Private Judgment and the Magisterium

[tester]

In a response to a recent flurry of postings in this non-Catholic forum :

I offer this for discussion:

First consider this ** from James Akin**

chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

“Private Judgment?

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that* they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium***.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”​

Now consider this:*
1302 AD “we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

1441 AD “outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire”

1994 AD “'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham”*

And the questions are:

If Catholics in 1441 AD **quoted **the procalimations from 1302 and 1441 were they wrong?
If Catholics in 1994 AD quoted the procalimations from 1302 and 1441 were they wrong?

So whether it is Creeds or Councils or Confessions
Or whether it is the first Pope or the current Pope or previous papal statements
Or a past Magisterium or the current Magisteruim,

If Catholics are “not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is”
And* “it is the Magisterium, not [Catholics] and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements*,…”
** How can Catholic in 2010 or Catholics in 1441 AD know what is infallible truth and what is not infallible truth…regarding the teachings of Jesus?**

 

[tester]

Recent threads are filled with Catholics asking Protestants “how do you know …” or " who decides when …"

So now this is a Protestant asking how do Catholics know that they interpreted the Magisterium statements correctly?

 

[JonNC]

Recent threads are filled with Catholics asking Protestants “how do you know …” or " who decides when …"

So now this is a Protestant asking how do Catholics know that they interpreted the Magisterium statements correctly?

:coffeeread:

While we’re waiting, its not that Lutherans have any room to talk.

Jon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

In a response to a recent flurry of postings in this non-Catholic forum :

I offer this for discussion:

First consider this ** from James Akin**

chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

“Private Judgment?

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that* they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium***.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”​

Now consider this:*
1302 AD “we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

1441 AD “outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire”

1994 AD “'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham”*

And the questions are:

If Catholics in 1441 AD **quoted **the procalimations from 1302 and 1441 were they wrong?
If Catholics in 1994 AD quoted the procalimations from 1302 and 1441 were they wrong?

So whether it is Creeds or Councils or Confessions
Or whether it is the first Pope or the current Pope or previous papal statements
Or a past Magisterium or the current Magisteruim,

If Catholics are “not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is”
And* “it is the Magisterium, not [Catholics] and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements*,…”
** How can Catholic in 2010 or Catholics in 1441 AD know what is infallible truth and what is not infallible truth…regarding the teachings of Jesus?**

I am not sure I understand your question, but it seems to me that we catholic look to the Magisterium, As the Magistium, Tradition, and Scpriture all must compliment one another.

Case in point: The Chruch has stated that there is no slavation outside of the Church. V2 aknowledged that salvation maybe obtained by those not formally in the Church, and the Pope and Magistium have given staments on how this is form the Catholic point of view.

Does that make it clear as mud now.

 

[JonNC]

I am not sure I understand your question, but it seems to me that we catholic look to the Magisterium, As the Magistium, Tradition, and Scpriture all must compliment one another.

Case in point: The Chruch has stated that there is no slavation outside of the Church. V2 aknowledged that salvation maybe obtained by those not formally in the Church, and the Pope and Magistium have given staments on how this is form the Catholic point of view.

Does that make it clear as mud now.

IOW, Scott, doctrine develops over time as greater truth is revealed to the Magisterium by
the Holy Spirit. Correct?

Jon

 

[tester]

I am not sure I understand your question, but it seems to me that we catholic look to the Magisterium, As the Magistium, Tradition, and Scpriture all must compliment one another.

Allow me to clarify:

This thread does not exist in a vacuum; but is in direct response to the multiple threads started by joe370 in this non-Catholic religion forum.

In regards to Biblical understanding ; over and over again, the Protestants are being asked the variations of;
“How to you know the Bible meant that ? “
“Isn’t that just your private interpretation?”
“Why do others interpret that differently?”
By what authority to you interpret?
Etc. etc.

So now in the SAME way I am asking Catholic in regards to understanding Papal or Magisterium statements;
“How to you know the Magisterium meant that?

(Note: I am NOT debating the statements themselves: I am asking how do you know that you interpret them correctly) See the OP.

