How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[SolaScriptura]

It is Church teaching…
Those websites are not checked over and authorized by the Church for no reason. It means it contains no errors, and is proper teaching.
And I just showed you many verses from the CATHECISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and yes, that is official.

Good try, but no dice. The verses from the Catechism provides not interpretation of that verse. Remember, we are talking about your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20-21. As far as your imprimatur I’ve been told by numerous Catholics that it means nothing. As a matter of fact I can show you an imprimatur on a work that teaches the Scriptures contain errors. In addition to that here is what a Catholic websites says about the imprimatur.

Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn’t make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It’s not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it’s not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn’t even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html

So we see your imprimatur is worthless in proving official Catholic doctrine and your Catechism provides no support for your interpretation, so wanna try again? But before you try let me share with you what probably the greatest Catholic New Testament scholar say about your attempt to validate your interpretation as an official Catholic one.

“To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” (Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

Let me know when you find it

 

[Libertas]

Good try, but no dice. The verses from the Catechism provides not interpretation of that verse. Remember, we are talking about your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20-21. As far as your imprimatur I’ve been told by numerous Catholics that it means nothing. As a matter of fact I can show you an imprimatur on a work that teaches the Scriptures contain errors. In addition to that here is what a Catholic websites says about the imprimatur.

Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn’t make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It’s not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it’s not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn’t even mean that everything in the book is accurate, **only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. **fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html

Let’s stop arguing semantics here.
You Protestants can say nothing to those two passages, and the Church teaches, as we both full well know, that it is the only interpreter of the Holy Bible. And that website contains no contradictions to the Catholic Dogma, and that website, which has received an imprimatur, states that no prophecy of scripture comes by private interpretation, something completely in line with Church teaching, and you somehow think this is not right?
Please do show me where the Catholic Church has said that anyone may interpret the Bible on his own. So far you’ve been dancing around semantics in an effort to bog down the discussion, when we both full well know that that website, and I, are correct in the explanation of that passage.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Let’s stop arguing semantics here.
You Protestants can say nothing to those two passages, and the Church teaches, as we both full well know, that it is the only interpreter of the Holy Bible. And that website contains no contradictions to the Catholic Dogma, and that website, which has received an imprimatur, states that no prophecy of scripture comes by private interpretation, something completely in line with Church teaching, and you somehow think this is not right?
Please do show me where the Catholic Church has said that anyone may interpret the Bible on his own. So far you’ve been dancing around semantics in an effort to bog down the discussion, when we both full well know that that website, and I, are correct in the explanation of that passage.

Actually you are clearly wrong in your interpretation. I haven’t interacted with your interpretation at this point, because of your attitude. Remember how you initially responded to me?

Libertas:

Uhm…have you read the Bible?
…
Do you understand the English language at all?

But as we have seen I seem to know your church’s position better than you. Either you didn’t understand that your church has not provided any official interpretation of that verse or you were lying on your church. Choose your poison.

And I though you were the person who said, “I know what I’m talking about”. Actually you really don’t. And your interpretation of this verse demonstrates it even further.

It is clear in context these verses are speaking of inspiration of prophecies was not given by private judgment, not interpretation of Scripture. Notice what it says:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along **by the Holy Spirit.
**

Can’t you see how obvious it is that it is talking about inspiration of prophecies and not interpretation? Notice how different a few fathers interpret those verse then what you do:

This means that the prophets received their prophecies from God and transmitted what he wanted to say, not what they wanted. They were fully aware that the message had been given to them, and they made no attempt to put their own interpretation on it. If they could not bring themselves to accept what the Spirit had said to them, then they kept their mouths shut, as Jonah did, for example, when he refused to preach to Nineveh, and Balaam also did when he was commanded to say what had been communicated to him. ( Oecumenius, 6th Century comments on 2 Peter 1:20 )

Peter does not say that the prophets interpreted their own sayings. They were not speaking to themselves but serving the Holy Spirit. What is the interpretation of their words if not the works which Christ revealed when he came? So if anyone wants to understand the words of the prophets properly, let him obtain faith in Jesus Christ, through which he will recognize the divine message. John bore witness before we did. Christ came from heaven, enlightening everyone. Likewise he showed that the power to prophesy is of the Holy Spirit, as did the Apostle Paul when he said: ‘To another [the gift] of prophecy, etc.’ So the one who prophesies is undoubtedly speaking with a tongue inspired by the Holy Spirit. ( Andreas, 7th century commenting on 2 Peter 1:21 )

