Authentication of the Magisterium?

[CaliLobo]

I have realized by posting at CAF that the reason why the Vatican opposes gay marriage, abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia (the five non-negotiables) is not necessarily due to anything the Bible says, but rather what the Magisterium and Tradition say.

Same applies to theological concepts like the seven sacraments, purgatory, and the nature of Mary. It’s more based on the Magisterium and Tradition, as the biblical bases for these things are unclear and open to interpretation.

A quick example… Catholics interpret Matthew 12:32 “in this age or in the age to come” as indirectly referring to purgatory. But rather, it could just mean that the writer is emphasizing that forgiveness will not come in any point in time.

My question is, how can we authenticate the Magisterium?

How can we know that what the Vatican is teaching now is consistent with what the early church taught in Acts? It isn’t, right?

How do we know that today’s Holy Tradition is the same as that of the early church in Acts? It isn’t, right?

Some would say it’s due to apostolic succession. But putting aside church scandals, why does apostolic succession continue to be relevant, in the face of the Great Schism and Reformation?

How do we know that the teaching authority of the Church continues to be legitimate and not fraudulent? What makes the Catholic Church’s teachings more legitimate than that of a Protestant church? At least a Protestant church, although it may not have Apostolic Succession, is drawing solely from the Bible.

 

[1ke]

I have realized by posting at CAF that the reason why the Vatican opposes gay marriage, abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia (the five non-negotiables) is not necessarily due to anything the Bible says, but rather what the Magisterium and Tradition say.

I would suggest that is a very incomplete picture of the Church’s teaching. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion at all.

Same applies to theological concepts like the seven sacraments, purgatory, and the nature of Mary. It’s more based on the Magisterium and Tradition, as the biblical bases for these things are unclear and open to interpretation.

I disagree with your conclusion.

My question is, how can we authenticate the Magisterium?

My question to you is, how do you authenticate the Bible?

It is the Church who authenticates the Bible, not the other way around. Divine Revelationhas two parts: oral and written Tradition. The Bible is simply Tradition in written form. It is one part of Divine Revelation.

How can we know that what the Vatican is teaching now is consistent with what the early church taught in Acts? It isn’t, right?

Yes, it is.

How do we know that today’s Holy Tradition is the same as that of the early church in Acts? It isn’t, right?

Yes, it is.

Some would say it’s due to apostolic succession. But putting aside church scandals, why does apostolic succession continue to be relevant, in the face of the Great Schism and Reformation?

Apostolic succession is only one part of the equation.

How do we know that the teaching authority of the Church continues to be legitimate and not fraudulent?

Because God instituted the Church.

What makes the Catholic Church’s teachings more legitimate than that of a Protestant church?

The Protestant ecclesial communities have separated themselves from the head, the Pope, and the college of bishops.

At least a Protestant church, although it may not have Apostolic Succession, is drawing solely from the Bible.

Yes, they operate with incomplete divine revelation, lacking oral Tradition. Drawing solely on the Bible cannot work. The living Magesterium is necessary.

 

[bzkoss236]

We have writings from the early Christian Church which talk about what they believed and how they interpreted Scripture and other things they taught on, such as disciplines (how things are to be done). There is also the oral teaching and understanding which has also been passed on. This is how we know that the Church we have today is the same as it was then; maybe with a few doctrinal development (not changes, but better definitions, as doctrines cannot change [what was true then is true now and vice versa]) and some disciplinary changes.

 

[pablope]

I h

My question is, how can we authenticate the Magisterium?

 

[po18guy]

The Magisterium validated the bible. Is that not enough for a start? Christ’s Church must have a living authority, as is amply demonstrated in Acts 15. They made the call, for all time, on circumcision. Scripture was of no help and could not be of help. There had to be a living Magisterium to decide.

 

[underacloud]

I have realized by posting at CAF that the reason why the Vatican opposes gay marriage, abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia (the five non-negotiables) is not necessarily due to anything the Bible says, but rather what the Magisterium and Tradition say.

Same applies to theological concepts like the seven sacraments, purgatory, and the nature of Mary. It’s more based on the Magisterium and Tradition, as the biblical bases for these things are unclear and open to interpretation.

…

How can we know that what the Vatican is teaching now is consistent with what the early church taught in Acts? It isn’t, right?

How do we know that today’s Holy Tradition is the same as that of the early church in Acts? It isn’t, right?

With regard to tradition, it is not hard to see that the protestant churches cannot claim an unbroken line to the traditions of the early Church. Thus why they “reformed” their teachings. Did Christ, who promised to be with His Church always, abandon it for 1500 years? Or do the Churches that trace their traditions directly back to the early Church, being the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Church, best represent Christianity in an unbroken line? It is no coincidence that the teachings of the Roman and Eastern churches are so similar in most regards, especially in the sacraments.

If you want to know what the early Church taught, do some research. And then compare that with what is taught today in the various churches.

Some more food for thought: any protestant who wishes to hold the bible up as the supreme authority in religious matters ought to have an explanation at hand if their branch of protestantism accepts divorce and remarriage, given how strongly and clearly Jesus spoke against it. Yet most allow it. Something is amiss there!

