Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

My approach has been rather humble. It is simply to let people understand that the Magisterium must be interpreted and there is sometimes ambiguity. Would you agree?

Michael, your approach has been arrogant in the extreme. You persist in telling us the Magisterium is something it is not. You claim that it is somehow “interpreted.”

The Magisterium is like my Commission in the Army – I hold it, I have in the past exercised it, and I have duties under it. No one “interprets” it.

michaelp:

You exist under a supposed submission to the Magisterial authority that has various interpretations of certian issues, both in Scripture and in the Magisterium itself.

The Magisterium is NOT a body of writing or tradition – it is an authority, a duty, a commission. As such it is not subject to “interpretation.”

 

[michaelp]

Michael, your approach has been arrogant in the extreme. You persist in telling us the Magisterium is something it is not. You claim that it is somehow “interpreted.”

The Magisterium is like my Commission in the Army – I hold it, I have in the past exercised it, and I have duties under it. No one “interprets” it.

This does not deal with any of the arguments that I have put forward. Therefore, it does not help.

The Magisterium is NOT a body of writing or tradition – it is an authority, a duty, a commission. As such it is not subject to “interpretation.”

No one said that it was a body of writing. But do you think that writing is all that has to be interpreted? Although the primary communication of the infallible Magisterium (the only one in discussion since Protestant too have a fallible magisterium) is written down. The Magisterium is a teaching authority (for that is what it means) and therefore is a communication vehicle. All communication, by definition, must be interpreted. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is difficult as evidence by all the disagreements on this forum.

I encourage you to go to the thread on this in this same forum. It will help you to understand.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

How would I call that false? It’s perfectly true that most Protestant religions are based on Scripture. (I say “most” because some Protestant religions have additional Scriptures, not generally recognized by other churches.)

What “double standard?” We do not dictate to your churches what to believe, and we object when you try to do that to us.

However, I applaud your attempt (what is it, the fifth or sixth?) to claim we “interpret” the Magisterium.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

That would make seven times you’ve made this false statement, attempting to force upon us your version of what we believe. We do not “interpret” the Magisterium

It “looks” that way only because you persist in your false claim that we “interpret” the Magisterium.

I suggest you drop the claim that we “interpret” the Magisterium, then.

Vern, as good as the “counting argument” may be in your area, counting the number of times I have made this arguement is not much of a counter-argument in my opinion–I could be wrong

I again suggest that you visit the thread on this on this same forum called “Who interprets Tradition? From a curious Evangelical.”

You can go over than an count how many times I made the claim and then make the appropriate counter-argument. Or you might learn something over there. It is up to you my friend.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

I will reword this for you Vern. Please answer with something other than the “counting argument.”

Let me repeat this once again:

Let me now say that same thing about the Scripture that Vern said about the interpretation of the Magisterium in order to justify the disagreements among Protestants the same way.

Vern says:

“The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position is established by the Bishops.”

And it is OK

We say:

The fact that some Protestants are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Scripture is not relevant. The Protestant position is established by the Scriptures.

And it is wrong to do, right?

How is this NOT a double standard?

You have an unbrella confession to submit to the Magisterium while there are disagreements allowed and some difficulties in interpretation (i.e. what does extra ecclesia nulla salus mean? What are the actual papal statements that are infallible? Is the Scripture materially sufficient or is the dual source theory correct?)

Protestans have an unbrella confession to submit to the Scriptures while there are disagreements allowed and some difficulties in interpretation.

Practically speaking, it looks like you don’t have that much of an advantage in fulfilling your concept of unity.

Vern, even though I am very serioius about this issue and I am really not just trying to be difficult, I want you to know that I respect you and your position.

Michael

 

[jphilapy]

vern humphrey:

The Magisterium is NOT a body of writing or tradition – it is an authority, a duty, a commission. As such it is not subject to “interpretation.”

Hi Vern and Mike,

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here of how the word interpretation is used.

