the Holy Spirit. Deviation from the truth must be cursed and condemned.

Rom 13:1–2
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

2 Thess 2:8–12
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved. Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.

There is your explanation from those that wrote it (which I did, in fact include).

You also said: (your words included below)
Gerry, can you please show us where the RC chruch has infallibly interpreted this passage? In particular, please show us who the “lawless one” is, according to RC teaching. If you cannot provide us with the infallible interpretation, why cite this passage? You may reply that this is not a matter of “faith and morals”. If so, that leaves much of the bible uninterpreted, does it not? So much for the Magisterium of the RC church. Also, what did Christians do before the exact meaning of “faith and morals” was enunciated by the RC church? How did they know what qualified as “faith and morals”?

I say: You are correct in stating that The Catholic Church has not “infallibly” interpreted all of Scripture. The Magisterium has not made “infallible” declarations on every chapter and verse, but only on those which are biding on “Faith and Morals”. You can, I hope, agree that there are moral issues that exist today that did not exist 2000 yrs ago that still need to be addressed and were not addressed in the scriptures? For instance, stem cell research, cloning, in vitro fertlization, etc…Does that mean he has left that up to us (since scripture is silent) OR did he set up a Church, with the protection of The Holy Spirit to teach His TRUTH of Doctorine and Morals “infallibly” through the ages as he promised in Matthew?

Do you believe in the Apostles Creed? That was an “infallible” decision made at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., since it’s contents are “infallibly” defined against the heresy of Arianism. The Arians were using scripture to back up their claim that Jesus was a mere man and not God (like jehova wit. still do). Do you disagree with it?

I included a selection from New Advent to explain what the magisterium is and is not..The link to the entire article is included below.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

IV. The organization and exercise of the living magisterium; its precise rôle in the defence and transmission of revealed truth–its limits and modes of action.

Closer study of the living magisterium will enable us to better understand the splendid organism created by God and gradually developed that it might preserve, transmit, and bring within the reach of all revealed truth, ever the same, but adapted to every variety of time, circumstances, and environment. Properly speaking, this magisterium is a teaching authority; it not only presents the truth, but it has the right to impose it, since its power is the very power given by God to Christ and by Christ to His Church. This authority is called the teaching Church. The teaching Church is essentially composed of the episcopal body, which continues here below the work and mission of the Apostolic College. It was indeed in the form of a college or social body that Christ grouped His Apostles and it is likewise as a social body that the episcopate exercises its mission to teach. Doctrinal infallibility has been guaranteed to the episcopal body and to the head of that body as it was guaranteed to the Apostles, with this difference, however, between the Apostles and the bishops that each Apostle was personally infallible (in virtue of his extraordinary mission as founder and the plenitude of the Holy Ghost received on Pentecost by the Twelve and later communicated to St. Paul as to the Twelve), whereas only the body of bishops is infallible and each bishop is not so, save in proportion as he teaches in communion and concert with the entire episcopal body.

At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in his see. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which is infallible, he himself is infallible. The episcopal body is infallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which the Church is built. The authority of the pope may be exercised without the co-operation of the bishops, and this even in infallible decisions which both bishops and faithful are bound to receive with the same submission. The authority of the bishops may be exercised in two ways; now each bishop teaches the flock confided to him, again the bishops assemble in council to draw up together and pass doctrinal or disciplinary decrees. When all the bishops of the Catholic world (this totality is to be understood as morally speaking; it suffices for the whole Church to be represented) are thus assembled in council the council is called oecumenical. The doctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, once they are approved by the pope, are infallible as are the ex cathedra definitions of the sovereign pontiff. Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church.

Would you mind trying to answers the questions I posed?

If you cannot answer them or you prefer not to answer them now, that is fine. Just let me know. I say this because it seems that I am having to repeat my questions to you before getting any meaningful answers.

Simon

Where or in what context did I use 2 Thess 2:8.12?

I have read most of this thread, but I did not where you answered my questions:

Can a Roman Catholic show us a single oral tradition Paul taught the Thessalonians that was not committed to writing?

and

Can you please show us where the RC church has infallibly interpreted 2 Thess 2:8.12? In particular, please show us who the “lawless one” is, according to RC teaching.

In fact I don’t think anyone has even asked these questions in this thread.

Simon

You said: Gerry’s necessary reliance on UNINSPIRED quotes of fallible men and Tammy’s DESPERATE reading in her Mariology presumptions where Mary is simply mentioned only exemplifies how religious conditioning can blind one to the simple yet profound truth of the Word of God.

I say: As I have said before, I use the early fathers to show that The Catholic Church and it’s teachings were practiced from the beginning. I have also provided an abundance of scriptural proof for what I have said…

You also said: May I please remind you dear Tammy and Gerry that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ himself and no one else… May I please further submit to you that knowing the prize described above and receiving it is not depended on teachings of men but the teaching of God in His infallible Word trough enlightenment of His unconquerable Holy Spirit:

I say: I have always said that the head of The Church is Jesus Christ, but I have also provided ample biblical and historical evidence to prove that Christ founded a visible and authoritative Church and installed a main sheperd to lead it on His return to heaven. Go back and read through my replies.

Simon, first take a chill pill..and then read through my past replies and I will be happy to answer any questions that you feel I have not addressed.

Can a Roman Catholic show us a single oral tradition Paul taught the Thessalonians that was not committed to writing? Of course it is not enough to merely give the tradition itself, but also proof that can be traced back to Paul.

Let’s take a passage from Thessalonians that Gerry cites in one of his comments:

2 Thess 2:8.12
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved. Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.

Gerry, can you please show us where the RC chruch has infallibly interpreted this passage? In particular, please show us who the “lawless one” is, according to RC teaching. If you cannot provide us with the infallible interpretation, why cite this passage? You may reply that this is not a matter of “faith and morals”. If so, that leaves much of the bible uninterpreted, does it not? So much for the Magisterium of the RC church. Also, what did Christians do before the exact meaning of “faith and morals” was enunciated by the RC church? How did they know what qualified as “faith and morals”?

Simon

Gerry’s necessary reliance on UNINSPIRED quotes of fallible men and Tammy’s DESPERATE reading in her Mariology presumptions where Mary is simply mentioned only exemplifies how religious conditioning can blind one to the simple yet profound truth of the Word of God.

Your freedom is not in men made tradition. It is not in Mary. It is not in popes. It is not in the denomination. It is not in theology for the sake of theology. None of the mentioned died for you freely on the cross. The Lord did and new life is in Him and in His word alone. Nobody and nowhere else.

“Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.”

Colossians 2:18-19

May I please remind you dear Tammy and Gerry that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ himself and no one else… May I please further submit to you that knowing the prize described above and receiving it is not depended on teachings of men but the teaching of God in His infallible Word trough enlightenment of His unconquerable Holy Spirit:

“If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)–in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?”
Colossians 2:20-22

Tammy and Gerry have you died?