I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

[JonNC]

To be sure, I believe in the seven sacraments, albeit in a different way than the RCC. As I see it, sacraments are ordinary acts of God, as opposed to extraordinary acts which are miracles. But, as I see it, the sacraments are instituted and ratified by God, not by men. Which is why I believe marriage and baptism need not necessarily be in the Church, and by that line, the other five can also take place outside of the Roman Communion.

However, I also understand the Anglican line of reasoning, that the five sacraments known as ordination, confirmation, marriage, unction and confession were added later into the Church, and even Catholics admit most of these have developed in some capacity over the last 2,000 years.

As with the 73 books, I agree with you, it was a sin of scholasticism to remove the deuterocanon. But, to be sure that was inherited from the Magestrium.** In order to replace the Pope, Protestants needed to read the Bible literally, which required them to remove those books in which inspiration was questionable.** The thing about the OT is that 39 books is the minimum, but there isn’t a consensus on what the maximum number is.

As you can probably see, I have a bit of an orthodox bias on this matter.

On the bolded, which protestants, and what is your source?

Jon

 

[Godspells]

On the bolded, which protestants, and what is your source?

Jon

Sola Scriptura

In order to reject the magestrium protestants needed (or from an protestant biased, restored) scripture to be read literally. Basically that scripture need not be interpreted because everything essential to the faith is contained therein.

 

[guanophore]

But, as I see it, the sacraments are instituted and ratified by God, not by men. Which is why I believe marriage and baptism need not necessarily be in the Church, and by that line, the other five can also take place outside of the Roman Communion.

I am having trouble following this. Marriage and baptism need not necessarily be in the Church? I can see how marriages occur outside the Church (civil) but under what circumstances woudl a baptism occur “out” of the Church?

Can you explain what you mean by “the Roman Communion”?

However, I also understand the Anglican line of reasoning, that the five sacraments known as ordination, confirmation, marriage, unction and confession were added later into the Church, and even Catholics admit most of these have developed in some capacity over the last 2,000 years.

Is that the Anglican position? When was “later”? I am confused about this, since we see them all in the New Testament.

Certainly, rites, rubrics and practices have changed over the years, but that does not take away what is in the NT.

inherited from the **Magestrium**.

How are you defining this word?

In order to replace the Pope, Protestants needed to read the Bible literally,

I believe this is a false statement, and has no relevance to “replacing the pope”. You were asked for a source on this, and replied “Sola Scriptura”. However you are defining this term (and I realize there are many) NONE of the reformers ever read the Bible “literally in order to replace the Pope”.

Codswallop.

which required them to remove those books in which inspiration was questionable.

I believe this is also a false statement, and I don’t believe you can cite anything in the writings of any of the Reformers to support it.

Sola Scriptura

In order to reject the magestrium protestants needed (or from an protestant biased, restored) scripture to be read literally. Basically that scripture need not be interpreted because everything essential to the faith is contained therein.

This position does not reflect the views of any reformer.

 

[Sunflake9]

That’s the bad thing I see with Sola Scriptura, you can have as many interpretations as people reading it. And chances are they for the most part have missed the mark. You should always have the context at the time they were written. Words had different meaning then compared with today. So only reading them literally can be a huge problem.

For most of my life I was agnostic. So when I was looking at becoming Catholic having the Magisterium interpret sacred scripture and tradition was a huge comfort to me. After all I surely wasn’t around 2000 years ago so having the CC that has been teaching both of these from the beginning was huge.

 

[JonNC]

Sola Scriptura

In order to reject the magestrium protestants needed (or from an protestant biased, restored) scripture to be read literally. Basically that scripture need not be interpreted because everything essential to the faith is contained therein.

Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church. Hermeneutics is not eliminated because of the practice of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura simply holds that scripture the final norm.

Jon

 

[Godspells]

I am having trouble following this. Marriage and baptism need not necessarily be in the Church? I can see how marriages occur outside the Church (civil) but under what circumstances woudl a baptism occur “out” of the Church?

