You seem to KNOW that it is not the CC so you certainly must KNOW which Church it is?
Soooo which Church is it brakelite?
I have read all your posts to Amadeus. You have repeatedly told him that you are here to teach us that
your church is the church that has been given authority. That authority you claim excludes all other churches, sects, individuals, denominations, movements, independent fellowships, everything except the Catholic church. This is, and has been your message to this forum for as long as I can remember. Not once since coming here have
I, ever suggested any other single church has authority over another church... Over another individual... Or over anyone else who does not voluntarily join that church and submit to the church's authority over its own members. You on the other hand, and more specifically your church certainly, claims authority over the entire planet... Has done so for millennia, and has seen fit to exercise that authority through war, politics, crusades, assassinations, inquisitions, marital expediency, and in many other overt and covert practices through its priests and political agents in nearly every nation on earth.
So, I am not allowing you to twist the conversation around and make me the subject here... It is incumbent upon
you to justify
why you believe your particular church is the church Jesus has granted such authority as described above, and to prove this in light of history and scripture.
And I think I am fully justified in asking for this proof. For example, you also teach above that your church is not fallible... That the Pope, or his duly elected representatives, when speaking authoritatively...
ex cathedra... He/they... The curia or official councils, speaks infallibly. Right?
You also teach that because "
the gates of hell shall not prevail" against this did church, then there is no possibility of that church going into apostasy and turning against Christ.
Your comment regarding the following would be appreciated...
The Council of Toulouse, which met about the time of the crusade against the Albigenses, ruled: “We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament.... We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular.” “The Lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.”—
Concil.Tolosanum, Pope Gregory IX, Anno.Chr. 1229. Canons 14 and 2. This Council sat at the time of the crusade against the Albigenses. GC 687.6
“This pest [the Bible] had taken such an extension that some people had appointed priests of their own, and even some evangelists who distorted and destroyed the truth of the gospel and made new gospels for their own purpose ... (They know that) the preaching and explanation of the Bible is absolutely forbidden to the lay members.”—
Acts of Inquisition, Philip van Limborch,
History of the Inquisition, chapter 8.GC 687.7
The Council of Tarragona, 1234, ruled that: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.”—D. Lortsch,
Histoire de la Bible en France, 1910, p. 14. GC 688.1
At the Council of Constance, in 1415, Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, as “that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the Scriptures in his mother tongue.”GC 688.2
The opposition to the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church has continued through the centuries and was increased particularly at the time of the founding of Bible societies. On December 8, 1866, Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical
Quanta cura,issued a syllabus of eighty errors under ten different headings. Under heading IV we find listed: “Socialism, communism, clandestine societies, Bible societies.... Pests of this sort must be destroyed by all possible means.”
But in recent years a dramatic and positive change has occurred in this respect. On the one hand, the church has approved several versions prepared on the basis of the original languages; on the other, it has promoted the study of the Holy Scriptures by means of free distribution and Bible institutes.
The church, however, continues to reserve for herself the exclusive right to interpret the Bible in the light of her own tradition, thus justifying those doctrines that do not harmonize with Biblical teachings.
In light of the above facts, would it not be correct to suggest that the church, in claiming authority to interpret the scriptures in such a way that overrides and/or contradicts scripture, that she, the church, sees herself as having greater authority that scripture? And also, in the claim that you also are in harmony with, that the church is the only rightful interpreter of scripture, means the church has authority even over the holy Spirit, for if the holy Spirit should speak through scripture one thing, and the church another, then the individual must surrender himself to the interpretation of the church, not the Spirit of God?