Pope can't be infallible

[jfoges]

In what way are you Catholic? I ask because you deny a basic tenet of the faith in this thread and now you come up with a classic protestant argument concerning the canon of scripture. I have never heard anyone make the statement like you did above that was not already a protestant of some flavor.

I’m a Catholic because I am a Christian in communion with Rome. I am a member of a Catholic parish in good standing. I attend mass every sunday. I do not think that papal infallibility is a basic tenet of the Catholic faith as it is handed down to us form the Apostles. I think it is an innovation and a dangerous one at that. It is a doctrine that has caused untold division in Christendom and unneceessary crises of conscience among the Catholic faitfhul. I pray that the bishops and pope may someday have the humility to admit possibility of errors in their actions and teachings.

 

[wanner47]

jfoges:
I’m a Catholic because I am a Christian in communion with Rome. I am a member of a Catholic parish in good standing. I attend mass every sunday. I do not think that papal infallibility is a basic tenet of the Catholic faith as it is handed down to us form the Apostles. I think it is an innovation and a dangerous one at that. It is a doctrine that has caused untold division in Christendom and unneceessary crises of conscience among the Catholic faitfhul. I pray that the bishops and pope may someday have the humility to admit possibility of errors in their actions and teachings.

If you truly believe this, you are NOT a “Catholic in good standing.” You are a Catholic in danger of heresy. A “Catholic in good standing” actually BELIEVES and accepts what his or her church teaches.

When you take the Holy Eucharist, you are assenting that you believe EVERYTHING the Church teaches. That is why the Eucharist is a sign of unity, and part of why Catholics do not permit non-Catholics to take the Eucharist.

If you indeed believe that the Pope cannot speak infallibly, then you should refrain from accepting the Eucharist.

 

[Chipper]

I’m going to focus on this argument you made here.

The Magisterium, which can only teach that which is in revelation…

As for the word whatever, my point is simply that the binding and loosing passage does not mention teaching authority.

Hi JFoges,

The problem here seems to be your denial of the Authority of Infallibility. I can agree with you, that if the Authority isn’t there in the first place, then all the arguments you propose could be accepted. As such let’s concentrate on the beginning of that Authority.

First of all when I quoted the Binding and loosing passage your statement was that you didn’t understand it, and that it was vague, and that it does not include teaching authority.

The logical premise of your thought process goes like this: “I don’t understand what it means therefore it doesn’t mean this”.

Do you see the flaw with your assumptions here?

So let’s get back to the fundamental scripture passage, and expand the scope.
Matthew 16:16-20
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18"I also say to you that you are Peter (Kephas = Rock), and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

What in the world just took place here? Lines 16, and 17. Kephas (the rock) just “Revealed” the true identity of Jesus. He did not do this on his own. God the Father himself selected Peter the Rock. A person who has authority to “Reveal” the true identity of Jesus, by default has teaching authority, yes? Jesus himself confirmed that Peter was selected by God the Father.

Line 18: Jesus is going to build his church on Peter the Rock. You can’t build a church without teaching authority, bestowed on someone. And furthermore the “gates of hell” will not prevail. In other words Sin will not take over.

Line 19: Jesus gives the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven to Kephas the rock. This is extreme authority to “lock” and “unlock” the gates of Heaven. You aren’t getting in unless Peter unlocks the gates of heaven.

Line 19: Peter the rock is given the authority to Bind up Heaven and to “Loose whatever on the earth and in heaven”.

If a person can loose “whatever on the earth and in heaven”,
how can you persist in saying, well let’s see “whatever doesn’t mean “Teaching” authority? The authority of heaven and earth has just been bestowed on Peter, selected by God, and confirmed by Jesus.

Do you really think this type of authority can be fallible? i.e. Fallible means lies and errors are included.