Canons of the Catholic Church have always supported the capacity for baptism to occur outside of the Church. You can look at the AAA page if you want.

Anyone with the right intention using the trinitarian formula can perform a valid baptism (even if they themselves are unbaptized) if need be.

Can you explain what you mean by “the Roman Communion”?

The Roman Catholic Church

Is that the Anglican position? When was “later”? I am confused about this, since we see them all in the New Testament.

Certainly, rites, rubrics and practices have changed over the years, but that does not take away what is in the NT.

Marriage was not “defined” as a sacrament until (and I’m not 100% on this) about 700 AD. I believe others were also defined a bit later. Now, you can argue that they were still sacraments prior and that the Church just clarified the dogmas pertaining to them, and I would tend to agree.

However, certainly we know that baptism and the Eucharist were the most coveted in the early Church, which is why I believe the Anglicans elevated them above the other five. Personally, I believe all seven are equal sacraments with baptism and the Eucharist being first and second among equals.

How are you defining this word?

Magestirum is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, also meaning their monopoly to interpret scripture.

I believe this is a false statement, and has no relevance to “replacing the pope”. You were asked for a source on this, and replied “Sola Scriptura”. However you are defining this term (and I realize there are many) NONE of the reformers ever read the Bible “literally in order to replace the Pope”.

The RCC recognizes three sources of doctrine, scripture, the magestrium, and sacred tradition. Protestants use only scripture, which means that the use of the other two need to be derived from scripture.

The RCC has always recognized scripture as ambiguous and believed the college of bishops have had the right to interpret it as per their “Great Commission”. For Protestants to do away with the magestrium (teaching authority of the bishops) it is necessary to have ambiguous scripture that requires literal readings.

This is, of course, assuming that one sees the need to use scholasticism as it has been used by the RCC.

I believe this is also a false statement, and I don’t believe you can cite anything in the writings of any of the Reformers to support it.

This position does not reflect the views of any reformer.

It is an interpretation of their views, but certainly reformers believed in sola scriptura.

I don’t think the Anglican communion uses that method specifically, because as I understand their structure they actually replaced the old magestrium with a new one, but I think that has caused problems in and of itself. As we see now with the Episcopal Church essentially amending God’s commandments in the House of Bishops.

I understand your position, so I will stop making blanket statements about all protestants, but from those who I have spoken to, the tendency is to cite scripture and offer an interpretation of it, and if the interpretations differ I rarely see acknowledgement of ambiguity and instead one or both persons accuse the other of “not being filled with the Holy Spirit”. Essentially that means that they are doing what the magestrium use to do. But, that is just my experience.

 

[Godspells]

Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church. Hermeneutics is not eliminated because of the practice of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura simply holds that scripture the final norm.

Jon

That sounds more akin to Prima Scriptura.

As I said, I’m probably unfairly putting a blanket over an otherwise diverse school of thought, but I’ve heard protestants complain about a pastor not using enough scripture in their sermon. This is essentially to say that if something isn’t found in scripture it is obviously not trustworthy. I tend to disagree. I believe scripture is inspired and trustworthy, but other things like the ecumenical councils of the undivided church are also trustworthy and inspired. Some of the writings of saints, etc. So, it is not my belief that scripture is the “only” source of inspiration, though it is the standard by which we ought to measure other claimants.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

House Harkonnen;12298257]I disagree. For ages the popes actively went back and forth about the Filioque. They must have been massively confused about whether or not this addition was really part of Sacred Tradition.

First of all, the filioque is inserted in the Credo to defeat an Arian heresy that came from the Eastern part of the Catholic Church, which began to infect the West.

Centuries earlier the East and West Catholic Church defeated the heresy of Arianism by introducing what was already believed “Theotokos” Mary God barrier.

When this heresy which denied Jesus divinity showed up in the West, the Pope included the filioque which proclaims what we already believe from sacred Tradition that Jesus is God. Filioque in no way changes the apostolic faith but it confirms it and protects the Nicene Creed from ever being infected by heretics who deny Jesus divinity.