The Scriptures become for us a light to lighten the way in the present darkness. This indeed Peter said, ‘You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place’( 2 Peter 1:19). This the psalmist said, ‘Thy Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path( Psalm 119:105). Nevertheless, we know that our own light is dim for us, unless the truth illumines this in our minds. Again the psalmist says, “Yea, thou dost light my lamp; the LORD my God lightens my darkness’( Psalm 18:28). What is a burning lamp, unless it is a light, but created light does not shine in us unless it is illuminated by an uncreated light. Because, therefore, Almighty God both gave us the holy Scriptures for our salvation and opened up those same Scriptures for us so that they are effective for our salvation, we understand then that the Spirit of life is in the wheels. ( Gregory the Great on Ezekiel )

 

[Libertas]

2 Peter 1:20-21
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along **by the Holy Spirit.
**

I can stop you right there, as you are not using a real Bible.
Here is the same passage from the real Bible.
1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit

Our translation is from the Greek to Latin translation, and then into English. Yours is from English to English and henceforth does not take into account the original text.
Here is the passage in it’s original Greek.
greekbible.com/index.php
I hope you can read Greek, good luck in finding "came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. "

 

[SolaScriptura]

I can stop you right there, as you are not using a real Bible.
Here is the same passage from the real Bible.
1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit

Our translation is from the Greek to Latin translation, and then into English. Yours is from English to English and henceforth does not take into account the original text.
Here is the passage in it’s original Greek.
greekbible.com/index.php
I hope you can read Greek, good luck in finding "came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. "

Are you serious? Both translations are saying exactly the same thing. Lets look at Young’s Literal Translation:

20this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,

21for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

The point is clear. Prophecy does not come by private interpretation or the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit speaking through men. Also if my translation is the problem why do the fathers I quoted above agree with my interpretation? I guess they didn’t have a real bible either

 

[Spirithound]

Good try, but no dice. The verses from the Catechism provides not interpretation of that verse. Remember, we are talking about your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20-21. As far as your imprimatur I’ve been told by numerous Catholics that it means nothing. As a matter of fact I can show you an imprimatur on a work that teaches the Scriptures contain errors.

But before you try let me share with you what probably the greatest Catholic New Testament scholar say about your attempt to validate your interpretation as an official Catholic one.

“To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” (Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

What about the Catechism article i found for you?
It is a sad state of affairs that imprimatur/nihil obstat cannot always be taken as an indicator of the orthodoxy of a document
As for what Mr. Brown posits, it is false. The number of verses the Church has infallibly defined is very small, but there are some, for example Matthew 16:18-19, which refer to the primacy of Peter, and papal infallibility. So, if you really want to, you can forget about 2Pet1:20, and focus on this one instead, because papal infallibility flies straight in the face of private interpretation.

ps, i’ve just realized that Mr. Brown’s statement is not actually false, because his only definitive statement was to say what his knowledge was, not to give the veracity of said knowledge

 

[Libertas]

Are you serious? Both translations are saying exactly the same thing. Lets look at Young’s Literal Translation:

20this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,

21for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

The point is clear. Prophecy does not come by private interpretation or the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit speaking through men. Also if my translation is the problem why do the fathers I quoted above agree with my interpretation? I guess they didn’t have a real bible either

That’s not the correct translation either, though it does carry some of the point.
There is no private interpretation, the only sole authority for interpreting the Bible is the Catholic Church. This is Church teaching, enough said.

 

[SolaScriptura]

That’s not the correct translation either, though it does carry some of the point.
There is no private interpretation, the only sole authority for interpreting the Bible is the Catholic Church. This is Church teaching, enough said.

Do you know what a literal translation is? Are you a Greek scholar? Anyway, it doesn’t really matter, because they all carry the same idea. The passage is talking about prophecy of Scripture is not made by private interpretation but instead they were made by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. For all you insults directed at me you have shown yourself to not know what you are talking about. Not only did you not know what your Church’s position, but your interpretation of Scripture has shown to be wrong. This verse has been wrenched out of context by some Catholic apologists, but you will not find many real scholars or even fathers that agrees with that interpretation. So if you still believe that verse teaches no private interpretation is allowed then you are stuck in a vicious circle, because you are using your private interpretation to arrive at that interpretation.