According to this logic, Peter can use his keys, to unlock heaven for a lie. Peter can bind up heaven with a Lie. Peter has no teaching authority therefore he should keep his mouth shut, since it might be a bunch of lies. This just goes against all logic and reason available.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

So, if the Magisterium can be wrong, what good are they? What if, for extreme example, the pope and bishops were to say next week that, hey, maybe abortions are okay after all. I mean, Nancy Pelosi can justify it, maybe the pope could just use her reasoning. If he did, would you follow such an obviously faulty teaching? If not, then I ask again, what would be the use of a fallible Magisterium that could lead people astray?

Every book in the bible was already regarded as authentic by Christians before the biblical canon was decided upon by a council.

As had already been pointed out, this is untrue. I already mentioned that St. Jerome and St. Augustine argued about whether several books were, in fact, authoritative Scripture. If everything was regarded as authentic, why would there be a need for them to argue? Shouldn’t they all have just known?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[jfoges]

Hi JFoges,

The problem here seems to be your denial of the Authority of Infallibility. I can agree with you, that if the Authority isn’t there in the first place, then all the arguments you propose could be accepted. As such let’s concentrate on the beginning of that Authority.

First of all when I quoted the Binding and loosing passage your statement was that you didn’t understand it, and that it was vague, and that it does not include teaching authority.

The logical premise of your thought process goes like this: “I don’t understand what it means therefore it doesn’t mean this”.

Do you see the flaw with your assumptions here?

So let’s get back to the fundamental scripture passage, and expand the scope.
Matthew 16:16-20
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18"I also say to you that you are Peter (Kephas = Rock), and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

What in the world just took place here? Lines 16, and 17. Kephas (the rock) just “Revealed” the true identity of Jesus. He did not do this on his own. God the Father himself selected Peter the Rock. A person who has authority to “Reveal” the true identity of Jesus, by default has teaching authority, yes? Jesus himself confirmed that Peter was selected by God the Father.

Line 18: Jesus is going to build his church on Peter the Rock. You can’t build a church without teaching authority, bestowed on someone. And furthermore the “gates of hell” will not prevail. In other words Sin will not take over.

Line 19: Jesus gives the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven to Kephas the rock. This is extreme authority to “lock” and “unlock” the gates of Heaven. You aren’t getting in unless Peter unlocks the gates of heaven.

Line 19: Peter the rock is given the authority to Bind up Heaven and to “Loose whatever on the earth and in heaven”.

If a person can loose “whatever on the earth and in heaven”,
how can you persist in saying, well let’s see “whatever doesn’t mean “Teaching” authority? The authority of heaven and earth has just been bestowed on Peter, selected by God, and confirmed by Jesus.

Do you really think this type of authority can be fallible? i.e. Fallible means lies and errors are included.

According to this logic, Peter can use his keys, to unlock heaven for a lie. Peter can bind up heaven with a Lie. Peter has no teaching authority therefore he should keep his mouth shut, since it might be a bunch of lies. This just goes against all logic and reason available.

Chipper,

Thanks for your response. First of all, I’m not saying that “binding and loosing” doesn’t mean teaching authority because I don’t understand it. I’m merely saying that it doesn’t specifically say anything about teaching authority.

I don’t know if trying to figure out what this passage means is even all that useful to this discussion. The truth is it coudl mean a number of things and does not HAVE to mean teaching authority. It can’t, per se, prove that Peter had an infallible teaching authority. The only way it can substantiate a claim to infallible petrine teaching authority is if you assume that the magisterium has the power to teach, infallibly, that the petrine office has infallible teaching authority.

I do agree, however, that Peter was the first among the apostles, primer inter pares. A general petrine primacy can be seen in scripture, for sure.

Now there is another question here. Does the bishop of Rome inherite Petrine primacy. It is true that the Petrine primacy of Rome is evident in the writings of the early Church. It is a part of tradition. There is nothing wrong or harmful with this idea. The Church needs authority, even teaching authority. The problem is when this tradition of petrine primacy in Rome is used to justify an irrational and dangerous authoritarianism. An authoritarianism that is unblblical and also unCatholic.