Before the Church proclaims a dogma or teaching such as Theotokos and Filioque, you better believe the Catholic Church’s magisterium will scrutinize the subject to the fullest.

What your history fails to reveal, is that those Eastern heretics came to the West professing the Nicene Creed and were misinterpreting the Nicene Creed that Jesus was not God, because the Holy Spirit never proceeds from Jesus.

The Filioque defeated them, when it holds to what is already professed in the Creed that Jesus is Consubstantial with the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son = Filioque.

You should be informed before you accept Orthodox false arguments against the filioque which defeated a heresy from their domain. That when the filioque defeated their Arian heresy in the West, tensions and schism were already under way between Orthodox and Latin Church.

We the Latin Church maintain and still profess the Apostles Creed which long predates the Nicene Creed which came later to dogmatize and unite the faith against heretics and heresies. You can’t get any more Orthodox from the apostles without the Apostles Creed still professed in the Latin Catholic Church from Peter and Paul.

Today most Orthodox theologians who looked into the filioque with our Western theologians left these discussions with a different view. That the filioque does not infect the apostolic faith but supports the apostolic faith that Jesus is God. Those Orthodox who still object to the filioque do so not necessarily on matters of faith, but on matters of authority to do so, neglecting the fact that Peter commissioned by Jesus Christ Himself, commanded Peter to tend (protect) and feed (teach) His lambs and sheep until Jesus returns.

If popes could even discern whether or not this was part of Sacred Tradition, what hope do I, a non theologically educated layperson, have of discerning who actually has the correct sacred tradition?

The Popes did discern and scrutinized both “Theotokos” and the “Filioque” and both are part of the apostolic sacred Tradition.

Theotokos from the East proclaims Jesus divinity from His birth when Mary is God barrier, when the West conceded to this proclamation of Jesus divinity.

Filioque from the West later, proclaims Jesus divinity as being consubstantial with the Father from which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Now I ask you personally my dear friend House Harkonnen, from which sacred Tradition ever denies that Jesus was not God? The sacred Tradition in both East and West has not changed and will not ever change, because these teachings and practices are revealed by God not men.

Peter and the Church only professes what God has revealed to every age and in every age until Jesus returns.

Out of charity, I posted this for you, because of the dilemma you posed to which apostolic Tradition is correct. I remind you, that there are not two different apostolic Traditions, but only one which does not change.

Please be made aware of; that when ever the Popes or the Catholic Church proclaim Christ Crucified and resurrected makes an apostolic Tradition or teaching binding on all believers, it is done like the “filioque” to separate the sheep from the goats, so that the teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ are never infected in any age by winds and doctrine by made by men.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Contarini;12301530]Then perhaps you can point me to the sources where I can see all the ways in which West and East remained in fruitful contact throughout the tenth century.
I actually objected to the “Frankish” language in the original statement.

Actually I was agreeing with Tomster’s post who viewed House Harkonnen history as “skewed”.

I posted a brief commentary on the filioque above for Harknonnen to view.

No man can separate what God has joined together. We are joined to our Orthodox brothers via the mystical body of Christ, in apostolic succession, priesthood and sacraments in the communion of Saints, which reflects an eternal reality not a temporal reality in the flesh.

The part of communication, and authority related issues remain carnal matters within the Church as a whole. As far as communion is concerned Rome never has an issue with the Orthodox coming to our Liturgy in celebration. It is the Orthodox who object here.

I mention also not all Orthodox and Catholics in the East are in schism with Peter (today, many have returned to Peter) which means a tear in our garment not ripped apart as it is within Protestantism, who have no valid priesthood and no valid sacraments from the Apostolic succession and sacred Tradition.

Protestant tradition comes from a new ideology from men during the protestant reformation= The protests in Protestantism claimed an independence from their own roots the Catholic church and changed the bible, added “Sola” to God’s Word, and removed themselves from the apostolic sacred Traditions with out no one head to lead them as their vicar of Christ on earth. Thus, we have the many different non-Catholic Christians who denominated from one body of believer to a different body of believers.