If Catholics are “not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is”
And “it is the Magisterium, not [Catholics] and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”

How can Catholics in 2010 or Catholics in 1441 AD know what is infallible truth and what is not infallible truth…regarding the teachings of Jesus?

How do you know what is the correct interpretation of

*1302 AD “we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

1441 AD “outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire”*

Case in point: The Chruch has stated that there is no slavation outside of the Church. V2 aknowledged that salvation maybe obtained by those not formally in the Church, and the Pope and Magistium have given staments on how this is form the Catholic point of view.

If Catholics are “not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is”
And “it is the Magisterium, not [Catholics] and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”

By what authority do you personally interpret the Pope’s and Magisterium’s infallible statements ?

If your answer is “never”: how do you know?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

IOW, Scott, doctrine develops over time as greater truth is revealed to the Magisterium by
the Holy Spirit. Correct?

Jon

Yeah, something like that. I guess it is like something is said. It is then weighed against what has been said and taught before and if needed a fuller explanation then come forth. Maybe not greater truth, but fuller revelation of the truth.

Hows that.

Oh and Jon hows it going?

 

[joe370]

Tester, excellent post!

How can Catholic in 2010 or Catholics in 1441 AD know what is infallible truth and what is not infallible truth…regarding the teachings of Jesus?

It seems, (I think) - that you are bolstering private interpretation in view of the fact that the CC claims to teach infallibly on one subject and then turns around and changes their mind, regarding the same subject, at a latter date, which would mean that the CC certainly cannot teach infallibly, which would also make the infallible bible suspect, but that topic is not for this thread. You start by saying:

Now consider this:
1302 AD “we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

I agree with this proclamation, only if the CC is the church founded by Jesus, built on kepha, who was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and loose, who then passed them on to successors, upon his demise; it was to this man that Jesus said: whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. I agree for the simple fact that the bible says, regarding the church founded by Jesus:

*“Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then two verses later in John 3:5, Jesus tells how being born again takes place: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
*

1441 AD “outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire”

The preceding quote is what the bible says (binding and loosing…) - about Jesus’ established church, so, if the CC is the church founded by Jesus then the preceding quote is correct, and the following words would correctly reflect the preceding quote, again, regarding the church founded by Jesus, and therefore apply to the CC; bear with me:

“Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then two verses later in John 3:5, Jesus tells how being born again takes place: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

What’s left for those who are not baptized? Everlasting fire, a concept that almost kept me from being a Christian, but it does not seem to bother you as much as those proclamations, I think?

1994 AD “'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham”

Of course, those 2 proclamations, as well as the words of baptism in John 3 apply to the church in 1994, where you cite the CCC. Here is where you believe the conflict enters in regarding those proclamations, however, I do not believe that they are in conflict with one other.

The salvation of every human creature that has heard of Jesus’ church and has been properly baptized, is entirely subject and dependent upon the CC, which is the church built on the Kepha as well as the successor of Kepha, both of which were empowered to bind and loose, and that person is the Roman Pontiff. These proclamations (as well as baptism) - absolutely apply to pagans, Jews, schismatics and heretics who knowingly and willfully, after seeing the light of truth, reject Jesus’ church, (be it the 14th century or the 21st century) - and the teachings of His church, which include John 3:5.

The circumstances regarding those 3 citations, were completely different. In the earlier case you have just one church (no PC’s existed) - to which the following applied:

302 AD “we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

To which I agree, and:

“Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then two verses later in John 3:5, Jesus tells how being born again takes place:

To which I agree, and:

1441 AD “outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire”

To which I agree.

The preceding proclamations, as well as John 5, are very biblical. It is what the bible teaches about Jesus’ established church, so, if the CC is the church founded by Jesus then the preceding words would apply to the one CC.

In the other case (post 16th century reformation) - we see hundreds of non-Catholic churches, most of which were established long after the protestant reformation, and in most cases these folks were raised to believe that their church was the historical church founded by Jesus, through no fault of their own. The historical church simply was not made known to them. Those leaders who left the church founded by Jesus and started their own churches, are the one’s culpable. Why should the preceding proclamations apply to them if they never knew the importance of the CC? My little niece was born and continues to be raised in one of the wonderful Lutheran churches and does not know better, as those, (exposed to the CC) - did, prior to the reformation. Pagans and Jews, through no fault of their own, who have no idea how important Jesus’ church really is, or even where it is, (or any protestant church as well) - should not be judged by the same standard as those who really do know how important the historical church founded by Jesus is, which is the CC, in my opinion.