 

[jfoges]

So, if the Magisterium can be wrong, what good are they? What if, for extreme example, the pope and bishops were to say next week that, hey, maybe abortions are okay after all. I mean, Nancy Pelosi can justify it, maybe the pope could just use her reasoning. If he did, would you follow such an obviously faulty teaching? If not, then I ask again, what would be the use of a fallible Magisterium that could lead people astray?

As had already been pointed out, this is untrue. I already mentioned that St. Jerome and St. Augustine argued about whether several books were, in fact, authoritative Scripture. If everything was regarded as authentic, why would there be a need for them to argue? Shouldn’t they all have just known?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Ok, what if the Magisterium did try to teach something heretical, like that abortion is ok. What could the Church do about this? Well, there was a council in the ancient world, Chalcedon I believe, which excommunicated Pope Honorius I for heresy. In this case the Pope taught heresy and the bishops refuted him. Could the Pope do the same today? I would say yes, the Pope could teach heresy. This would be a very problematic solution. However, if you reject papal infallibility, as I do, you would have the option to disagree with him. In medieval theology the idea of a heretical pope was oft debated. There was also a common idea that one had an obligation to disobey the Pope or bishops if they taught something wrong.

 

[Nita]

jfoges:
I do not think that papal infallibility is a basic tenet of the Catholic faith as it is handed down to us form the Apostles. I think it is an innovation and a dangerous one at that. It is a doctrine that has caused untold division in Christendom and unneceessary crises of conscience among the Catholic faitfhul.There can be no unity of faith without an established authoritative mechanism to determine what is truth when contradicting doctrines are proposed. Unity is achieved only when there is obedience and acceptance of that authority. *It is dissent from that authority that causes division. *

I pray that the bishops and pope may someday have the humility to admit possibility of errors in their actions and teachings.

It is those who have dissented (past and present) from official doctrines of the Church who are in need of humility. It is prideful arrogance to consider one’s own determinations wiser and more correct than what is officially decreed by the authoritative structure, established by Jesus for the specific purpose of clarifying and establishing what is truth and what is not / what is bound and what is loosed.

I pray rather that all who have trouble accepting papal infallibility will be graced by Our Lord to recognize what a tremendous gift infallibility is, and thank Him for providing this means for us to know for sure what is truth and what is not.

Nita

 

[Nita]

The problem is when this tradition of petrine primacy in Rome is used to justify an irrational and dangerous authoritarianism. An authoritarianism that is unblblical and also unCatholic.

?? Could you give some Scripture quotes to show that the Church was not meant to have such authority?

Also, could you reference accepted Catholic writings to support the assertion that such authority is unCatholic?

You know, I have a Baptist friend. Some years ago it came up about the Catholic Church and our belief in an infallible teaching authority and thus, infallible doctrines. I recall her saying that she almost envied us, and wished they had something similar. You see, she had no guarantee as to what her faith would be teaching down the road, even next week. She was witnessing changes in long held teachings by the various Protestant denominations – changes in even very basic and fundamental doctrines of faith and morals.

Nita.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… The Magisterium can only proclaim things that are already in revelation (scripture and tradition).

Amen. That’s what the pope does infallibly, every time he expounds or defends doctrine concerning faith or morals, and truths closely connected to them, when he speaks ex cathedra. (from the chair of St. Peter).

As for “how many times,” the answer is: so many times that it is impractical to count. The pope teaches infallibly when expounding and defending the deposit of faith from the Chair of St. Peter. How many times has the popes over the past 20 centuries expounded and defended the deposit of faith? I would imagine that happens daily, in the ordinary universal teaching of the Roman Pontiff.

However, Catholics seems to like to focus upon the occasions when the pope exercises his extraordinary teaching authority. Pope St. Peter did this, for example, when he expounded upon what Holy Scripture called in Greek, “dogmata.” (Acts 16:4), the plural form of the word “dogma.” So, the first pope pronounced dogma infallibly, as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Did Pope St. Peter make up “something new?” Not at all. Although this dogma was disputed in the minds of some Christians of the “circumcision party” (Acts 11:2) who St. Paul says “came from James” (Gal 2:12), St. Peter ended all dispute when he infallibly expounded and defended the deposit of faith on the matter at the council of Jerusalem.