In summary, the filioque becomes a complicated subject when one enters an Orthodox opinion who is not Orthodox to support and Orthodox objection to the filioque. How and when the filioque gets revealed is essential for sure;

I object to one drawing a false full conclusion of the Church, when the Pope’s and or the magisterium are battling heretics and heresies and those who may be supporting such heretics at the time when the filioque is being introduced to defeat such a heresy at the time from heretical Arian Priest’s.

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

That sounds more akin to Prima Scriptura.

As I said, **I’m probably unfairly putting a blanket over an otherwise diverse school of thought, **but I’ve heard protestants complain about a pastor not using enough scripture in their sermon. This is essentially to say that if something isn’t found in scripture it is obviously not trustworthy. I tend to disagree. I believe scripture is inspired and trustworthy, but other things like the ecumenical councils of the undivided church are also trustworthy and inspired. Some of the writings of saints, etc. So, it is not my belief that scripture is the “only” source of inspiration, though it is the standard by which we ought to measure other claimants.

That’s probably the big issue. When one says protestants believe this, or do that, it usually carries with it many misrepresentations, unintentional to be sure.

The Formula of Concord offers a three paragraph description of sola scriptura.

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

If one wishes to call it prima scriptura, it really is of no matter, as it is the practice not the name that matters.

Jon

 

[Sunflake9]

Jon,
I have always wanted to ask a serious question to a Protestant, so I sincerely hope you will indulge me here. Don’t you think Sola Scriptura is a one legged stool. Even sacred scripture says that everything Jesus said couldn’t all be written down. Which can only lead one to believe in Sacred Tradition passed from the Apostles to today. Sola Scriptura isn’t even in the Bible. So people who rely on Scripture alone don’t have it written anywhere in the Bible that it’s supposed to be that way. As a Protestant how do you rectify the fact that Jesus didn’t leave us a book, he left us his church.

So when I was agnostic I couldn’t justify any Sola Scriptura theology because if your going to live by the book alone, nowhere in the book does it say to do so. The word Trinity appears nowhere in the Bible, IIRC but most Protestants accept the Holy Trinity, how is this possible? And what did the Christians do for the first 400 years (approximate) before the Bible was compiled, Sola Scriptura couldn’t have been in play so all that was in play was word of mouth and Tradition.

If you would rather carry the conversation on through PM I’m okay with that as well. I just don’t want it to seem like I’m trying to hijack the thread. Just a curiosity I’ve always had and have bee waiting to ask someone who seems to know what they believe.

Patrick

 

[guanophore]

Canons of the Catholic Church have always supported the capacity for baptism to occur outside of the Church.

Thanks I thought you were speaking figuratively not literally!

Magestirum is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, also meaning their monopoly to interpret scripture.

Ok, then I think you are referring to the Magesterium? Who exactly is that?

I don’t think the CC claims any “monopoly to interpret Scripture”. Obviously, there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are belly buttons. I think that members of the Apostolic faiths believe that Jesus taught the apostles how to understand the Scriptures and they passed this on to their successors, the Bishops. Also that the Scriptures should be read in the light of the faith that was passed down from the Apostles.

The RCC recognizes three sources of doctrine, scripture, the magestrium, and sacred tradition.

Do you have a link for this?

What is “sacred tradition”?

Protestants use only scripture, which means that the use of the other two need to be derived from scripture.

This statement does not reflect all Protestants. I know that Anglicans and Lutherans also recogize the role of the Church and Sacred Tradition in preserving the faith. I dont’ think either of them would say that everything has to “derive” from Scripture, but only that Scripture is the final authority.

The RCC has always recognized scripture as ambiguous and believed the college of bishops have had the right to interpret it as per their "Great Commission".

Can you provide a link or a source for further study for this? I have read a lot of Bible Study but am not familiar with the term “ambiguous” being used to describe Scripture.

Is the “college of Bishops” the same as the Magesterium?

What would it mean if the “college of bishops” interpreted the Scripture? I mean, what would that look like, and what relation would it have to the “Great Commission”.

