Private Judgment and the Magisterium

[joe370]

Tester, what if the following, was referring to the CC as in, the cc comprised of both the CC and all PC’s?

1441 AD - “outside the Catholic Church (small c, including all churches) - not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire”

Would you believe that all pagans, Jews and schismatics go to hell?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

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

It is not that we ignore the disagrements about what the church is saying, It just may take awhile to get the church to clearify it. Next you did not answer who decides if they are in conflict with the Bible?

I mean if I read it in the bible and that is what I think it says and means and you say it say and means something else were do we go?

 

[tester]

so it’s different beliefs under one roof vs. different beliefs under different roofs?

Is it possible 300 years from now that the traditionalist Catholics prevail and Vatican II is over turned?

Is it possible in the future, that this period of Catholic history (like other periods) will be viewed as having needed to be “adjusted”?

 

[joe370]

I addressed that issue; what is your answer to my question?

so it’s different beliefs under one roof vs. different beliefs under different roofs?

Is it possible 300 years from now that the traditionalist Catholics prevail and Vatican II is over turned?

Is it possible in the future, that this period of Catholic history (like other periods) will be viewed as having needed to be “adjusted”?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

so it’s different beliefs under one roof vs. different beliefs under different roofs?

Is it possible 300 years from now that the traditionalist Catholics prevail and Vatican II is over turned?

Is it possible in the future, that this period of Catholic history (like other periods) will be viewed as having needed to be “adjusted”?

I am not sure I follow you? What in docturine did the Vatican II councel over turn for past docturine? Disipline may change in the future. One day preist may be able to marry that kind of thing. Docturine does not change. So yes disiplines and small t tradition may change, but Doturine and Capitaol Traditions do not.

 

[joe370]

Tester, that article by James is about the discipline of not eating meat… It has nothing to do with a doctrine found in the bible, and even if the private judgment of catholics don’t agree with this discipline catholics are bound to defer to this discipline and they/we do.

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]

Tester, that article by James is about the discipline of not eating meat… It has nothing to do with a doctrine found in the bible, and even if the private judgment of catholics don’t agree with this discipline catholics are bound to defer to this discipline and they/we do.

“Is eating meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?
It is”
-James Akin

Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.”

therefore…If you are eating Meat On Lenten Fridays and die you will immediately descend into hell.
That seem important, right?

The practice of not eating meat of Fridays may be a discipline but the result is a doctrine.

“immediately descend into hell” seem a bit stronger than a discipline;
but again this thread is NOT about the proclamations : it is about the fact that different Catholics interpret them differently.

reading the older catechisms ; did Catholics reach the the same conclusion regrading Limbo as you? did their private interpretation differ from yours on the eternal state of unbaptized babies? that seem important, right?

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

That my friend is hypocrisy.

Why is it acceptable to answer that you are correct if your interpretation agrees with the the church has a whole?

But it is unacceptable to to answer that Protestants are correct if their interpretation agrees with the the Bible has a whole?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

“Is eating meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?
It is”
-James Akin

Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.”

therefore…If you are eating Meat On Lenten Fridays and die you will immediately descend into hell.
That seem important, right?

The practice of not eating meat of Fridays may be a discipline but the result is a doctrine.

“immediately descend into hell” seem a bit stronger than a discipline;
but again this thread is NOT about the proclamations : it is about the fact that different Catholics interpret them differently.

reading the older catechisms ; did Catholics reach the the same conclusion regrading Limbo as you? did their private interpretation differ from yours on the eternal state of unbaptized babies? that seem important, right?

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

That my friend is hypocrisy.

Why is it acceptable to answer that you are correct if your interpretation agrees with the the church has a whole?

But it is unacceptable to to answer that Protestants are correct if their interpretation agrees with the the Bible has a whole?

Your question has been answered if catholic are in disagreement it goes back to the church and the church desides if one or both are wrong and will clearify what the correct answer is.