My little niece, who is oblivious to the teachings of the CC, should not be subject to the binding and loosing of the current bishop of Rome, along with the rest of the bishops that succeeded the rest of the apostles – right???

Tester, do non-Christians, who have not been baptized go to heaven?

 

[tester]

It seems, (I think) - that you are bolstering private interpretation in view of the fact that the CC claims to teach infallibly on one subject and then turns around and changes their mind, regarding the same subject, at a latter date, which would mean that the CC certainly cannot teach infallibly, which would also make the infallible bible suspect, but that topic is not for this thread. …:

no no no .

The post has nothing to do with with Magisterium infallibilty:

I am asking YOU: how do YOU know that YOU interpreted the Magisterium correctly?

Would Catholics in 1302, 1441, or 1994 AD have the same understanding of Magisterium statements?

"…Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”
"

 

[joe370]

Hey tester…

I am asking YOU: how do YOU know that YOU interpreted the Magisterium correctly?

I believe that I have interpreted the Magisterium correctly because the Magesterium is a good teacher and they explain things well.

Would Catholics in 1302, 1441, or 1994 AD have the same understanding of Magisterium statements?

Catholics prior to 1302/1401 never had to deal with Protestant churches with members, who, through no fault of their own, did not defer to the CC or those statements, so no, the Protestant churches post 16th century reformation would not have had the same understanding of Magisterium statements, as the one CC did, prior to the 16th century reformation.

 

[tester]

I believe that I have interpreted the Magisterium correctly because the Magesterium is a good teacher and they explain things well.

.

Really? re-read the James Atkin qoute from the OP

Do other Catholics (now and in the past) interpret the Magisterium statements the same way?

Will Catholics in 2110 interpret it differently?

 

[joe370]

Really? re-read the James Atkin qoute from the OP

Do other Catholics (now and in the past) interpret the Magisterium statements the same way?

Will Catholics in 2110 interpret it differently?

Catholics in 2110 will interpret it the same way as catholics do today. The only difference in the future will be, more Pc’s, no doubt. What is the point you are trying to make??? Is it that catholics prior to the 15th century interpreted the Magisterium differently than how catholics today interpret the Magisterium??? Well, that certainly makes since to me in light of the fact that post 16th century churches did not exist prior to the 15th century. You seem to want the CC to continue to claim what it claimed in those 2 statements, by having those 2 statement exclude PC’s that are longer in communion with the bishop of Rome. today; is that it???

Again, why should my niece, born and raised in the Lutheran church be considered part of the following proclamation; it’s not her fault that she was born and raised in a church other than the CC:

1302 AD “we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

If the CC did not make concessions by saying what it said regarding your third quote and the CCC: 817, 818, 819, 820, the CC would be saying that every protestant is incapable of salvation due to the fact that their founders broke away from Jesus’ church, leaving them outside the Catholic Church? I can just imagine what the myriad PC’s would have to say about that. Things changed since the reformation and the CC had to adapt to these changes and people, through no fault of their own, by belonging to a church other than the CC, should not be deprived of eternal life. Now, if there was still just one CC today (no PC’s) - then those 2 proclamations would be valid for all Christians. Well, not the people who have never heard of Christianity or Jews and Muslims raised to disbelieve all other religions other than their own. People can’t go to hell for something they were unaware of in my opinion. I am sure many good Muslims living in the 14th century or the 21 st century, are in heaven today. Jesus will embrace them and tell them who he is and what he did for them.

Like the NT says:

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

1441 AD “outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire”

Regarding the preceding, I agree with this proclamation, if pagans and Jews, reject the light of truth after having been exposed to it. Schismatics and heretics clearly reject the light of truth.

If salvation is through Christ, what happened to people who died before they heard about Christ? The same thing that happens to Jews, Muslims etc…that never heard of Christ in every century after His glorification, if they lived Christ like lives.

What the bible tell us is that there is a stricter judgment for those who have rejected Jesus’ teachings and His church, than there is for those who have never heard of his church or His teachings.