This may not be related, but do you think the Great Commission is only for bishops?

For Protestants to do away with the magestrium (teaching authority of the bishops) it is necessary to have ambiguous scripture that requires literal readings.

Is this a statement you believe to be true, or are you summarizing a view of other “Protestants”.

I realize now that I may not be understanding what you mean by “literal readings”. What is the opposite of a “literal” reading?

Maybe you can help me with a specific example?

" Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. " (Mt 26:26–29)

Can you show me how this passage would be interpreted “literally”?

It is an interpretation of their views, but certainly reformers believed in sola scriptura.

I agree, but I think there are many different ways of understanding and using Sola Scriptura,and I think you may be talking about Solo Scriptura (everything derives from Scripture).

I understand your position, so I will stop making blanket statements about all protestants, but from those who I have spoken to, the tendency is to cite scripture and offer an interpretation of it, and if the interpretations differ I rarely see acknowledgement of ambiguity and instead one or both persons accuse the other of “not being filled with the Holy Spirit”. Essentially that means that they are doing what the magestrium use to do. But, that is just my experience.

Yes I have observed this in very fundamentalist communities.

But I am somewhat lost on this idea that the Catholic Magesterium “used to do” this, because there seem to be very few definitive interpretations of Scripture.

 

[Godspells]

Ok, then I think you are referring to the Magesterium? Who exactly is that?

I see I’m probably getting too far ahead of myself. Any of my Catholic friends can correct me if I’m wrong.

The Magestrium (magestrium means teacher in Latin) is the authority of the Catholic Church supposedly empowered by God, to teach the faith and morals of Christianity.

When the Magestrium teaches such a doctrine on faith or morals, it is considered infallible, based on the promise made by Christ to His Apostles that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church, ergo, the Church cannot teach a false doctrine.

The Magestrium isn’t a single person, but the collective composition of Bishops. So in the Catholic Church you have a three tier order of clergy called Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Bishops are considered to be the successors of the Apostles and have all the authority that the Apostles had. So for them, what the Apostles wrote in scripture is equally inspired as what the Bishops collectively teach.

How this works in practice is a bit less straightforward, but the “College of Bishops” are all the Catholic Bishops worldwide. They collectively have the authority of the magestrium.

The Pope, being the Bishop of Rome, is considered the successor of the Apostle Peter, who Catholics believe was the leader of the Apostles, so the Pope is the leader of the Bishops. In that capacity, the Pope is considered to have the gift to speak infallibly when he is defining Church doctrine by right of his office.

In a nutshell, that is the Magestrium of the Catholic Church. Catholics, how did I do?

I don’t think the CC claims any “monopoly to interpret Scripture”. Obviously, there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are belly buttons. I think that members of the Apostolic faiths believe that Jesus taught the apostles how to understand the Scriptures and they passed this on to their successors, the Bishops. .

For the CC, you can interpret scripture insofar as the Church has not already interpreted it. But, Catholic dogma requires that you believe the Church cannot teach a false doctrine, so if the Church interprets scripture in such a way as to teach a doctrine, naturally you are bound to believe that interpretation is correct.

What is “sacred tradition”?

That’s tricky to explain, perhaps a Catholic person here can explain it, but as I understand it, it is the historical practices of the Church (i.e. celebration of Mass) and the historical doctrines of the Church.

This statement does not reflect all Protestants. I know that Anglicans and Lutherans also recogize the role of the Church and Sacred Tradition in preserving the faith. I dont’ think either of them would say that everything has to “derive” from Scripture, but only that Scripture is the final authority.

That could be true, but then again Anglicans altered a great deal of tradition because it wasn’t scriptural. For instance, cutting the sacraments down from 7 to 2.

What would it mean if the “college of bishops” interpreted the Scripture? I mean, what would that look like, and what relation would it have to the “Great Commission”.

The best example of this would be through ecumenical councils. In Catholic history, there have been 21 such Councils, the most recent called the “Second Vatican Council” the first was the “First Council of Nicaea”. I know the canons passed by these Councils are pretty much considered as important as the Bible. I’m not sure if there are instruments to define such doctrine in between councils except, I suppose, if a Pope defined one infallibly.