AS to the disicipline on frindays it is and never was about the eating of meat. It is and was about Friday being a day of penence, to which abstaining from meat was and is the universal norm. However, the church has clearifed that in places were meat is not a everyday part of meals and normally not eat eaten but maybe one or 2 days a week, or in places that abond in seafood (fish/seafood being the number one substute for meat) that the bishop of that area can prescribe another form of penence there.

As to Limbo, The chruch as taugh always the the unbptized can not go to Heaven. thus the teaching of limbo, The church has clearied that Limbo is not so much a place, but that we do not know how God deals with this situtaton.

You have not answered the question of if two Protestants disagree and go back to the bible and can support their stance from the bible how do you know which is correct? Wait never mind we do know how it settled for protestants, they go out and start another denomination.

 

[joe370]

OneGODoneCHURCH has answered your question and I agree with him. One last time: if I agree with the CC then I defer to the CC; if I don’t agree with the CC then I still defer to the CC for the simple fact that I believe that the CC is the church founded by Jesus.

We answer your questions but you completely ignore our questions. Wonder why that is???

“Is eating meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?
It is”
-James Akin

Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.”

therefore…If you are eating Meat On Lenten Fridays and die you will immediately descend into hell.
That seem important, right?

The practice of not eating meat of Fridays may be a discipline but the result is a doctrine.

“immediately descend into hell” seem a bit stronger than a discipline;
but again this thread is NOT about the proclamations : it is about the fact that different Catholics interpret them differently.

reading the older catechisms ; did Catholics reach the the same conclusion regrading Limbo as you? did their private interpretation differ from yours on the eternal state of unbaptized babies? that seem important, right?

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

That my friend is hypocrisy.

Why is it acceptable to answer that you are correct if your interpretation agrees with the the church has a whole?

But it is unacceptable to to answer that Protestants are correct if their interpretation agrees with the the Bible has a whole?

 

[tester]

OneGODoneCHURCH has answered your question and I agree with him. One last time: if I agree with the CC then I defer to the CC; if I don’t agree with the CC then I still defer to the CC for the simple fact that I believe that the CC is the church founded by Jesus.

We answer your questions but you completely ignore our questions. Wonder why that is???

If I agree with the Bible then I defer to the Bible; if I don’t agree with the Bible then I still defer to the Bible for the simple fact that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

*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*

I can basically swap the words “Church” and “Bible” and we move from the Catholic viewpoint to the Protestant viewpoint.

Either I am failing to see the distinction or you are failing to see the similarity.

the answer to the question: “which interpretation of the Bible is right” is: the interpretation that the Bible gives to itself. Whether this interpretation agrees or not with the denominations or the traditions this must not have any significance for you. For you what must have significance is to study to show yourself approved to God and to do this you must search for the interpretation that the Bible gives to itself.

Now , You rashly attribute the differences of opinions among Christians to ‘Sola Sciptura’ - namely, the Protestant belief that the Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of Christian doctrine.

The fault is not in the Scripture but in the human heart. We need to distinguish between two basic facts. Firstly, the Bible is perspicuous (clear, understandable) - it is not some mysterious book that cannot be understood by common ordinary Christians. Otherwise why would the apostles address their epistles to them rather than the magisterium? Secondly, the human nature is such that people can misunderstand even the simplest of matters. This is true of Christians – even the apostles were hard to understand! – and it is even more so in the case of unregenerate people whose hearts are darkened.

So, it is unfair to say that since Christians have disagreements between themselves, and since they study the same Bible, the Bible is not clear. The problem is not with the Bible but with us.

You have not answered the question of if two Protestants disagree and go back to the bible and can support their stance from the bible how do you know which is correct? Wait never mind we do know how it settled for protestants, they go out and start another denomination.

The apparent unity of the Catholic Church is illusory, as any informed Catholic would know. The unity is structural and organizational, but there are serious divisions at all levels, especially between the more liberal and conservative Catholics. Take the charismatic movement for an example. In Protestant circles, Charismatics form separate denominations (and so the distinction from other denominations is obvious). Whereas in the Catholic church, the charismatic groups remain under the Roman umbrella. Their differences from non-charismatic Catholics are hidden though they are just as real as in Protestant churches.