Pope St. Peter prefaces his ex cathedra address with an affirmation of papal primacy: “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: 'Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the nations might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.’” (Acts 15:7).

So, prior to expounding and defending dogma, Pope St. Peter reminds the apostles and presbyters at that council that “God made a choice among you.” What was that choice? That from the voice of Peter, the nations might hear the gospel and believe. God made this choice. It was not an invention, but was part of the deposit of faith itself.

What Pope Peter expounded and defended ended all further dispute on the matter.

How did first century Christians react to dogma pronounced by the pope? “**They rejoiced for the consolation (Gk **paraklesis)” Where have we heard this word before, paraklesis?

Acts 19:31 “the churches throughout (Gk ekklesia kata holos, or “catholic church”)…were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort (Gk paraklesis) of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.”

How do today’s faithful react to dogma pronounced by the successor of Peter? With joy for the consolation!

 

[Chipper]

Chipper,

I’m merely saying that it doesn’t specifically say anything about teaching authority.

and does not HAVE to mean teaching authority. It can’t, per se, prove that Peter had an infallible teaching authority.

to justify an irrational and dangerous authoritarianism. An authoritarianism that is unblblical and also unCatholic.

Hello again Jfogues.

First of all by denying infallibility in spite of all the passages cited, you are essentially trying to “Prove a Negative”.
In other words you are basically saying It isn’t there therefore it doesn’t exist. This is the same thing as looking to your left and saying “God isn’t there therefore he doesn’t exist”.

Proving a negative is impossible. It can’t be done.

 

[DianJo]

First of all, I want to explain that saying the Magisterium is not infallible does not make one a Protestant. This seems to be what you are insinuating. It also doesn’t lead to doctrinal chaos.
*I said your way of thinking about this issue was more protestant than Catholic. And the fact that there are hundreds of protestant demoninations proves that you are wrong about doctrinal chaos. *

Again, the Magisterium can only teach that which is already believed by the Church. The Magisterium can’t tell us anything we don’t already know. The reason Protestants have doctrinal chaos about baptism is because some of them believe in scripture only without tradition. **Also they do not have a Magisterium to guide them. **
*Exactly! That’s why the Pope/Magesterium have the charism of infallibility - to lead and guide us to the truth. Otherwise, we would not know what the truth is about Baptism. *

*I’m not sure you know which side of the fence you’re on. First you say the Pope and Magesterium are not infallible and then you say the reason there’s doctrinal chaos over Baptism is because protestans don’t have a Magesterium to guide them!!! *

I am all for having a Magisterium of the church to guide us, however I think it would be good for the bishops and pope to have the humilty to admit when they make errors in their actions, or teachings.
First of all, you need to provide proof of errors in their teaching. Actions have to do with impeccibility not infallibility. No man, including the Pope is impeccible and the Church has never declared such.
How can they guide us to the truth if they have no truth, as you state?? There HAS to be some assurance of truth in order to teach the truth.
I think, that in your situation, YOU should be the one with the humility to acknowledge that you are obviously deficient in your understanding on this point as other Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church have been in the past.

I also think it is necessary for the Catholic faithful to obey the dictates of their conscience in matters of morals.
*Provided your conscience has been rightly formed.*There are several passages in the Catechism that addresses specifically how to form a moral conscience, that is, having to do with a moral act. See para.1783-1794. Pay particular attention to para.1790-1794 dealing with erroneous judgement.

Para. 2032 - 2040 deals with Moral Life and the Church. In these paragraphs the issue of infallibility is addressed. Para. 2039 states: "…At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts…Conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magesterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law OR the Magesteruim of the Church."