 

[Michael57]

“Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand”

I will continue to pray for your conversion to the Catholic faith.

 

[vsedriver]

I have realized by posting at CAF that the reason why the Vatican opposes gay marriage, abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia (the five non-negotiables) is not necessarily due to anything the Bible says, but rather what the Magisterium and Tradition say.

I believe all those are based on the Bible.

Same applies to theological concepts like the seven sacraments, purgatory, and the nature of Mary. It’s more based on the Magisterium and Tradition, as the biblical bases for these things are unclear and open to interpretation.

None of these are unclear or open to interpretation. They’ve been very thoroughly examined and do not conflict with written or oral sacred tradition. Much of the Bible is misinterpreted by those who have no authority to interpret scripture.

My question is, how can we authenticate the Magisterium?

How can we know that what the Vatican is teaching now is consistent with what the early church taught in Acts? It isn’t, right?

How do we know that today’s Holy Tradition is the same as that of the early church in Acts? It isn’t, right?

Matt: 16Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

Here you have scripture confirming that the church will be protected from teaching error and that the church has authority. How is it that scripture can be good and holy but the church which Christ founded can’t be good and holy?

Some would say it’s due to apostolic succession. But putting aside church scandals, why does apostolic succession continue to be relevant, in the face of the Great Schism and Reformation?

Without apostolic succession you can’t have authority. What the Schism and Reformation show us is a rejection of authority.

How do we know that the teaching authority of the Church continues to be legitimate and not fraudulent?

See scripture quote above.

What makes the Catholic Church’s teachings more legitimate than that of a Protestant church?

The Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Teaching/Interpretation Authority (Magisterium). Take any 3 of these away and you lose part of the faith Christ taught.

At least a Protestant church, although it may not have Apostolic Succession, is drawing solely from the Bible.

so they have Sacred Scripture but without Sacred Tradition and Sacred Teaching you end up with hundreds of denominations. It is a dilution of the Truth. Do you want to dine at a banquet or at the diet table?

 

[po18guy]

“Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand”

I will continue to pray for your conversion to the Catholic faith.

Saint Augustine’s preface to this being: “Understanding is the reward given by faith” One of my favorites.

 

[Michael57]

 

[CaliLobo]

With regard to tradition, it is not hard to see that the protestant churches cannot claim an unbroken line to the traditions of the early Church. Thus why they “reformed” their teachings. Did Christ, who promised to be with His Church always, abandon it for 1500 years? Or do the Churches that trace their traditions directly back to the early Church, being the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Church, best represent Christianity in an unbroken line? It is no coincidence that the teachings of the Roman and Eastern churches are so similar in most regards, especially in the sacraments.

If you want to know what the early Church taught, do some research. And then compare that with what is taught today in the various churches.

Some more food for thought: any protestant who wishes to hold the bible up as the supreme authority in religious matters ought to have an explanation at hand if their branch of protestantism accepts divorce and remarriage, given how strongly and clearly Jesus spoke against it. Yet most allow it. Something is amiss there!

Let’s be realistic. Are you really claiming that what Catholics will do on Mass this Sunday is the SAME thing, the SAME Tradition and Magisterium from 50 AD? Are you guys really making such a claim?

vsedriver:

None of these are unclear or open to interpretation. They’ve been very thoroughly examined and do not conflict with written or oral sacred tradition. Much of the Bible is misinterpreted by those who have no authority to interpret scripture.

Let’s pick just one of the five non-negotiables, or the theological topics I mentioned, and I’ll show you how it’s open to interpretation.

 

[underacloud]

Let’s be realistic. Are you really claiming that what Catholics will do on Mass this Sunday is the SAME thing, the SAME Tradition and Magisterium from 50 AD? Are you guys really making such a claim?

There are books written about how the mass came into form and the scriptural basis for almost every element of it.

The words of consecration are taken directly from the bible, the various passages in the gospels and Corinthians which recount what Jesus did at the last supper. In fact, St Paul’s writing to the Corinthians was precisely so they could celebrate the mass (the Lord’s Supper) properly. So what we do has a direct unbroken lineage to the infant Church.

No one claims the mass today is exactly the same as back then. Certainly it has evolved in some regards. But not in the essential regard of the consecration of the bread and wine. If you review history, you will find that early Church history is hard to establish definitively, but we can certainly see that the mass evolved into something very close to its current form over the first few centuries, and that what was practised by then is much closer to what we see practised today in Catholic churches than in protestant churches.

 

[vsedriver]

Let’s be realistic. Are you really claiming that what Catholics will do on Mass this Sunday is the SAME thing, the SAME Tradition and Magisterium from 50 AD? Are you guys really making such a claim?

depends on what you mean by same. The understanding is the same as in the liturgy and the Eucharist. Changes in which language you use, etc. have come about but essentially what the early Christians did in their worship service is what Catholics do today.

Let’s pick just one of the five non-negotiables, or the theological topics I mentioned, and I’ll show you how it’s open to interpretation.

gay marriage, please show me Biblical support for gay marriage.