Evangelicals consider the Bible as their highest authority while Catholics submit to the magisterium. In theory there is a unifying principle in both camps. In practice, we find an assortment of opinions and beliefs within both groups.

You might respond that the disagreements and discord among Catholics is not the fault of the Catholic authority since the teaching of the magisterium is plain enough. You might add that there is a need to teach Catholics more clearly to correct their misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. You might also say that some Catholics are willingly disobedient to the teaching of the Church.

In principle, the same is true for evangelical Christians.

The doctrinal differences among Christians are not due to our authority (the Bible) but due to the limitations and sinfulness of the human heart.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

If I agree with the Bible then I defer to the Bible; if I don’t agree with the Bible then I still defer to the Bible for the simple fact that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

*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*

I can basically swap the words “Church” and “Bible” and we move from the Catholic viewpoint to the Protestant viewpoint.

Either I am failing to see the distinction or you are failing to see the similarity.

the answer to the question: “which interpretation of the Bible is right” is: the interpretation that the Bible gives to itself. Whether this interpretation agrees or not with the denominations or the traditions this must not have any significance for you. For you what must have significance is to study to show yourself approved to God and to do this you must search for the interpretation that the Bible gives to itself.

Now , You rashly attribute the differences of opinions among Christians to ‘Sola Sciptura’ - namely, the Protestant belief that the Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of Christian doctrine.

The fault is not in the Scripture but in the human heart. We need to distinguish between two basic facts. Firstly, the Bible is perspicuous (clear, understandable) - it is not some mysterious book that cannot be understood by common ordinary Christians. Otherwise why would the apostles address their epistles to them rather than the magisterium? Secondly, the human nature is such that people can misunderstand even the simplest of matters. This is true of Christians – even the apostles were hard to understand! – and it is even more so in the case of unregenerate people whose hearts are darkened.

So, it is unfair to say that since Christians have disagreements between themselves, and since they study the same Bible, the Bible is not clear. The problem is not with the Bible but with us.

The apparent unity of the Catholic Church is illusory, as any informed Catholic would know. The unity is structural and organizational, but there are serious divisions at all levels, especially between the more liberal and conservative Catholics. Take the charismatic movement for an example. In Protestant circles, Charismatics form separate denominations (and so the distinction from other denominations is obvious). Whereas in the Catholic church, the charismatic groups remain under the Roman umbrella. Their differences from non-charismatic Catholics are hidden though they are just as real as in Protestant churches.

Evangelicals consider the Bible as their highest authority while Catholics submit to the magisterium. In theory there is a unifying principle in both camps. In practice, we find an assortment of opinions and beliefs within both groups.

You might respond that the disagreements and discord among Catholics is not the fault of the Catholic authority since the teaching of the magisterium is plain enough. You might add that there is a need to teach Catholics more clearly to correct their misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. You might also say that some Catholics are willingly disobedient to the teaching of the Church.

In principle, the same is true for evangelical Christians.

The doctrinal differences among Christians are not due to our authority (the Bible) but due to the limitations and sinfulness of the human heart.

I will tackle the question of charismatic. they are in full union and support of the church those that are charismatic do not say all should or must be. I have never heard a non charismatic catholic say that charismatics or not catholic so I do not get your point. Charismatic catholic openly embrace those gifts stated in the Bible non charismatic do not deny those gift just have never experianed them first had.

You can not state that going back to the Bible alone and going to the church (which combines, Scripture, Tradition, and the Magiterium) is in any way the same as a protestant stating they defer to the bible alone. As when catholic disagree over a matter of what the bible says or what the Tradition is, or even what the Magisterium is teaching we can go to the church and ask for clarification. the person in error is still free to remain in error if he/she chooses.