Vern it sounds like what you are saying is that the Mag. simply dictates clear orders which cannot fail to be understood.

However I believe what Mike is saying is that since we have to come here and ask what certain things mean in the catechism, is evidence that it has to be interpreted. In others words we still have to comprehend it on some level. Surely the catechism cannot meet every single instance, so we have to interpret how it applies in different issues.

Right?

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

Hi Vern and Mike,

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here of how the word interpretation is used.

Vern it sounds like what you are saying is that the Mag. simply dictates clear orders which cannot fail to be understood.

“Magisterium” comes from “magister” or teacher. It is the Church’s authority to teach. It is NOT a collection of written or oral information.

The Magisterium is not in the realm of things that can be interpreted, any more than colors are in the realm of things that can be tasted.

jphilapy:

However I believe what Mike is saying is that since we have to come here and ask what certain things mean in the catechism, is evidence that it has to be interpreted. In others words we still have to comprehend it on some level. Surely the catechism cannot meet every single instance, so we have to interpret how it applies in different issues.

Right?

Jeff

The Catechism is NOT the Magisterium. If you have issues with the Catechism, and want definitive answers, bring them up with the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese in which you reside.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Thanks Felicity. I have had the Catechism for years. I have many many works written by RCs.

you didn’t say whether you’ve read it or not…

 

[jphilapy]

“Magisterium” comes from “magister” or teacher. It is the Church’s authority to teach. It is NOT a collection of written or oral information.

The Magisterium is not in the realm of things that can be interpreted, any more than colors are in the realm of things that can be tasted.

The Catechism is NOT the Magisterium. If you have issues with the Catechism, and want definitive answers, bring them up with the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese in which you reside.

So is the Mag. then the bishop or priest? I mean if a person has a question about what the catechism says then they goto the bishop, this is the same thing as the going to the Mag.

Jeff

 

[michaelp]

Vern, since all that we are concerned with is the infallible communications of the RC Magisterium, let me ask you to this:

Does the Magisterium communicate infallibly at times?
When?

This information must be interpreted, since it is information and all information, by definition, must be interpreted.

Now, if you were to go to your local bishop and ask him a question, would his answer be infallible? No. Why, because the Magisterium is only infallible when speaking in that capacity (either through a council or thought the pope’s ex cathedra statements). Since your local bishop is not infallible speaking alone and you cannot access the pope or convene a council yourself, you are limited to previouly made infallible statements which may or may not deal with your particular issue. Either way, they have to be interpreted.

I have to interpret each sermon on Sunday from my pastor. Most of the time it is very easy to interpret, but sometimes it is not so clear.

Now, if you don’t believe that all information must be interpreted, fine . . . we will just have to agree to disagree.

But the key point is that the infallible declarations (however the communication is made) must be interpreted and is subject to disagreement as is evident by the MANY disagreements on this web. You may think that you have all the right answers, but you need to take that up with the other Catholics who also believe they have the right answers.

In other words, your system looks good in theory, but practically speaking is not much different than Evangelicals.

Thanks again for your time.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Vern says:
“The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their We say:
The fact that some Protestants are less than letter-perfect in their
Vern says:
understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position We say:
understanding of the Scripture is not relevant. The Protestant
Vern says:
is established by the Bishops.”
We say:
position is established by the Scriptures.

Please explain what = what…in your “equal” statement.

OK–“Catholics” = “Protestant”
BUT–“Church” = both “Scripture” and “Potestant”
AND–“Bishops” = “Scripture” which is also “Church”

You see why (at least I) don’t understand what you are trying to say with this…

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

you didn’t say whether you’ve read it or not…

Yes I have. Whenever I have a question about Catholics I go there and see what it has to say. But many times there are disagreements on how to interpret it as can be seen here on this site.

Felicity,

All that I am trying to say is that people coming down so hard on Protestants on this website is really niave and hypocritical in my opinion. I often hear it said that there are so many different interpretation that are caused by sola Scriptura. But the fact is that there are many different interpretations among Catholics as well.