This may not be related, but do you think the Great Commission is only for bishops?

We were having this discussion on another thread. There might be a limitation as far as one’s ability to “teach” the faith, but I for one (granted I am a protestant) believe all Christians evangelize, but I think it is a mistake to presume that we only evangelize by word of mouth. Most of how we inspire people comes from our actions, love, and virtue. I would argue only about 5% of “making disciples” is actually speaking.

I realize now that I may not be understanding what you mean by “literal readings”. What is the opposite of a “literal” reading?

Maybe you can help me with a specific example?

(Mt 26:26–29)

Can you show me how this passage would be interpreted “literally”?

Funny, you probably picked the one scripture in the whole Bible that Catholics interpret “literally” and Protestants don’t.

So for Catholics this scripture means that during mass, when they partake communion of bread and wine, once the bread and wine are consecrated the bread literally becomes the flesh of Christ, and the wine literally becomes His blood. Such is known as the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Most protestants believe Jesus was speaking in metaphor here.

What I was actually referring to, though, was more along the lines of fundamentalist protestants reading Leviticus and concluding that we as Christians are commissioned to stone gay people

Yes I have observed this in very fundamentalist communities.

But I am somewhat lost on this idea that the Catholic Magesterium “used to do” this, because there seem to be very few definitive interpretations of Scripture.

Well, there are very few definitive interpretations because there are very many protestant denominations.

I’ve gotten into debates before with people about the afterlife (I adhere more to Eastern Orthodox beliefs on this front), and I ask protestants to tell me how they reconcile the scriptures that seem to teach annihilationism or universalism, and their response is that I am not filled with the Holy Spirit if I read those passages that way.

 

[SteveVH]

IThe Magestrium (magestrium means teacher in Latin)…

When the Magestrium teaches…

The Magestrium isn’t…

Okay, sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The term is “MAGISTERIUM”.

 

[guanophore]

The Magestrium (magestrium means teacher in Latin) is the authority of the Catholic Church supposedly empowered by God, to teach the faith and morals of Christianity.

When the Magestrium teaches such a doctrine on faith or morals, it is considered infallible, based on the promise made by Christ to His Apostles that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church, ergo, the Church cannot teach a false doctrine.

Who gets to be part of it? For example, was Luther part of the “magestrium”?

The Magestrium isn’t a single person, but the collective composition of Bishops. So in the Catholic Church you have a three tier order of clergy called Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Bishops are considered to be the successors of the Apostles and have all the authority that the Apostles had. So for them, what the Apostles wrote in scripture is equally inspired as what the Bishops collectively teach.

So the Catholic Bishops put themselves on par with what the Catholic Catechism teaches about Scripture?

135      “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).

136      God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 37). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

How this works in practice is a bit less straightforward, but the “College of Bishops” are all the Catholic Bishops worldwide. They collectively have the authority of the magestrium.

Are you saying that they are always in agreement on everything?

That’s tricky to explain, perhaps a Catholic person here can explain it, but as I understand it, it is the historical practices of the Church (i.e. celebration of Mass) and the historical doctrines of the Church.

I have been told that defining Sacred Tradition is like nailing jello to the wall.

Funny, you probably picked the one scripture in the whole Bible that Catholics interpret “literally” and Protestants don’t.

Does interpreting that verse literally make it impossible to reject the “magestrium”?

I’m struggling to understand how literal interpretation is a solution to the authority.

Such is known as the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Most protestants believe Jesus was speaking in metaphor here.

So how is one to know when to be literal, and when to be metaphorical? Or is that the ambiguity you were talking about?

What I was actually referring to, though, was more along the lines of fundamentalist protestants reading Leviticus and concluding that we as Christians are commissioned to stone gay people

Oh! Do they do that?!

Well, there are very few definitive interpretations because there are very many protestant denominations.

So you are saying that the CC has only definitively defined very few scriptures because there are so many denominations?