 

[Libertas]

Do you know what a literal translation is? Are you a Greek scholar? Anyway, it doesn’t really matter, because they all carry the same idea. The passage is talking about prophecy of Scripture is not made by private interpretation but instead they were made by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. For all you insults directed at me you have shown yourself to not know what you are talking about. Not only did you not know what your Church’s position, but your interpretation of Scripture has shown to be wrong. This verse has been wrenched out of context by some Catholic apologists, but you will not find many real scholars or even fathers that agrees with that interpretation. So if you still believe that verse teaches no private interpretation is allowed then you are stuck in a vicious circle, because you are using your private interpretation to arrive at that interpretation.

Thanks for the red herring.

There is no private interpretation, the only sole authority for interpreting the Bible is the Catholic Church. This *is *Church teaching, enough said.

Whether you, or anyone, believe that 2 Peter 1:16 teaches no private interpretation or not, the Catholic Church is still the sole authority for interpreting the Bible. And that is Church teaching.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Thanks for the red herring.

No red herring, that was very germane to the discussion since you claim every translation except yours is wrong.

There is no private interpretation, the only sole authority for interpreting the Bible is the Catholic Church. This *is *Church teaching, enough said.

Yeah, I know that is your church’s teaching. We are not debating your church’s teaching per se, but your claim that your interpretation of 2 Peter was the church’s interpretation.

Whether you, or anyone, believe that 2 Peter 1:16 teaches no private interpretation or not, the Catholic Church is still the sole authority for interpreting the Bible. And that is Church teaching.

Well glad to see you are not as dogmatic about your interpretaion as you once was.

 

[Bishopite]

I can stop you right there, as you are not using a real Bible.
Here is the same passage from the real Bible.
1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit

Our translation is from the Greek to Latin translation, and then into English. Yours is from English to English and henceforth does not take into account the original text.
Here is the passage in it’s original Greek.
greekbible.com/index.php
I hope you can read Greek, good luck in finding "came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. "

You are exactly correct. Sola Scriptura is citing the NIV which has a few problems i.e., using the Greek word “paradosis” in a positive sense; it only uses it in the negative sense. Also as you have said the NIV is far different from other bible translations. Here is 2 Peter 1:20 from other translations…

NAB bible…“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”

KJV bible…“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

NKJV bible…“knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”

NAS bible…“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”

NIV bible…“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.”

Strange how the NIV is different from other translations on this verse?
Three of the translations quoted (KJV, NKJV, NAS) are what Protestants also use as their bibles.

 

[SolaScriptura]

You are exactly correct. Sola Scriptura is citing the NIV which has a few problems i.e., using the Greek word “paradosis” in a positive sense; it only uses it in the negative sense. Also as you have said the NIV is far different from other bible translations. Here is 2 Peter 1:20 from other translations…

NAB bible…“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”

KJV bible…“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

NKJV bible…“knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”

NAS bible…“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”

NIV bible…“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.”

Strange how the NIV is different from other translations on this verse?
Three of the translations quoted (KJV, NKJV, NAS) are what Protestants also use as their bibles.

Ummm … probably because they are not all the same type of translation. The NIV is a dynamic equivalence whereas the others are not. However, I don’t see any difference in meaning between the translations you quoted. What do you see as the big difference?

 

[Libertas]

Think what you will Sola, however I see you ignored the other passage I cited.

2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

How truthful!
Starting with Luther Christendom has wrangled with the scriptures to its own destruction and further fragmentation!

Not to mention not a single passage in the entire Bible supports sola scriptura, and the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelations goes against your sola scriptura practice.
Keep being un-biblical man, it’s doing wonders for Christendom.

 

[Bishopite]

Ummm … probably because they are not all the same type of translation. The NIV is a dynamic equivalence whereas the others are not. However, I don’t see any difference in meaning between the translations you quoted. What do you see as the big difference?

NAB bible…“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”

KJV bible…“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

NKJV bible…“knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”

NAS bible…“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”

NIV bible…"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation."

The “by the prophet’s own intepretation” is the difference between them attempting to make the “prophet” the one who shouldn’t make a private interpretation and not “ones own interpretation” or “pivate interpretation.” It can make a big difference if one’s “own” or “private” interpretation means everyone who individually tries to interpret holy writ on their own and come up with whatever they think seems correct.

Notice Peter uses “we” starting in verse 16 “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,…”
The “we” are the Apostles who are the authority of the Church given to it by Jesus Chirst (e.g. Luke 10:16) and who gives us the bounderies of private interpretation; that’s why we can read verses like 1 Tim 3:15 and say…“the Church is the pillar and support of the truth” it fits better with what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1:20 and the idea of having the Church as a guide to truth is more plausible than interpreting it on our own which can lead to destruction.
We Catholics can have private interpretation (albeit limited) if it is within the bounderies of the teaching of the Church and 2 Peter 1 is a good example of this truth.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know what do you mean by a “dynamic equivilence?”
The NAB, the NIV and NAS translations are all based on the Nestle Aland Greek; the KJV and (obviously) the NKJV are based on the Textus Receptus, yet all have virtually the same translation of 2 Peter 1:20, where as the NIV again also based on the Nestle Aland inserts “by the prophets own interpetation” and I suppose it is to attempt to deflect the idea of “private” or “one’s own” interpretation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Protestant argues, “But how can you really know for sure what your Church teaches. Famous theologians disagree with one another. You are in twice the mess because you have to interpret both the Bible and the Catechism.”

Someone much smarter than me sez:

"We have a LIVING Magisterium that can answer questions infallibly. That is we have direct access to a source of unimpeachable divine truth that can explain what it means to the honest inquirer.

There is no other area of human learning that can say that.

If you follow this Protestant’s silly arguments, then you reach a level of ultimate skepticism where no one can know anything. Sending children to school to learn the times-tables would be a waste of time because not only could they never know if the times tables were correct, but not even the teachers could know this. All information becomes a mere opinion and there are no definitive epistemological tests for truth.

Furthermore, the Protestant has actually made his own situation much worse because he has introduced an infinite regress of interpretations between his senses and his intellect which logically implies that he can never know anything. The Protestant has proposed Zeno’s “Paradox of Motion” in epistemology. It should be noted that the Scholastic understanding of Epistemology was formulated precisely to avoid this error.

Using ordinary human intelligence, the average person can understand everything contained in the Catechism. That is all that they need. It is not necessary for the average believer to understand perichoresis, the analogia entis, or anhypostasis.

The Church teaches as her Lord taught: With AUTHORITY! Not with syllogisms."

Boo-yah!

 

[Randy_Carson]

So much for this foolish “Thomist-Molinist” nonsense that has been thrown about repeatedly in recent weeks.

Because of the difficulties with the “unity in essentials” argument, its advocates typically do not attempt to defend it on its merits. Instead, they commonly resort to a form of tu quoque (Latin, “You are also!”) argument in which they attempt to tar Catholics with similar disunity.

For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”

In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.

Other times, advocates of the “unity in essentials” argument will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

From an article by Jimmy Akin on this site.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Randy Carson:

The Protestant argues, “But how can you really know for sure what your Church teaches. Famous theologians disagree with one another. You are in twice the mess because you have to interpret both the Bible and the Catechism.”

That is a great argument. I wonder what smart Protestant thought of that.
Randy Carson:

Someone much smarter than me sez:

Are you sure? Also human wisdom is foolish compared to God’s wisdom. So mere intellect doesn’t impress concerning the things of God.
Randy Carson:

"We have a LIVING Magisterium that can answer questions infallibly. That is we have direct access to a source of unimpeachable divine truth that can explain what it means to the honest inquirer.

OK, I will give you a list of questions to ask your infallible magisterium. How long will it take you to get back to me?
Randy Carson:

There is no other area of human learning that can say that.

Saying doesn’t make it true. Just think if your magisterium is not infallible then you are in worst position then all others, because you are being hoodwinked.
Randy Carson:

If you follow this Protestant’s silly arguments, then you reach a level of ultimate skepticism where no one can know anything.

No, your argument is the silly one. See you don’t seem it is possible to arrive at sure knowledge without an infallible teacher. However, we learn many things with confidence and we are not infallible nor are out teaches.
Randy Carson:

Sending children to school to learn the times-tables would be a waste of time because not only could they never know if the times tables were correct, but not even the teachers could know this. All information becomes a mere opinion and there are no definitive epistemological tests for truth.