Does this make RC wrong? No. Does it make Evangelicals right? No. But it serves to clear up misconceptions so that people, if converted and committed to either, will not do so under false premises. This forum is filled with this false understanding of the creedal unity of Roman Catholics as compared to Evangelicals.

Have a good day. And thanks for the dialogue.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

So is the Mag. then the bishop or priest? I mean if a person has a question about what the catechism says then they goto the bishop, this is the same thing as the going to the Mag.

Jeff

“Magisterium” comes from “magister” or teacher. It is the Church’s authority to teach. It is NOT a collection of written or oral information.

If you have a copy of the Catechism, take a good look at it. Mine is in the form of a book, with pages. There is printing on the pages.

Clearly the Catechism is a collection of written information.

If you have questions about the Catechism and want authoritative answers, go to the Cathoilic Bishop in the Diocese where you reside. He will answer your questions by giving you the answers the Catholic Bishops give, world wide.

 

[michaelp]

Please explain what = what…in your “equal” statement.

OK–“Catholics” = “Protestant”
BUT–“Church” = both “Scripture” and “Potestant”
AND–“Bishops” = “Scripture” which is also “Church”

You see why (at least I) don’t understand what you are trying to say with this…

Felicity,

Vern says that the reason why there are differing interpretations in the Catholic church is because there are people who are “less than perfect” who are interpreting.

Is it OK for me to say the same thing concerning the differing interpretation is the Evangelical church?

If not, why?

That was my point.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

But many times there are disagreements on how to interpret it as can be seen here on this site.

Michael–can you concede that (at least we Catholics perceive) that it is not a disagreement on interpretation–it is a “right” or “wrong” point of view held by the Catholic. “Right” is the “interpretation given by the Magesterium”–however the individual Catholic views it.

That is the issue. You say we interpret. We say we accept the Magesterial teaching–“Truth” with a Capital “T”. Whether we understand it or not–the Magesterium is “TRUTH” and not affected by the individual Catholic’s deficit.

Have a good day. And thanks for the dialogue.

Michael

Does this mean I’m done? RATS…I only just got on the board…

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Vern, since all that we are concerned with is the infallible communications of the RC Magisterium, let me ask you to this:

Please do not use the term “RC” when referring to the Catholic Church. It is disrespectful.

michaelp:

Does the Magisterium communicate infallibly at times?
When?

In the Catholic Church, “infallible” means an objective standard by which a layman may identify the true teachings of the Catholic Church. There are three such standards:

1. The teaching of the Catholic Bishops, worldwide under the supervision of the Bishop of Rome.
2. The decisions of Ecumenical Conferences under the supervision of the Bishop of Rome.
3. The Bishop of Rome, speaking Ex Cathedra.

The doctrines promulgated by these three means are the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

michaelp:

Now, if you were to go to your local bishop and ask him a question, would his answer be infallible? No. Why, because the Magisterium is only infallible when speaking in that capacity (either through a council or thought the pope’s ex cathedra statements). Since your local bishop is not infallible speaking alone and you cannot access the pope or convene a council yourself, you are limited to previouly made infallible statements which may or may not deal with your particular issue. Either way, they have to be interpreted.

You are dead wrong. The Bishop will answer in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Bishops, world-wide.

michaelp:

I have to interpret each sermon on Sunday from my pastor. Most of the time it is very easy to interpret, but sometimes it is not so clear…

If you have questions about Catholic teachings that cannot be satisfied by reading the Catechism, the only recourse is to the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese in which you reside.

michaelp:

Now, if you don’t believe that all information must be interpreted, fine . . . we will just have to agree to disagree…

As long as you don’t include the Catholic Church in your theory, that’s fine. When you say the Magisterium must be “interpreted” or that lay Catholics “interpret” the teachings of the Church, then you’re dead wrong.

michaelp:

But the key point is that the infallible declarations (however the communication is made) must be interpreted and is subject to disagreement as is evident by the MANY disagreements on this web.