… and their response is that I am not filled with the Holy Spirit if I read those passages that way.

Just prove it to them by bursting out in tongues!

 

[Godspells]

Okay, sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The term is “MAGISTERIUM”.

As it was said, the difference was one iota.

Excuse my Latin, Steve, the Magisterium.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have been told that defining Sacred Tradition is like nailing jello to the wall.

Never, ever underestimate the power of a bad cook.

 

[Godspells]

Who gets to be part of it? For example, was Luther part of the “magestrium”?

Luther was a monk, not a bishop, so no he wasn’t part of the Magisterium.

So the Catholic Bishops put themselves on par with what the Catholic Catechism teaches about Scripture?

135      “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).

136      God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 37). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

Well, the Catechism is sort of like a summary of what the Bishops teach. To be sure, the general overview of the faith has been the same for most of the history, but some small elements like the Immaculate conception have been defined a little later, and the Church applies new morals as time goes on.

Are you saying that they are always in agreement on everything?

Well… that would be the problem, what if they’re not in agreement? I guess that means it’s not an infallible teaching. I’m not sure exactly how councils operate, as to what kind of majority they need.

Does interpreting that verse literally make it impossible to reject the “magestrium”?

I mean, this is one of the reasons I haven’t been able to convert to catholicism, because as far as I know a Catholic cannot believe anything contrary to the magisterium.

Speaking against a doctrine is also really bad.

I’m struggling to understand how literal interpretation is a solution to the authority.

If you read it literally you don’t need the magisterium to interpret it. There was a common proverb in the reformation that was “every man is his own pope.”

So how is one to know when to be literal, and when to be metaphorical? Or is that the ambiguity you were talking about?

Yes, that is ambiguous. I think with some study it is usually possible to figure out. Seeing how the early Christians interpreted it, etc. But, this is a common problem we have in discussions.

Oh! Do they do that?!

Yes, Google Westburo Baptists Church, it is an extremist church, but a number of mainline Protestants also believe that allowing same-sex marriage will incur the wrath of God because of Leviticus.

Unfortunately they tend not to worry so much about eating shell fish which is also described as an abomination.

So you are saying that the CC has only definitively defined very few scriptures because there are so many denominations?

No, I mean with protestants there is not definitive interpretations because there are many denominations.

I’m not sure the CC has like a list of scriptures it has definitively interpreted, but for instance they use the story of Onam to prohibit contraception. I find that interpretation a bit of a stretch, but I’m not a bishop.

Just prove it to them by bursting out in tongues!

I was in AG for a long time, unfortunately if they do that they try to exorcise you.

 

[guanophore]

Well, the Catechism is sort of like a summary of what the Bishops teach. To be sure, the general overview of the faith has been the same for most of the history, but some small elements like the Immaculate conception have been defined a little later, and the Church applies new morals as time goes on.

I am not sure it is a “new moral” as much as it is application of moral principles. For example, I can see why the issue of in vitro fertilization would not come up sooner in history.

I mean, this is one of the reasons I haven’t been able to convert to catholicism, because as far as I know a Catholic cannot believe anything contrary to the magisterium.

Speaking against a doctrine is also really bad.

I imagine that some take this passage quite literally:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” Matt 28

and this one

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”(Lk 10:16)

If the Apostles believed they had been authorized to teach “all that I have commanded” from Jesus, and that they were His representatives, they would take this teaching authority seriously. If they passed that responsibility to their successors, the Bishops, then it would seem that they would feel responsible to keep the deposit of faith intact and consider questioning of any of it questioning Christ Himself.

If you read it literally you don’t need the magisterium to interpret it. There was a common proverb in the reformation that was “every man is his own pope.”

Is there a biblical basis for this approach?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Magestrium (magestrium means teacher in Latin) is the authority of the Catholic Church supposedly empowered by God, to teach the faith and morals of Christianity.

I’ve noticed your Latin has become fairly confused in these posts. A teacher is a magister. Magisterium is first and foremost the product of the teacher or the teaching; basically magisterium isn’t a “who”, it’s a “what.”