Contrast this with the Bible only chirstians that disagree on what it is that the bible says. To whom do they go to settle it? By what authority does that person have to settle it.

You are trying to compare apple and oranges and you can not.

We all agree that not all catholic agree on everything, But when it comes to Docturine what the chruch teaches today is the same as it always has. For docturine can not Change.

What you keep failing to see is there is no authority to correct the protestant if they are wronge on what the Bible says. If they decide that what the powers that be in their denom says is wrong according to the way they interpet the Bible they are free to go and start their own “chruch” and who can say they are wronge? For we are told by protestants that we are all as believers able to discern what is true from scripture.

 

[joe370]

=tester;7223310]If I agree with the Bible then I defer to the Bible; if I don’t agree with the Bible then I still defer to the Bible for the simple fact that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

When you and I cannot agree regarding the bible we both defer to the bible and the bible simply does not resolve our differences. What or who can resolve our differences?

*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*

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.

Either I am failing to see the distinction or you are failing to see the similarity.

I am failing to see the similarity.

t

he answer to the question: “which interpretation of the Bible is right” is: the interpretation that the Bible gives to itself.

What???

Whether this interpretation agrees or not with the denominations or the traditions this must not have any significance for you. For you what must have significance is to study to show yourself approved to God and to do this you must search for the interpretation that the Bible gives to itself.

Private interpretation is the answer???

Now , You rashly attribute the differences of opinions among Christians to ‘Sola Sciptura’ - namely, the Protestant belief that the Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of Christian doctrine.

The fault is not in the Scripture but in the human heart. We need to distinguish between two basic facts. Firstly, the Bible is perspicuous (clear, understandable) - it is not some mysterious book that cannot be understood by common ordinary Christians.

If it so clear then why can’t you and I agree on certain things found in the bible? Am I right? are you right? Who knows.

Otherwise why would the apostles address their epistles to them rather than the magisterium?

Magister means teacher and the apostles were the first magisters. You completely ignore the fact that Paul said: obey your leaders and defer to their authority. Why didn’t Paul say: obey the epistles and defer to them?

Secondly, the human nature is such that people can misunderstand even the simplest of matters. This is true of Christians – even the apostles were hard to understand! – and it is even more so in the case of unregenerate people whose hearts are darkened.

Agreed.

So, it is unfair to say that since Christians have disagreements between themselves, and since they study the same Bible, the Bible is not clear. The problem is not with the Bible but with us.

Agreed.

The apparent unity of the Catholic Church is illusory, as any informed Catholic would know.

Disagree.

The unity is structural and organizational, but there are serious divisions at all levels, especially between the more liberal and conservative Catholics.

Both liberal and conservative catholics must defer to the authority of the church, in the end, and if they choose to disagree with the CC then they can leave the church. The CC is one and united for the simple fact that every catholic, in the end, defers to the teaching office (Magisterium) - of the CC.

Take the charismatic movement for an example. In Protestant circles, Charismatics form separate denominations (and so the distinction from other denominations is obvious). Whereas in the Catholic church, the charismatic groups remain under the Roman umbrella. Their differences from non-charismatic Catholics are hidden though they are just as real as in Protestant churches.

So your point is: Charismatics in the CC do not defer to the authority of the CC? Not true…

Evangelicals consider the Bible as their highest authority while Catholics submit to the magisterium.

Evangelicals consider the Bible as their highest authority via private interpretation, all the while teaching truth from their pulpits.

Catholics submit to the magisters of the CC just as Paul commanded.

In theory there is a unifying principle in both camps. In practice, we find an assortment of opinions and beliefs within both groups.

Agreed. When it comes to sola scriptura via private interpretation, those assortment of opinions and beliefs cause division because, in the end, each and every sola scriptura advocate is his/her final authority. Not so in the CC.

The doctrinal differences among Christians are not due to our authority (the Bible) but due to the limitations and sinfulness of the human heart.

It is due to private interpretation being the be all end all when it comes to authority.

 

[joe370]

Exactly Scott.

I will tackle the question of charismatic. they are in full union and support of the church those that are charismatic do not say all should or must be. I have never heard a non charismatic catholic say that charismatics or not catholic so I do not get your point. Charismatic catholic openly embrace those gifts stated in the Bible non charismatic do not deny those gift just have never experianed them first had.

You can not state that going back to the Bible alone and going to the church (which combines, Scripture, Tradition, and the Magiterium) is in any way the same as a protestant stating they defer to the bible alone. As when catholic disagree over a matter of what the bible says or what the Tradition is, or even what the Magisterium is teaching we can go to the church and ask for clarification. the person in error is still free to remain in error if he/she chooses.

Contrast this with the Bible only chirstians that disagree on what it is that the bible says. To whom do they go to settle it? By what authority does that person have to settle it.

You are trying to compare apple and oranges and you can not.

We all agree that not all catholic agree on everything, But when it comes to Docturine what the chruch teaches today is the same as it always has. For docturine can not Change.

What you keep failing to see is there is no authority to correct the protestant if they are wronge on what the Bible says. If they decide that what the powers that be in their denom says is wrong according to the way they interpet the Bible they are free to go and start their own “chruch” and who can say they are wronge? For we are told by protestants that we are all as believers able to discern what is true from scripture.

 

[tester]

Can Catholics privately interpret the Bile?
No; Only the Magisterium can.

Can Catholics privately interpret Papal or Magisterium statements?
No; Only the Magisterium can.

What do you do when one Catholic thinks the Magisterium means “A,B,&C” and another Catholic thinks it means “not A,B,&C”
Go to your priest, or to bishops? These forums have pointed out that priests and bishops have been wrong. Can priests and bishops privately interpret Papal or Magisterium statements? No; Only the Magisterium can.
Who infallibly interprets the Magisterium? Only the Magisterium can.

And when the Bible says that A,B,&C are true, the Magisterium “clarifies” it by stating that not A,B,&C are true.

For example:
In the context of all of mankind, when the Bible says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” the Magisterium “clarifies” the Word of God saying that it didn’t mean “all”.

What you keep failing to see is there is no authority to correct the protestant

What you keep failing to see is there is no authority to correct the Magisterium?
because only the Magisterium can interpret the Magisterium.

From the Protestant perspective : it appears as if the The Word of God as contained in the Scared Scriptures, does not have the authority to correct the Magisterium.
but it is the the Magisterium that corrects the Word of God.

It is the Protestant perspective that the Magisterium infallibly claims that the Bible inerrantly claims that the Magisterium is infallible.

Please clarify that misunderstanding.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

First of all the Magisterium is never in conflict with Scripture or Traditition.
Secondly what ever the Magisterium teaches must be in union with Traditition and Scripture it is a tree legs stool that the Chruch is supported upon. now i will try to tackle each of your staments .

=tester;7223980]Can Catholics privately interpret the Bile?
No; Only the Magisterium can.

Not entirely true. In reading of the Bible I am perfectly free to have a private revelation fromit from God to me. I am not free to say that is what god is saying for the whole. Just me at that time.

Can Catholics privately interpret Papal or Magisterium statements?
No; Only the Magisterium can.

Correct as it regauds to Docturine and the Morals and faith of the Church.

What do you do when one Catholic thinks the Magisterium means “A,B,&C” and another Catholic thinks it means “not A,B,&C”
Go to your priest, or to bishops? These forums have pointed out that priests and bishops have been wrong. Can priests and bishops privately interpret Papal or Magisterium statements? No; Only the Magisterium can.

That is correct, but you must also keep in mind that each bishop has a lot of controle in his diocesse on how things are done, As long as it does not comeing to conflict with the Universal teaching and norms.

Who infallibly interprets the Magisterium? Only the Magisterium can.

Wronge, Scriture and Traditition are the guadians of the Magisterium.

And when the Bible says that A,B,&C are true, the Magisterium “clarifies” it by stating that not A,B,&C are true.

Does not happen. What can happen is some say that the Bible says A B and C are true. That may or may not be the case.

For example:
In the context of all of mankind, when the Bible says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” the Magisterium “clarifies” the Word of God saying that it didn’t mean “all”.

Really?

What you keep failing to see is there is no authority to correct the Magisterium?
because only the Magisterium can interpret the Magisterium.

See above statments

From the Protestant perspective : it appears as if the The Word of God as contained in the Scared Scriptures, does not have the authority to correct the Magisterium. but it is the the Magisterium that corrects the Word of God.

And that is because the protestant is loking at things from a perpective the the Magisterium is wrong to begin with and not truely looking at how the # wook together.

It is the Protestant perspective that the Magisterium infallibly claims that the Bible inerrantly claims that the Magisterium is infallible.

Yes. That is also the Catholic stance.

But you have yet answered my question.

 

[joe370]

Can Catholics privately interpret the Bile?
No; Only the Magisterium can.

Yes, we can interpret the bible, but in the end, when there is confusion, we defer to the authority of the CC. Tester, do you believe that each and every Christian has the final authority to privately interpret scripture? Yes or no? If yes then you are your own magister, just as every other protestant who agrees with you, is his/her own magister.

Can Catholics privately interpret Papal or Magisterium statements?
No; Only the Magisterium can.

Jesus did not entrust me with the authority to interpret Papal or Magisterium statements.

What do you do when one Catholic thinks the Magisterium means “A,B,&C” and another Catholic thinks it means “not A,B,&C”

In the end, they both defer to the authority of the Magisterium regarding “A,B,&C.”

Go to your priest, or to bishops? These forums have pointed out that priests and bishops have been wrong. Can priests and bishops privately interpret Papal or Magisterium statements? No; Only the Magisterium can.

Exactly…Protestant pastors on the other hand, defer to no one but their own private interpretation which leads to division. They are their own magisters deferring to no one but their bibles, all the while hypocritically teaching and interpreting from the pulpit.

Who infallibly interprets the Magisterium? Only the Magisterium can.

I believe that the holy spirit is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth. If this is not true then the CC magisters could be wrong, which means that they could have been wrong about other things such as the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible. For the first 300 years of Christianity, 7 books of the NT were doubted as to their authenticity in certain parts, and that was why the councils of the CC convoked; they settled the matter once and for all.

And when the Bible says that A,B,&C are true, the Magisterium “clarifies” it by stating that not A,B,&C are true.

For example:
In the context of all of mankind, when the Bible says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” the Magisterium “clarifies” the Word of God saying that it didn’t mean “all”.

Prove it???

Quote:
What you keep failing to see is there is no authority to correct the protestant

No, I see it…and that is why I am no longer a protestant.

What you keep failing to see is there is no authority to correct the Magisterium?

Covered this…

From the Protestant perspective : it appears as if the The Word of God as contained in the Scared Scriptures, does not have the authority to correct the Magisterium.

How can a bunch of infallible books, which cannot speak, correct the Magisterium? They are just infallible books; people correct people; books cannot correct people. Which people out their in the world, have the authority to privately interpret scripture and then correct the Magisterium??? Either you subscribe to private interpretation of the word of God or you defer to church authority, just as Paul commanded; which is it?

but it is the the Magisterium that corrects the Word of God.

That’s silly. Th word of God does not need correcting. What the word of God needs is someone to correctly interpret it. You say this is to be the job of each and every Christian via private interpretation and I disagree. No biggie…

It is the Protestant perspective that the Magisterium infallibly claims that the Bible inerrantly claims that the Magisterium is infallible.

The Magisters of the CC are not infallible, as I have said a thousand times here at CAF. The CC magisters are fallible people, just as the apostles were fallible, and they are guided by the HS into all truth regarding doctrine. God did not leave the world with no means to know the truth about his infallible teachings, and I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to discern truth when truth gives way to multiple interpretations, nor were you or any other person outside the church founded by God and which was told to do this:

"…you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely** I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”**

 

[Matorin]

How can a bunch of infallible books, which cannot speak, correct the Magisterium? They are just infallible books; people correct people; books cannot correct people. Which people out their in the world, have the authority to privately interpret scripture and then correct the Magisterium??? Either you subscribe to private interpretation of the word of God or you defer to church authority, just as Paul commanded; which is it?
:

WOAH, WHAT? I think we need to make sure we have the same understanding of the “Word of God” here, what being “God-breathed” means for the scriptures, and the difference of canon being created and being recognized (that is, the eternal nature of the Word of God). Why does Paul say that the scriptures are good for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness? He says that it is alive and active. He says (and I quote) "[it is] able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. " First off, the bible is not “a bunch of infallible books.” It is the unified Word of God. The Bible CAN correct people. Take a look at this link, and it might clear up some misconceptions that you have gained from diatribes against protestants

biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_spirit_zuck.html

 

[joe370]

Matorin;7224875]WOAH, WHAT? I think we need to make sure we have the same understanding of the “Word of God” here, what being “God-breathed” means for the scriptures, and the difference of canon being created and being recognized (that is, the eternal nature of the Word of God). Why does Paul say that the scriptures are good for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness? He says that it is alive and active. He says (and I quote) "[it is] able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. " First off, the bible is not “a bunch of infallible books.” It is the unified Word of God. The Bible CAN correct people. Take a look at this link, and it might clear up some misconceptions that you have gained from diatribes against protestants

Diatribes against protestants??? Clearly you do not know me; if you did you would know how ridiculous that statement really is…

Paul said those things because the bible is all of those things. I was not entrusted with the final authority to interpret the word of God, which is God breathed and neither were you or Roy B. Zuck. Who was entrusted with that authority Matorin?

 

[pablope]

WOAH, WHAT? I think we need to make sure we have the same understanding of the “Word of God” here, what being “God-breathed” means for the scriptures, and the difference of canon being created and being recognized (that is, the eternal nature of the Word of God). Why does Paul say that the scriptures are good for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness? He says that it is alive and active. He says (and I quote) "[it is] able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. " First off, the bible is not “a bunch of infallible books.” It is the unified Word of God. The Bible CAN correct people. Take a look at this link, and it might clear up some misconceptions that you have gained from diatribes against protestants

biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_spirit_zuck.html

The Bible CAN correct people.

How? Can the Bible speak and spank a miscreant?
That is why there is the Magisterium of the CC.

Think US Constitution…there is the US Supreme Court to interpret the us constitution and decide matters of constitutionality.When it decides, every citizen follows. Why? Because it is respected. Also, the SC has a Chief Justice…you know why?

 

[Matorin]

Paul said those things because the bible is all of those things. I was not entrusted with the final authority to interpret the word of God, which is God breathed and neither were you or Roy B. Zuck. Who was entrusted with that authority Matorin?

Oh I’m not getting into this debate by any means. And I apologize if my words were misconstrued, I meant if your opinions on Protestant interpretation of the bible were formed by other people railing on Protestants, specifically Catholics on this forum, your views might be a little different from what they actually believe. No one likes a straw man.

I felt you were disrespecting the Word of God by calling it “a bunch of infallible books” and claiming that it could not correct people. You most likely were not, but that’s just how it came across to me. If I called the pope “just an old guy” that would not be giving him the respect he deserves, yeh? A sinner does not need the Magisterium to interpret the gospel message: the Holy Spirit can do just fine himself. In deep matters of theology, I think, is where the discussion usually goes toward. But no, Joe and Pablope, I am not here to argument a Protestant view of biblical hermeneutics because it is a bit pointless. You won’t change my mind, and I won’t change yours because I’m sure we have both heard the arguments for either side and decided. Again, I’ll depend on the Holy Spirit, and not myself or anyone else, to convict our hearts of the truth. Maybe he’ll even do it through his written Word, eh?