Dead wrong and you know it. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is not developed by debates between laymen. If someone who claims to be a Catholic gives you information that is not in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Bishops, that person is not speaking for the Church.

michaelp:

You may think that you have all the right answers, but you need to take that up with the other Catholics who also believe they have the right answers…

Dead wrong and you know it. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is not developed by debates between laymen. If someone who claims to be a Catholic gives you information that is not in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Bishops, that person is not speaking for the Church.

michaelp:

In other words, your system looks good in theory, but practically speaking is not much different than Evangelicals.

Thanks again for your time.

Michael

Again, you do not have the authority to tell us how we develop our doctrine. To pretend that you do – and especially to pretend that somehow we develop it by debate between laymen is not only wrong but disingenuous.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Felicity,

Vern says that the reason why there are differing interpretations in the Catholic church is because there are people who are “less than perfect” who are interpreting.

That’s false, Michael.

I challenge you to post a quote where I said that.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Felicity,

Vern says that the reason why there are differing interpretations in the Catholic church is because there are people who are “less than perfect” who are interpreting.

Is it OK for me to say the same thing concerning the differing interpretation is the Evangelical church?

If not, why?

That was my point.

It’s not the same thing–that’s my point…

if you want it to read as an equal statement-- how about
Catholics = Protestant
Church = Scripture
Bishops = ? oh–I KNOW…How about…michaelp?

Then it reads…
Vern says:
“The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their We say:
The fact that some Protestants are less than letter-perfect in their
Vern says:
understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position
We say:
understanding of the Scripture is not relevant. The Scripture
Vern says:
is established by the Bishops.”
We say:
position is established by the michaelp!.

Does that make more sense now?

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

That’s false, Michael.

I challenge you to post a quote where I said that.

In response to 155, you posted 159 saying that the different interpretations are the result of “less than perfect” Catholics.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

In response to 155, you posted 159 saying that the different interpretations are the result of “less than perfect” Catholics.

Michael

That is so LAME michael–he said some Catholics are less than perfect–not the interpreters of Tradition & Scripture–that’s the straw man garbage he keeps referring to.

Everyone can go back and look–why are you wasting our time with nonsense?

Vern said…
The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position is established by the Bishops.

Your resorting to those cheap transparent tactics again!

 

[michaelp]

Michael–can you concede that (at least we Catholics perceive) that it is not a disagreement on interpretation–it is a “right” or “wrong” point of view held by the Catholic. “Right” is the “interpretation given by the Magesterium”–however the individual Catholic views it.

Sure as long as you can concede that there is not disagreement on the interpretation of Scripture among Evangelicals–it is a “right” or “wrong” point of view held by the Evangelical. “Right” is what the text really says–however the individual Evangelical views it.

Really, to concede is fine but silly. The concession itself just goes to show that the Magisterium does not create the unity that Catholics often claim it does, since individual Catholics view it differenently.

Here is the situation.

Objectively:

1. You have the teaching authority of the Magisterium (catholics)
2. You have the teaching authority of the Scriptures (Protestants)

Subjectively:

1. You have the interpretation of the Magisterium providing unity on some issues and differing opinions on some issues (catholics)
2. You have the interpretation of the Scripture providing unity on some issues and differing opinions on some issues (Evangelicals).

Practically speaking, there is not much of a difference.

But like I said, this does not prove either side right or wrong, it just serves to help us not misrepresent each other.

That is the issue. You say we interpret. We say we accept the Magesterial teaching–“Truth” with a Capital “T”. Whether we understand it or not–the Magesterium is “TRUTH” and not affected by the individual Catholic’s deficit.

This is exactly what the Evangelical believes, just take out the middle man and substitute “Magisterial teaching” with “Scriptural teaching.”

Felicity, is this really that bogus to you?

Michael

Does this mean I’m done? RATS…I only just got on the board…