The Catholic faithful are all successors to the Apostles as long as we share the faith of the Apostles. The spirit of truth that was promised to remain with the Church remains in the Church as a whole.
This is true is some part, but it’s not an either/or situation. It’s both/and. In this conversation, however - you are mistaken. This is where you sound more protestant than Catholic. You seem to think that the “church” is invisible and that everyone has a right to be in the Apostles shoes. You know, the Jewish population, at one time said the same thing and rose up against Moses and Aaron - the sacred priesthood. God destroyed them for their arrogance. The earth opened up and swallowed them all. That story you can find in the book of Numbers.

*While we all have access to God, God also set apart a group of leaders for the very purpose of leading and guiding and teaching. God also made sure that they would not teach error - why have someone “in charge” on earth if they were going to lead everyone astray? There is a visible teaching authority no matter how much you deny it and that authority is the Pope and the Magesterium with the special charism of infallibility as promised by Jesus. *

 

[Joe_5859]

Kung, Hans (1971). Infallible? An Inquiry. Doubleday and Company, NY, p. 113.

There’s your problem. Lay off the Kung. He’s not a Catholic theologian.

 

[pnewton]

While this Catholic denies a basic dogma of the faith, we must realize that their are also Catholics out there that deny the real presence, the virginity of Mary and the need for a male-only priesthood. However, the arguments used are more telling. They are classic Protestant tactics that are used on every anti-Catholic website. Last night I told myself that if Honorius shows up, then I know where he is being fed and its not at Mass. He may be a Catholic, at least in his own reckoning, but he is promoting anti-Catholicism. This really should be of no surprise. Paul warned us to watch for such.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…you might be interested to know that Cyprian opposed Pope Stephen in his attempt to excommunicate large areas for accepting baptism by heretics.

You got it mixed up.

In his conflict with the schismatic Novatians, Cyprian of Carthage drew the erroneous conclusion that baptism by heretics is invalid. Pope St. Stepen took the opposite view.

It was Pope St. Stephen who defended the Catholic teaching against the error of Cyprian. The dispute between Stephen and Cyprian ended with both of their martyrdoms. Shortly thereafter, the African churches previously influenced by Cyprian’s error changed their canons to comply with the teaching of Pope St. Stephen.

Augustine, another African bishop would decades later admit the error of the martyred African bishop, Cyprian. Augustine discusses this in depth in his book against the Donatist, here: On Baptism

I’ll take the testimony of Augustine, saint and doctor of the Church, over that of the dissident Kung any day of the week.

 

[twb1621]

Jesus specifically gave the apostles the grace and authority to bind and loose, to forgive and to retain, and He did so without reservation or specifying “unless you might be wrong in your choice…” therefore, our Lord gave His authority with infallibility in matters of His Church…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

For those not familiar with Hans Kung and the erroneous views presented in his book Infallible? (Ger Unfehlbar?), on July 12, 1971, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith informed Kung that it had initiated doctrinal proceedings against this book.

In response to errors like those presented by Kung, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith promulgated the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae. I recommend it for those interested in an authentic presentation of Catholic ecclesiology, over and against the errors of Kung.

 

[averheyen]

I don’t think this is so hard to understand.

The devil tempted Eve in the garden of Eden saying “You will be like Gods, knowing right from wrong.”

So it’s very clear, from the get go, that mankind, even and especially to this present moment and day, has been obsessed with recreating God in his own image.

It just makes sense that Christ would have left someone as his supreme arbitrator on earth. That way we’re not making it all up as we go along.

 

[jfoges]

You got it mixed up.

In his conflict with the schismatic Novatians, Cyprian of Carthage drew the erroneous conclusion that baptism by heretics is invalid. Pope St. Stepen took the opposite view.

It was Pope St. Stephen who defended the Catholic teaching against the error of Cyprian. The dispute between Stephen and Cyprian ended with both of their martyrdoms. Shortly thereafter, the African churches previously influenced by Cyprian’s error changed their canons to comply with the teaching of Pope St. Stephen.

Augustine, another African bishop would decades later admit the error of the martyred African bishop, Cyprian. Augustine discusses this in depth in his book against the Donatist, here: On Baptism

I’ll take the testimony of Augustine, saint and doctor of the Church, over that of the dissident Kung any day of the week.

