... on Nature of Catholic Authority

... on Knowledge of Hagiographers · ... on Nature of Catholic Authority · On Francisco J. Ayala

Why Be Catholic and Not Just Christian?
Ascension Presents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJCbCs-y1_k

Generally : a very good overview on why the Magisterium is a necessary part of the Church.

Details :

5:16 It seems you get Arians somewhat wrong.

Like Charles Taze Russell, though unlike him in so many other ways, they were also attacking full humanity of Christ, saying that first thing after God, namely "Son of God" as they misinterpret it was instead of a human soul in Christ.

Speaking of VISIBLE Church, who is the visible Pope in your view? Do you call him Benedict, Francis or Michael? Or perhaps Boniface? Or Alexander? Each of above is visibly claiming to be or have been pope or was a few years ago, and for one who claims to have been pope some claim he still is.

You know there was a Council dealing with who was the right Pope, back in 1409? And another one in 1414?

7:40 "It is not without scientific error."

It seems you just narrowed down the possible papacies of your acceptation to either "Francis" or "Benedict".

Do you know how many Church Fathers you just contradicted, in the sentence and in the things you presuppose before saying it?

I guess you know some Latin, here you go:

New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/07/grammatica-et-logica-de-canone.html

I think a Catholic can first of all rule out "Francis" and "Benedict", due to their open conflict with the session IV of Trent.

If they are not Catholics, as St Robert Bellarmine observed, they can't be Popes. A head is a member. You can't be head of a body you are no member of.

8:13 speaking of "infallible interpreter" what were infallible interpreters back in 813 saying of historical accuracy of Genesis 1-11? Of astronomic accuracy of Joshua 10:12,13?

Or in any century up to magisterium of Pope St Pius X, including his own Biblical commission, answers from 1905 and 1909?

Creation vs. Evolution : When Are Implicit Citations Licit?
[feat. mag. of 1905]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/when-are-implicit-citations-licit.html

Creation vs. Evolution : I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions?
[feat. mag. of 1909]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/i-have-been-asked-if-kent-hovind-didnt.html

I am not claiming to be myself an infallible interpreter. I am just claiming I am not getting the infallible interpreter from back in about a century ago (he died in 1914) wrong.

And in case you were to claim the "magisterium" of "John Paul II" in 1992 and 1996 or more especially of his then "cardinal Ratzinger" in 1994 (or 93?) proves I am getting the magisterium of St Pius X wrong, what is the use of an infallible interpreter if it is infallibly so unclear it has itself to be reinterpreted each time there is a new pope, on each question?

None, and that is why the magisterium of Popes and Councils past still counts, and counts against what you consider as being the Catholic Church.

8:52 It might interest you to know the authority I accept, at least provisionally, Pope Michael, approves of my fidelity ot magisterium past (and through him also present) as approving Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism.