Private Judgment and the Magisterium

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Ok, for what it is worth, even as a catholic I can have a private interpetation of scripture. What it says to me, it must aling with church teaching and is only binding on me not the church as a whole. This goes for chruch teaching as well.

An example chruch teaching is that all fridays are days of pentence, and the norm is to abstain from meat. Around 30 or so years ago the church also says that the Bishop can have another standard penence for his diocesee. I mean really how much of a pence is not eating meat and eating seafood for some in living on the coast? I am free to continue with friday abstinance of meat as it is the norm, but I am not free to proclaim that one that chooses something else is wronge. What the church did is realize that abstaining from meat is not really a sacrifice for some. It did not change the disipline it explained and expanded it.

It is the same thing with the teaching of no salvation outside the church it need to be futher explained and expanded upon.

 

[tester]

Ok, for what it is worth, even as a catholic I can have a private interpetation of scripture. What it says to me, it must aling with church teaching and is only binding on me not the church as a whole. This goes for chruch teaching as well. …

So even though the Jams Akin quote in the OP says that you are NOT a privately e interpret Magisterial statement, you say that you can….

Ok so I and other Protestants CAN have private interpretation of scripture as long as it aligns with the rest of the Bible as a whole.

When a Protestant discusses the meaning of scriptures, Catholic have their quick reference list of issues where there are disagreements :

ex: from Joe370 from post # 8

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

So I have presented just two examples of disagreements over Magisterial statements;

Is eating meat of Fridays during Lent a mortal sin (Mortal sins are very bad, right?)
Does salvation require that we are to be “entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff”? (Requirements of Salivation are very important right?)

**You can list the Protestant disagreements on the meaning of Scripture and you ignore the Catholic disagreements onthe meaning of Magisterial or Papal proclamations

How is this not hypocrisy?**

 

[joe370]

Hey Tester…

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.

Okay…Tractor beam on…LOL…So your point is: we catholics cannot agree on our interpretation of those magisterial proclamations; is that your point? Got it…We all agree by the way. Give me an example of another catholic, today, who does not agree with what I have said about those proclamations?

There are main and plain things taught in the Bible that nearly all Believers (the Body of Christ = the Church) can agree on;

Agreed.

There are also difficult passages that that even Protestant believers of really strong faith do disagreements on.

Agreed.

There are main and plain thing taught by Papal proclamations and Magisterial statements that nearly all Catholics can agree on;

Agreed.

There are also difficult passages that that even Catholics of really strong faith do disagreements on.

For example, regarding difficult passages??? We must defer to the magisterial interpretation of the bible. We can choose to leave the CC if a doctrinal teaching is too tough. I won’t leave no matter what because I believe that the CC was founded by Jesus as opposed to me or another man.

Another example is during Lent, is violating the law of abstinence is a mortal sin?

Discipline as opposed to a teaching of Christ; got it. Your point is: catholics don’t all agree when it comes to this discipline? Agreed. That does not bother me, for it is not a doctrine found in the bible. That is a discipline that goes hand in hand with the binding and loosing of the church. Disciplines use to bother me, but not anymore.

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?”

Unanswered questions regarding doctrinal differences and doctrinal matters taught by Jesus in the bible as opposed to disciplines not found in the bible? Agreed.

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?

Catholics of really strong faith today agree on the meaning of those Papal proclamations and Magisterial statements and defer to them, and the Magisterium, but, they don’t always agree with church discipline. All catholics defer to the teaching of the CC regarding the interpretation of the bible; again, we can choose to reject the doctrines of the church, and choose to leave the church. Honestly I would not know where to go if I did leave. All catholics are not in agreement regarding church discipline, however, we do accept them.

I have already explained to you the difference between those catholics living in 1441 who lived at a time when there were no PC’s and those catholics living in 1994, living at a time where there are now hundreds of protestant churches, and the difference in thinking from then and now. It makes perfect sense to me. If it doesn’t to you, well, I respect that.

I do accept Protestants of really strong faith and the fact that they disagree on the meaning of Biblical passages, just as I accept catholics of really strong faith and the fact that they agree on the meaning of Biblical passages for the simple fact that we/they defer to the Magisterial guidance of the CC.This, and the fact that the CC was founded by Jesus, was what appealed to me as a former protestant.

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

I respect your opinion but strongly disagree.

Skip the layers and go to the source.

You mean the bible via private interpretation? I was not entrusted with the authority to make the final call regarding certain tough interpretations of the bible. I don’t think that you believe that you were either?

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,

I agree with Augustine 100% as does the CC. However, the bible as the Christians final authority cannot interpret itself. Jesus left us with a teaching church forever guided by the holy spirit to make the final call, and Augustine would agree.

Tester, I thought you did not embrace private interpretation as the Christians final authority? I thought we agreed that it was every authoritative church, regardless of denomination, that made the final authoritative decision vis-a-vis doctrine, in the end?

 

[tester]

Joe370 said

I was not entrusted with the authority to make the final call regarding certain tough interpretations of the bible

You are not entrusted with the authority to make the final call regarding certain tough interpretations of the Magisterium either!

That’s my point
How do you know YOU interpreted the Magisterium correctly?

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]

Tester…

]That’s my point
How do you know YOU interpreted the Magisterium correctly?
/]/

I am not sure what you mean? Are you questioning my ability to understand something the CC teaches?

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,…”

Exactly… We are free to interpret the bible as long as our interpretation agrees with the magisterial teaching of the CC.

 

[joe370]

Tester, it sounds like you are suggesting that private interpretation of the Christians one and only authority, (the bible) - is all any Christian needs to rely on; is that it?

 

[tester]

Tester, it sounds like you are suggesting that private interpretation of the Christians one and only authority, (the bible) - is all any Christian needs to rely on; is that it?

the above is off topic:
the below is on topic

When a Protestant discusses the meaning of scriptures, Catholic have their quick reference list of issues where there are disagreements :

You can list the Protestant disagreements on the meaning of Scripture and you ignore the Catholic disagreements on the meaning of Magisterial or Papal proclamations

How is this not hypocrisy?

 

[joe370]

Tester, you said:

How do you know YOU interpreted the Magisterium correctly?

When I go to the bible, as opposed to the Magisterial authority of the church, and see 2 polar opposite interpretations of the bible regarding the Eucharist, how do I know that my interpretation of the bible is correct?

 

[joe370]

…and you ignore the Catholic disagreements on the meaning of Magisterial or Papal proclamations

We all defer to the Catechism of the Catholic church…to the teachings of the CC regarding doctrine. I don’t know what you are talking about?

 

[Rocket_Man]

It is the same thing with the teaching of no salvation outside the church it need to be futher explained and expanded upon.

Exactly, why is there is confusion? What Catholic teacher am I to listen to when hearing the explanation?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

So even though the Jams Akin quote in the OP says that you are NOT a privately e interpret Magisterial statement, you say that you can….

Ok so I and other Protestants CAN have private interpretation of scripture as long as it aligns with the rest of the Bible as a whole.

When a Protestant discusses the meaning of scriptures, Catholic have their quick reference list of issues where there are disagreements :

ex: from Joe370 from post # 8

So I have presented just two examples of disagreements over Magisterial statements;

Is eating meat of Fridays during Lent a mortal sin (Mortal sins are very bad, right?)
Does salvation require that we are to be “entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff”? (Requirements of Salivation are very important right?)

**You can list the Protestant disagreements on the meaning of Scripture and you ignore the Catholic disagreements onthe meaning of Magisterial or Papal proclamations

How is this not hypocrisy?**

It is realy simple when my private interpatation is in conflict with the Chruch I am in error.
It is not Hypocrisy as if I interpet it in conflict to the Chruch I am wrong it is quite simple.

 

[tester]

Ok, for what it is worth, even as a catholic I can have a private interpetation of scripture. What it says to me, it must aling with church teaching and is only binding on me not the church as a whole. This goes for chruch teaching as well.

An example chruch teaching is that all fridays are days of pentence, and the norm is to abstain from meat. Around 30 or so years ago the church also says that the Bishop can have another standard penence for his diocesee. I mean really how much of a pence is not eating meat and eating seafood for some in living on the coast? I am free to continue with friday abstinance of meat as it is the norm, but I am not free to proclaim that one that chooses something else is wronge. What the church did is realize that abstaining from meat is not really a sacrifice for some. It did not change the disipline it explained and expanded it.
.

A perfect example of what I mean:

The above is your interpretation: Below is James Akin’s

They are NOT in agreement.

jimmyakin.org/2004/04/meat_on_lenten_.html

Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?
A common question at this time of year is whether or not deliberately violating the law of abstinence is a mortal sin.
It is
Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin.

If you are both getting your interpretation from the Magisterium or the CCC how do you resolve your disagreement?

 

[tester]

It is realy simple when my private interpatation is in conflict with the Chruch I am in error.
It is not Hypocrisy as if I interpet it in conflict to the Chruch I am wrong it is quite simple.

Great: now in the SAME way:

When a Protestant’s private interpretation is in conflict with the Bible, they are in error.

 

[tester]

We all defer to the Catechism of the Catholic church…to the teachings of the CC regarding doctrine. I don’t know what you are talking about?

Would that be this Catechism?

• Council of Trent commissioned the Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Council of Trent, published 1566) to expound doctrine and to improve the theological understanding of the clergy.*

Or this one?
*
Editions of the Baltimore Catechism were the de facto standard Catholic school text in America from 1885 to the late 1960s*

Or this one?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC) is the official text of the teachings of the Catholic Church. A provisional, “reference text” was issued by Pope John Paul II on October 11, 1992

Are they all in agreement?

Some “traditionalist Catholics” argue that statements made in CCC conflict with past Catholic teachings on many topics, ." -wiki

So are the beliefs of some of “traditionalist Catholics” wrong and confused?

Would the “traditionalist Catholics” say that the beliefs of Joe370 are true and clear?

Were the Catholics in 1957 who later became Sedevacantists after Vatican II interpreting the Magisterium or or CCC the same way as Joe370?

Joe370 you say that you left Protestantism for the Catholic Church because of the un- answered questions about which is the correct Biblical interpretation and by what authority.

The Catholic Church as the same questions about Magisterial interpretations.

You left for the greener grass on the other side; but all you got was the same green grass, just with different types of weeds.

 

[joe370]

Great: now in the SAME way:

When a Protestant’s private interpretation is in conflict with the Bible, they are in error.

Tester, how does a protestant know if his/her interpretation is erroneously in conflict with the bible? This question is no more off topic than your statement.

 

[joe370]

Tester…

Would that be this Catechism?

• Council of Trent commissioned the Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Council of Trent, published 1566) to expound doctrine and to improve the theological understanding of the clergy.*

Or this one?
*
Editions of the Baltimore Catechism were the de facto standard Catholic school text in America from 1885 to the late 1960s*

Or this one?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC) is the official text of the teachings of the Catholic Church. A provisional, “reference text” was issued by Pope John Paul II on October 11, 1992

Are they all in agreement?

Some “traditionalist Catholics” argue that statements made in CCC conflict with past Catholic teachings on many topics, ." -wiki

Today we defer to the CCC. Yesterday they deferred to a different catechism. In the end, regardless of the time period, catholics must defer to the CC Magisterium, which has the final authority to interpret the holy bible and resolve doctrinal issues and implement certain disciplines.

Traditional catholics should defer to Magisterial authority. It does not matter if the “traditionalist Catholics” would say that the beliefs of Joe370 are true and clear. Both should defer to the authority of the CC.

The catholics in 1957 who later became Sedevacantists should have deferred to the authority of the CC leadership just as Joe 370 does.

Joe370 you say that you left Protestantism for the Catholic Church because of the un- answered questions about which is the correct Biblical interpretation and by what authority.

Yup that was why I left the chaotic world of protestantism. No protestant church has any authority, for the bible was/is the Christians final authority via private interpretation, and I was not entrusted with said authority and I wanted to defer to the church founded by God that was entrusted with said authority.

The Catholic Church as the same questions about Magisterial interpretations.

Not at all. If a catholic wants to reject a teaching of the CC, as protestants do, regarding the church to which they belong, they can, just as protestants can, but they cannot continue to belong to the CC. Can the protestant continue to belong to the protestant church if their beliefs clash with the teaching authority of the protestant church? I like that idea of deferring to the church, just as Paul commanded. A church founded by God, in charge, just as God’s church was in charge in the very beginning appeals to me.

You left for the greener grass on the other side; but all you got was the same green grass, just with different types of weeds.

I respectfully disagree, but feel free to believe that if it pleases you. Every Christian belonging to the CC, must defer to the authority of the CC if they want to belong to the CC. Just because the members belonging to the CC disagree, means nothing. In the end they must both take their differences to the authority of the CC for resolution. The one that is wrong can stick around or they can leave. This system works and it preserves unity, and the only reason why I defer to the CC is because I believe the CC is the church founded by God. You disagree and that’s cool.

For me as a former protestant, Protestantism was/is a free for all, and that is not for me, at all…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Great: now in the SAME way:

When a Protestant’s private interpretation is in conflict with the Bible, they are in error.

Yes but who decides if they are in conflict with the Bible?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Would that be this Catechism?

• Council of Trent commissioned the Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Council of Trent, published 1566) to expound doctrine and to improve the theological understanding of the clergy.*

Or this one?
*
Editions of the Baltimore Catechism were the de facto standard Catholic school text in America from 1885 to the late 1960s*

Or this one?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC) is the official text of the teachings of the Catholic Church. A provisional, “reference text” was issued by Pope John Paul II on October 11, 1992

Are they all in agreement?

Some “traditionalist Catholics” argue that statements made in CCC conflict with past Catholic teachings on many topics, ." -wiki

So are the beliefs of some of “traditionalist Catholics” wrong and confused?

Would the “traditionalist Catholics” say that the beliefs of Joe370 are true and clear?

Were the Catholics in 1957 who later became Sedevacantists after Vatican II interpreting the Magisterium or or CCC the same way as Joe370?

Joe370 you say that you left Protestantism for the Catholic Church because of the un- answered questions about which is the correct Biblical interpretation and by what authority.

The Catholic Church as the same questions about Magisterial interpretations.

You left for the greener grass on the other side; but all you got was the same green grass, just with different types of weeds.

Tester, heres the thing, it matters not what any one individual catholic says. be it Mr. Atkins ( whom I do respect), or me or another poster here. It all goes back to the church.

It matters not if some Trads on here say that latter catechism is in conflict with an eariler ones the church says that they are not.

 

[tester]

Tester, heres the thing, it matters not what any one individual catholic says. be it Mr. Atkins ( whom I do respect), or me or another poster here. It all goes back to the church.

It matters not if some Trads on here say that latter catechism is in conflict with an eariler ones the church says that they are not.

Actually here’s the thing.

When Protestants state they it “all goes back to the Bible”
Catholics point out the disagreements between Protestants about the Bible.
As if that was the worst thing ever.

When Catholics state they it "all goes back to the Church "
Catholics ignore the disagreements between Catholics about the Church.
As if it doesn’t matter

 

[joe370]

Actually here’s the thing.

When Protestants state they it “all goes back to the Bible”
Catholics point out the disagreements between Protestants about the Bible.
As if that wws the worst thing ever.

When Catholics state they it "all goes back to the Church "
Catholics ignore the disagreements between Catholics about the Church.
As if it doesn’t matter

The protestants that insist that it all goes back to the bible, ignore the disagreements that exist, caused by deference to the bible, and said disagreements have divided and continues to divide the protestant sphere, and that really bothered me as a former protestant. There is no church to leave in the protestant sphere, for no one church claims any authority, and that is why so many churches exist in the protestant sphere, and division ensues.

The catholics that insist that it all goes back to the church founded by Jesus, ignore the disagreements that exist, caused by deference to the church, but said disagreements have not divided and continues to not divide the catholic sphere, and that really appeals to me. People can leave the CC but the CC continues to be one and united.