In order to believe the truth one must first HEAR the 'truth.

 

[tester]

… What is the point you are trying to make??? .

My point has nothing to do with a doctrine.

In regards to Biblical understanding ; over and over again, you Joe 370 have asked Protestants the variations of;

“How to you know the Bible meant that ? “
“Isn’t that just your private interpretation?”
“Why do others interpret that differently?”
By what authority to you interpret?
Etc. etc.

So now in the SAME way I am asking Catholics in regards to understanding Papal or Magisterium statements;
“How to you know the Magisterium meant that?

James Atkin speaking of Catholics:

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply **has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! **This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

I do not see the difference between Protestant privately interpreting the inerrant Bible and Catholics privately interpreting the infallible Magisterium.

From the Catholic perspective you are not privately interpret either the Bible or the Magisterium.

So from a Catholic perspective; why is not hypocrisy to “rebuke” a Protestants for privately interpreting the Bible and then it is OK for you to privately interpret the Magisterium’s statements?

• Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”*

Or you think that Joe370 can privately interpret Magisterial statements??

 

[joe370]

My point has nothing to do with a doctrine.

In regards to Biblical understanding ; over and over again, you Joe 370 have asked Protestants the variations of;

“How to you know the Bible meant that ? “
“Isn’t that just your private interpretation?”
“Why do others interpret that differently?”
By what authority to you interpret?
Etc. etc.

So now in the SAME way I am asking Catholics in regards to understanding Papal or Magisterium statements;
“How to you know the Magisterium meant that?

James Atkin speaking of Catholics:

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply **has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! **This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

I do not see the difference between Protestant privately interpreting the inerrant Bible and Catholics privately interpreting the infallible Magisterium.

From the Catholic perspective you are not privately interpret either the Bible or the Magisterium.

So from a Catholic perspective; why is not hypocrisy to “rebuke” a Protestants for privately interpreting the Bible and then it is OK for you to privately interpret the Magisterium’s statements?

• Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”*

Or you think that Joe370 can privately interpret Magisterial statements??

I have the authority to privately interpret magisterial statements as long as my interpretation agrees with the magisterium. I have the authority to privately interpret the holy bible as long as my private interpretation agrees with the teachings of the CC magisterium.

Feel free to ask me as many questions that I have asked non-Catholics here at CAF.

 

[tester]

I have the authority to privately interpret magisterial statements as long as my interpretation agrees with the magisterium. :

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

And I have the authority to privately interpret Biblical passages as long as my interpretation agrees with the Bible.

Now do you see?

 

[XinMinny]

Joe and tester
Do you mind if I join in a little bit? I may be missing the point here, but the question I am left with is like this:
the statement from 1302 seems to exclude all Muslims, African pagans, Asian Buddhists, Taoists, etc from hope - for it says “every creature.” that is a very strong statement.
Then, the statement from 1994 seems to leave some hope.

So, what tester is saying is that if I lived in 1303, when I heard about that statement, I would logically think that a person in Japan in 1303 who had never heard of the Church would be on their way to a lost eternity. That is the logical understanding of that statement.

But, in 2010, Joe is telling me that the statement really doesn’t mean that. It has in it a certain lee way for people who have never been taught, etc.

And, these 2 interpretations (the logical understanding of the Catholic reading them), are not the same. So, how do I know today what the Magisterium means - because what seems like the plain meaning has changed over time. It is a quandary.

The only way out is to use some of my own intuition - and that is interpretation. There is no such thing as a clear cut answer. So, really I am using my own experience, convictions, and honesty to determine my answer.

This is the same thing that Tester does with the Bible.

Am I on the right track here?

 

[joe370]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

And I have the authority to privately interpret Biblical passages as long as my interpretation agrees with the Bible.

Now do you see?

Tester I have always respected and stated that each and every protestant has the right to privately interpret scripture, but, in the end, must, unequivocally defer to the authority of their respective church leadership, as per Hebrews 13:17 and other passages, when it comes to the final assessment of truth vis-a-vis the teachings found in the bible or otherwise.

That is not private interpretation tester…That is your authoritative church making the final decision, in the end. I totally agree with that logic brother. I thought JonNC was the only sola scriptura advocate that took that position.