 

[CaliLobo]

gay marriage, please show me Biblical support for gay marriage.

It is important to distinguish between gay marriage politically and gay sex personally, as they are completely different issues. Here we go:

1. Love your neighbor as you love yourself
2. It is possible that Paul was referring to temple prostitution and pederasty, not gay sex
3. It is possible that Sodom’s sin was lack of hospitality
4. Therefore, due to #1-3, it is possible that gay sex is not a sin. This is in line with scientific knowledge that it is normal for a certain percentage to be gay, and that it is an immutable trait. But assuming gay sex is a sin personally, there is nothing in the Bible on point regarding how to act politically.
5. Jesus never advocated or effected political change; he was more concerned about the spiritual battle within people’s hearts
6. Intrepreting the Bible to mean that one must oppose gay marriage politically has sown seeds of division in the church. It has hindered our ability to move forward with the Great Commission and evangelism efforts. It has caused people to leave the church.
7. Misapplication of #6 has manifested as hatred of gays, which goes against #1.
8. God created gays that way

 

[JerryZ]

It is important to distinguish between gay marriage politically and gay sex personally, as they are completely different issues. Here we go:

1. Love your neighbor as you love yourself
2. It is possible that Paul was referring to temple prostitution and pederasty, not gay sex
3. It is possible that Sodom’s sin was lack of hospitality
4. Therefore, due to #1-3, it is possible that gay sex is not a sin. This is in line with scientific knowledge that it is normal for a certain percentage to be gay, and that it is an immutable trait. But assuming gay sex is a sin personally, there is nothing in the Bible on point regarding how to act politically.
5. Jesus never advocated or effected political change; he was more concerned about the spiritual battle within people’s hearts
6. Intrepreting the Bible to mean that one must oppose gay marriage politically has sown seeds of division in the church. It has hindered our ability to move forward with the Great Commission and evangelism efforts. It has caused people to leave the church.
7. Misapplication of #6 has manifested as hatred of gays, which goes against #1.

So what you are saying is that JESUS lied when he said to the Pharisee

Matthew
19:4 And he said to them in response, “Have you not read that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female?” And he said:
19:5 “For this reason, a man shall separate from father and mother, and he shall cling to his wife, and these two shall become one flesh.
19:6 And so, now they are not two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So where can we find in scripture that 2 men can do the same?

So St Paul was kidding us when he wrote:

Romans

1:26 Because of this, God handed them over to shameful passions. For example, their females have exchanged the natural use of the body for a use which is against nature. 1:27 And similarly, the males also, abandoning the natural use of females, have burned in their desires for one another: males doing with males what is disgraceful, and receiving within themselves the recompense that necessarily results from their error.
1:28 And since they did not prove to have God by knowledge, God handed them over to a morally depraved way of thinking, so that they might do those things which are not fitting:
1:29 having been completely filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness; full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malice, gossiping;
1:30 slanderous, hateful toward God, abusive, arrogant, self-exalting, devisers of evil, disobedient to parents,
1:31 foolish, disorderly; without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
1:32 And these, though they had known the justice of God, did not understand that those who act in such a manner are deserving of death, and not only those who do these things, but also those who consent to what is done.

I guess he was paraphrasing there, not really meaning what he said
“natural use of the body” AND “for a use which is against nature”

Pleaaase.

Peace

 

[vsedriver]

It is important to distinguish between gay marriage politically and gay sex personally, as they are completely different issues. Here we go:

1. Love your neighbor as you love yourself

 

[Michael57]

Let’s be realistic. Are you really claiming that what Catholics will do on Mass this Sunday is the SAME thing, the SAME Tradition and Magisterium from 50 AD? Are you guys really making such a claim?

Yes. It is the same. That was part of what brought me back to the Church. It is undeniable.

Let’s pick just one of the five non-negotiables, or the theological topics I mentioned, and I’ll show you how it’s open to interpretation.

Let’s not.

There is nothing that you can “show” about these that hasn’t already been settled by the Magisterium. You have no mastery of the subject, per your repeated posts showing your intransigent and intractable lack of understanding.

Why not instead look at the teaching of the Church?

I believe it would be more profitable for you.

 

[Abu]

CaliLobo #1
How can we know that what the Vatican is teaching now is consistent with what the early church taught in Acts? It isn’t, right?
What makes the Catholic Church’s teachings more legitimate than that of a Protestant church? At least a Protestant church, although it may not have Apostolic Succession, is drawing solely from the Bible.

Such views show a lack of knowledge.

Christ established His Church and all others broke away with their own personal ideas and beliefs.

Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied?

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

 

[Rau]

…

…At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8)…

At the risk of derailing discussion…is it the case that the Church has a position on circumcision??

 

[Abu]

“This did not continue as an obligation in the new covenant. Gentiles were not required to submit to circumcision (Acts 15:28).”

“And as circumcision among the Jews admitted infants as participants in the Old Covenant, so St. Paul likens baptism to circumcision (Col., 2:11) as initiation into the New Covenant.”
Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.