I cite these passages because they themselves are cited in the Catechism
1) So now an individual can understand the CCC, eh? But moreso than the Bible, apparently.
The CCC provides a compendium of Catholic teachings including dogmas and disciplines (there is a difference). It is the official reference manual to the Church and her beliefs.
2) Does he ever stop to ask himself whether the CCC is in fact correct to cite them?
The Magisterium has every right to cite the passages she does as everything she teaches is supported by Scripture. Citations provide references to the reader to further their understanding.
If, by reading Scripture, your interpretation lends to a contradictory understanding then you are definitively wrong concerning this truth and must reconsider in order to truly call yourself a Christian (see the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-39).
It is difficult to know what the Acts 8 psg is supposed to tell us.
Rhology contradicts himself by admitting that there is difficulty in understanding the quoted passage from Acts 8. From my fallible POV, it looks like the passage expresses the importance of having an orthodox teacher in order for us to learn the Fullness of Truth and even adds to the case against Sola Scriptura.
Wrong, despite not being part of the Twelve, Philip’s role was no less important. He was an ordained deacon one of the first to be exact. This means he was gifted with the Sacrament of Holy Orders and does not in no way disprove Apostolic Succession. Besides, this succession refers the process by which the offices held by the Apostles were conferred on newly ordained bishops all the way through today. The deaconate is the first level of Holy Orders or the New Testament preisthood.
2) And he was an individual anyway. When we cite individual early church writers that disagree with modern Roman dogma, what do we hear? “He was just speaking as a private theologian” or some other line of turtle droppings. I guess I missed where “infallible ex cathedra” indicators appear in the Acts 8 psg. Maybe lozeerose can point it out to us. In fact, just look at further down his post – I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose’s statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can – ” I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy.”
Philip was a special person in the early Church but he was not an early author. On the point
of infallibility, no one person on earth today can make an infallible statement except the Pope. And this is rare (done only twice in over 2,000 years).
3) Sola Scriptura is not: A claim that the Bible contains all knowledge; A denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth; A denial that other Christians can help those less knowledgeable to understand the Scr; A denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
Then please explain for me, in your words, what this Sola Scriptura really is because to affirm all that you stated above is approaching Catholicism.
4) The eunuch didn’t tell Philip that he had no idea what the psg said. He asked for clarification on ONE THING.
The passage provides no evidence that the eunuch only sought clarification for ONE THING – there is actually the allusion that more than this was discussed because in verse 35 we are told that, “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.” What the eunuch sought was the full understanding of what he was reading. And by verse 35, it was not limited to that one prophecy in Isaiah.
5) And that was very plausibly b/c he didn’t know the story of Jesus’ earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. Philip did know it. We in modern times hardly have that excuse.
You make my case again. Philip knew what the eunuch did not. And thanks to the Church (established by Christ), by means of Philip, the Apostles and their successors, we have been taught the Good News of Jesus transmitted to us “by word and by letter (2Th 2:15).”
If I include Church docs it is to provide you with Church teachings in her own words.
Which he expects me to understand. Else he wouldn’t cite them. This is treading awfully close to disingenuousness.
I do not expect you to understand. If you understood them you would be Catholic. I cited them so that you may see the interrelation between Church teachings and the affirmation of such as found in Scripture.
This is why it is important to read Church documents so that you and/or I can scrutinize her teachings against Sacred Scripture
That’s rich. Didn’t he just finish telling us that “you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings”?
I sure did. That does not mean you do not have the right to scrutinize what the Church teaches. In fact, you should scrutinize her teachings so as to better understand and learn as well as validate. In my line of work we have a saying, “trust, but verify.” John stated something similar in 1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”