I think what is important here is what this dispute between Cyprian and the Pope tells us about the meaning of quote from Cyprian that is said to support papal infallibility. If Cyprian did infact believe in papal infallibility, why did he then disagree with the Pope?

 

[jfoges]

Amen. That’s what the pope does infallibly, every time he expounds or defends doctrine concerning faith or morals, and truths closely connected to them, when he speaks ex cathedra. (from the chair of St. Peter).

As for “how many times,” the answer is: so many times that it is impractical to count. The pope teaches infallibly when expounding and defending the deposit of faith from the Chair of St. Peter. How many times has the popes over the past 20 centuries expounded and defended the deposit of faith? I would imagine that happens daily, in the ordinary universal teaching of the Roman Pontiff.

However, Catholics seems to like to focus upon the occasions when the pope exercises his extraordinary teaching authority. Pope St. Peter did this, for example, when he expounded upon what Holy Scripture called in Greek, “dogmata.” (Acts 16:4), the plural form of the word “dogma.” So, the first pope pronounced dogma infallibly, as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Did Pope St. Peter make up “something new?” Not at all. Although this dogma was disputed in the minds of some Christians of the “circumcision party” (Acts 11:2) who St. Paul says “came from James” (Gal 2:12), St. Peter ended all dispute when he infallibly expounded and defended the deposit of faith on the matter at the council of Jerusalem.

Pope St. Peter prefaces his ex cathedra address with an affirmation of papal primacy: “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: 'Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the nations might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.’” (Acts 15:7).

So, prior to expounding and defending dogma, Pope St. Peter reminds the apostles and presbyters at that council that “God made a choice among you.” What was that choice? That from the voice of Peter, the nations might hear the gospel and believe. God made this choice. It was not an invention, but was part of the deposit of faith itself.

What Pope Peter expounded and defended ended all further dispute on the matter.

How did first century Christians react to dogma pronounced by the pope? “**They rejoiced for the consolation (Gk **paraklesis)” Where have we heard this word before, paraklesis?

Acts 19:31 “the churches throughout (Gk ekklesia kata holos, or “catholic church”)…were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort (Gk paraklesis) of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.”

How do today’s faithful react to dogma pronounced by the successor of Peter? With joy for the consolation!

I too am joyful at the consolation provided by the authoritative teachings of the Magisterium. Joyful, that is, so long as those teachings are in accord with tradition and scripture.

 

[trrocks03]

You are wrong on several accounts. First of all, the original Apostles were no the Magisterium. They provided the deposit of faith itself, which the Magisterium is supposed to teach from. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the Magisterium, and Divine Revelation. These are two completly different things. Revelation is God revealing himself to us. The Magisterium is the bishops and Pope teaching us what God has already revealed about himself.

I fluent on the subject of infallibility, but I wanted to point out something I noticed on this comment. Please correct me if I am wrong.

“[Divine] Revelation is God revealing himself to us.”
“The Magisterium is the bishops and Pope teaching us what God has already revealed about himself.”

It seems to me that these two topics are indeed different, but they entirely go hand in hand. It seems like the first one is the outgoing message from God, and the second one is the receiving end of it. Who does God reveal himself to? Are you saying that God reveals himself to everyone? If this is the case then the Magisterium would be the ones who go and check it out and discuss it for everyone else. This “revealing to everyone” concept sounds allot like “personal revelation (interpretation)”.

You also talk about how the apostles were “no[t] the Magisterium” but rather “provided the deposit of faith itself”. This sounds like the apostles are the ones responsible for what we believe, not Jesus himself. You say the “deposit of faith is what the magisterium is supposed to teach from” which would be exactly what the apostles were doing. They were teaching about what they learned from direct divine revelation (Jesus Christ). You said that is what Magisterium does. They talk about revelation. I don’t know what is more revealing than Jesus himself! Let me know if this got astray or if it makes sense. Thanks and God bless.