 

[joe370]

XinMinny, Jesus said something similar to those 2 proclamations in John 3:5, about baptism:

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one

can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Are all those folks (millions of people) - who never knew that baptism was required to enter the pearly gates, in hell forever? Of course not.

Like the NT says:

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

If salvation is through Christ, what happened to people who died before they heard about Christ? The same thing that happens to Jews, Muslims etc…that never heard of Christ in every century after His glorification, if they lived Christ like lives.

What the bible tell us is that there is a stricter judgment for those who have rejected Jesus’ teachings and His church, than there is for those who have never heard of his church or His teachings.

In order to believe the truth one must first HEAR the truth.

Joe and tester
Do you mind if I join in a little bit? I may be missing the point here, but the question I am left with is like this:
the statement from 1302 seems to exclude all Muslims, African pagans, Asian Buddhists, Taoists, etc from hope - for it says “every creature.” that is a very strong statement.
Then, the statement from 1994 seems to leave some hope.

So, what tester is saying is that if I lived in 1303, when I heard about that statement, I would logically think that a person in Japan in 1303 who had never heard of the Church would be on their way to a lost eternity. That is the logical understanding of that statement.

But, in 2010, Joe is telling me that the statement really doesn’t mean that. It has in it a certain lee way for people who have never been taught, etc.

And, these 2 interpretations (the logical understanding of the Catholic reading them), are not the same. So, how do I know today what the Magisterium means - because what seems like the plain meaning has changed over time. It is a quandary.

The only way out is to use some of my own intuition - and that is interpretation. There is no such thing as a clear cut answer. So, really I am using my own experience, convictions, and honesty to determine my answer.

This is the same thing that Tester does with the Bible.

Am I on the right track here?

 

[tester]

Joe and tester
Do you mind if I join in a little bit? I may be missing the point here, but the question I am left with is like this:
the statement from 1302 seems to exclude all Muslims, African pagans, Asian Buddhists, Taoists, etc from hope - for it says “every creature.” that is a very strong statement.
Then, the statement from 1994 seems to leave some hope.

So, what tester is saying is that if I lived in 1303, when I heard about that statement, I would logically think that a person in Japan in 1303 who had never heard of the Church would be on their way to a lost eternity. That is the logical understanding of that statement.

But, in 2010, Joe is telling me that the statement really doesn’t mean that. It has in it a certain lee way for people who have never been taught, etc.

And, these 2 interpretations (the logical understanding of the Catholic reading them), are not the same. So, how do I know today what the Magisterium means - because what seems like the plain meaning has changed over time. It is a quandary.

The only way out is to use some of my own intuition - and that is interpretation. There is no such thing as a clear cut answer. So, really I am using my own experience, convictions, and honesty to determine my answer.

This is the same thing that Tester does with the Bible.

Am I on the right track here?

Exactly: I’m not talking about a specific doctrine: the point there has been different interpretations of Magisterial doctrines.

 

[tester]

Joe370,

Focus like a laser : the point is NOT about the truth of a specific doctrine, it is about Catholics of really strong faith disagreeing on the meaning.

There are main and plain things taught in the Bible that nearly all Believers (the Body of Christ = the Church) can agree on;
There are also difficult passages that that even Protestant believers of really strong faith do disagreements on.

There are main and plain thing taught by Papal proclamations and Magisterial statements that nearly all Catholics can agree on;
There are also difficult passages that that even Catholics of really strong faith do disagreements on.

Another example is during Lent, is violating the law of abstinence is a mortal sin?
Do all Catholics of really strong faith agree on that?

Joe370, In other threads you have stated that you were once a protestant but joined the Catholic Church because of unanswered questions to “How to you know the Bible meant that ? “ or “Isn’t that just your private interpretation?” or “Why do others interpret that differently?”

If you can accept that Catholics of really strong faith can and have disagreed on the meaning of Papal proclamations and Magisterial statements, then why can’t you accept Protestants of really strong faith can and have disagreed on the meaning of Biblical passages?

It seems to me that all you have done is added another layer (maybe more) between God’s divinely authored written and preserved Word.

Skip the layers and go to the source.

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the **Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.**St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,