This is my point exactly. We can know things without the need for an infallible interpreter. God’s people throughout history never had an infallible interpreter and yet they were held accountable for knowing the truth about the Scriptures by Jesus.
Randy Carson:

Furthermore, the Protestant has actually made his own situation much worse because he has introduced an infinite regress of interpretations between his senses and his intellect which logically implies that he can never know anything.

Baloney!! How is that for a refutation My argument is exactly the opposite. Just like I can read any other work in its sitz im leben an understand it without being infallible I can do the same with Scripture.
Randy Carson:

The Protestant has proposed Zeno’s “Paradox of Motion” in epistemology. It should be noted that the Scholastic understanding of Epistemology was formulated precisely to avoid this error.

Yeah, whatever that means
Randy Carson:

Using ordinary human intelligence, the average person can understand everything contained in the Catechism. That is all that they need. It is not necessary for the average believer to understand perichoresis, the analogia entis, or anhypostasis.

The Church teaches as her Lord taught: With AUTHORITY! Not with syllogisms."

Oh, I get it. Using ordinary human intelligence, the average person can understand everything contained in the Catechism, but they can’t understand the main things in Scripture? But the Catechism is the easy part what about the Fathers and Oral Tradition. They too are part of the rule of faith for Catholics. However, as the Apostle Paul said about Scripture:

2 Corinthians 1:13
For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end;

Now that is someone under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore he is smarter all of us, yes even the person who wrote the above inconsistent piece.

 

[runandsew]

OK, I will give you a list of questions to ask your infallible magisterium. How long will it take you to get back to me?

You still don’t get it, do you?

I’ll tell you what, If you really want a personal response from the Chruch magisterium, how about you become a Priest and start teaching heresies, and I am sure the Magisterium will get back to you.

This is an ‘overall’ Church kind of thing, an official church teaching kind of thing, not an individual believer misinterpreting scripture kind of thing.

They got back with Martin Luther pretty quick.

If you indeed have questions regarding what the Church teaches, then I would recommend that you search the Catechism, it is online for you connivance.

 

[Reformed1]

You still don’t get it, do you?

I’ll tell you what, If you really want a personal response from the Chruch magisterium, how about you become a Priest and start teaching heresies, and I am sure the Magisterium will get back to you.

This is an ‘overall’ Church kind of thing, an official church teaching kind of thing, not an individual believer misinterpreting scripture kind of thing.

They got back with Martin Luther pretty quick.

If you indeed have questions regarding what the Church teaches, then I would recommend that you search the Catechism, it is online for you connivance.

Do you really believe that the RCC straightens out every errant priest that teaches “heresy”?

Also, if all you have available to you is the scriptures and the ccc, than how is that all that different from the position I am in?

I say the scriptures are God breathed and therefore inerrant.

You agree but say you also need an infallible magesterium to guide you but who is also unavailable to teach you…except through the written word of the ccc.

So now you have scriptures and the ccc to guide you, one is God breathed and one isn’t not to mention the fact that many faithful Catholics read the ccc and come to different conclusions as to what certain sections mean.

For example, is the old covenant revoked or not? Are there any errors at all in the scriptures or not?

 

[SolaScriptura]

You still don’t get it, do you?

Well, didn’t the extremely smart author of that response say the following:
” We have a LIVING Magisterium that can answer questions infallibly. That is we have direct access to a source of unimpeachable divine truth that can explain what it means to the honest inquirer.”

So don’t get testy with me because I want to take him up on it.

I’ll tell you what, If you really want a personal response from the Chruch magisterium, how about you become a Priest and start teaching heresies, and I am sure the Magisterium will get back to you.

Actually, I don’t want a response from the magisterium because of have an infallible source in which to get my answers. I was only trying to verify if the claims of the extremely smart author was true.

This is an ‘overall’ Church kind of thing, an official church teaching kind of thing, not an individual believer misinterpreting scripture kind of thing.
They got back with Martin Luther pretty quick.

Now you are re-interpreting the authors word. He was talking about the benefits of the magisterium to Catholics vis a vis Protestant. Good try at spinning though.

If you indeed have questions regarding what the Church teaches, then I would recommend that you search the Catechism, it is online for you connivance.

Yeah, but the Catechism doesn’t answer the question for me, neither does it answer them for many Catholics, at least not clear enough so there are no disagreements. For exactly, was Vatican II an infallible council? When and how many times have Pope spoken ex Cathedra? What is the correct teaching on predestination? Are the Scriptures inerrant in every jot and tittle?