The plain meaning of scripture within who’s interpretation?
In your opinion.
It amuses me how Catholics who believe they need a Magesterium to interpret Scripture for them somehow believe that they can interpret the “plain meaning” of the Magesterial texts. In reality all they have done is pushed the step of self-interpretation back one level. The Bishops aren’t there with you making sure you’ve read and understood the Catechism correctly, nor does the Pope live at your house making sure to correctly explain his latest encyclical until you have it down pat. And yet Catholics disagree on the nature, authority and meaning of these texts.
So, Steve, you can choose to remain in your worlds of “we need an interpreter to understand anything” with its inherent self-referential flaw (i.e. the last level of "“official” interpretation still needs to be interpreted by the end reader) or you can acknowledge that texts have a plain sense which can be discussed amongst those who take the time to study them and inform themselves with regard to language, history, culture, etc.
If I’m eating a hot dog and someone writes about it, there can be debate about whether it was an all-beef hot dog or beef/pork, what the significance of the toppings was (if any) and what was the context in which I was eating it (at a ball game, I was hungry at lunch, etc). The plain sense is that I was eating a hot dog, there can be layers of speculation/interpretation that don’t contradict that plain sense and that may deepen the understanding of those reading.
But if someone comes along and claims to infallibly declare that I am actually eating a hamburger, the folks around us are going to laugh him out of the stadium in a mustard-stained robe. He’s contradicted the plain sense of things-and been rejected in his “interpretation” as a result.
Applying this to the question of the episcopate, shows the same result. As I stated in a previous post:
Non Serviam:
There was diversity on a number of points in the times of the Apostles and to insist that only one of those options is “Tradition” isn’t kosher. Yet many on here do just that and twist and tweak Scrpiture to try and get Paul and some of the ECF’s to read like the current practices of the Catholic church.
If Catholics want to make the argument that the Monarchical Episcopate developed later into the primary form of church government because of efficacy or unity or some other criterion, that’s fine, and the case can be made. That also permits others to make the case that it has an increased risk of abuse of authority and heresy than a plural episcopate. Then discussion can occur and changes can be made as needed.
There’s a difference between something becoming the “norm” and it being the sole teaching of the Apostles. That’s why Scripture is essential in providing a plumb line by which the church’s “balance” can always be measured
We see from Paul’s and John’s writings a plural episcopacy as well as in the Epistle of Clement, likewise we see in other ECF’s a mention of monarchical episcopacy, so there was
at least one gvovernance model used in apostolic times (plural episcopacy) and more than one governance model in use in the churchs immediately after the Apostolic period (both plural and monarchical episcopacy). This isn’t opinion, but rather fact-so to claim that the Apostoles’ taught only a monarchical episcopate and thus it is “Tradition” is disproven by the plain sense of Scripture and the historical support from at least one of the ECF’s.
And by the way, that looks like a bit of mustard on your collar.
and we see some of the other ECF’s discussing a monarchical episcopate. Timothy and Titus also present a view of plural leadership-and in the Didache as well as Acts we read of itinerant teachers and prophets, both true and false.