sola scriptura

[PRmerger]

You are really unhelpful. Where’s PRMerger?

Here I am.

I can’t say that I disagree with anything that my friend guanophore says.

Although I do wish to acknowledge that I don’t think you are being recusant to obedience. I think you just have been duped into believing some man made traditions… You have heard a pastor proclaim something, who heard another pastor proclaim it, who heard another pastor proclaim it…but none of them ever read these man-made traditions in a single page of the Bible.

And I posit that you probably never really considered this most trenchant (and unarguable position): you cannot know what’s inspired and what’s not inspired, except through submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Pope. Government style organization.

I think you can see the fruit of what happens when there is no pope and no “government style organization.”

We have the obscenity (and yes, I mean exactly that: it is an obscenity) of tens of thousands of differing denominations, offering doctrinal chaos and confusion.

Each Christian who has read the Bible, decides that he disagrees with what another man claims the Bible means, can start something that looks like this,



simply because there is no pope or authority to tell him: “No, this is what you must believe in order to be in conformity with the faith delivered, once for all, to the saints.”

That, frankly, is just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

 

[joe370]

I think you can see the fruit of what happens when there is no pope and no “government style organization.”

We have the obscenity (and yes, I mean exactly that: it is an obscenity) of tens of thousands of differing denominations, offering doctrinal chaos and confusion.

Each Christian who has read the Bible, decides that he disagrees with what another man claims the Bible means, can start something that looks like this,

http://www.fadingad.com/blog/brooklyn/eastern_pkwy_holiness.jpg

simply because there is no pope or authority to tell him: “No, this is what you must believe in order to be in conformity with the faith delivered, once for all, to the saints.”

That, frankly, is just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

:sad_yes:Sola scriptura + church founder e.g. authoritative interpreter of scripture = never-ending doctrinal division. It’s, sadly, just that simple.

 

[CopticChristian]

The church that holds to His commandments. If you aspire to follow the pattern of the new testament and are baptized for the remission of sins in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, then you are a part of that church.

It’s kind of like how you guys say that when you are baptized properly you are a part of the body of Christ even if you aren’t attending a catholic church and confirmed.

The body of Christ persists beyond earthly institutions. If it didn’t then I’d think there would have been a huge problem in the middle ages when the catholic church was considerably corrupt.
Admittedly, part of why I’m on this forum (and have been trying to research myself) is the necessity of an unbroken chain of succession or if anyone baptized properly and striving to follow the commandments is sufficient.

Traverse,

You are wrong and do not understand the translation of the book you cannot prove is Scripture…

Jesus said that there would always be Wheat and Chaff…and while you may want to think and believe as you were taught, because you can’t find this in the Bible or any Translation you cannot prove is Scripture…

“a huge problem when in the middle ages when the catholic church was considerably corrupt”

The Church was never and has never been corrupt. There is corruption within the Body of Christ because there are people.

Correct your thinking and understand what Jesus taught. Was he lying when He said He would build a Church? Was He lying when He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? Was He lying when He said that there would be Wheat and Chaff…?

Where in the Translation of the Book you cannot prove is Scripture did you learn that the Catholic Church was corrupt at anytime? If you did not learn this in this book, you are passing on a Protestant Oral Tradition.

 

[pablope]

I haven’t rejected that God has investment in preserving His Word. I’ve said that the bible is His Word.

It doesn’t deny any of those things.

Well obviously I don’t think I have a fragment right now. I would not be content with a fragment. But you have not sufficiently explained to me how I have a fragment.

.

Before protestants came to the scene, Christianity had only one way of worship…the Mass or Divine Liturgy, had the saints, the Real Presence, oral confession, one belief in baptism, the Virgin Mary, one Bible, had bishops as the authority…etc…you get the picture…after the protestant reformation…each generation from the original reformers started throwing out their catholic roots…that the Christianity that came out was totally different…and the ever growing denominations…different beliefs…no more mass, prayer became worship, questioning the Virgin mary…accusations of worshipping saints…claims of the true church…different understanding of the Bible, KJV onlyists…etc…

 

[pablope]

Pope. Government style organization.

See, when I read that all I see is “I read the scriptures with a bias.”

I would like to see your evidence for this statement.

I hope this article will help you in what is meant by our biases in reading Scripture…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

After reading it…meditate on it…and see if it is a reflection…

 

[pablope]

The church that holds to His commandments.

Admittedly, part of why I’m on this forum (and have been trying to research myself) is the necessity of an unbroken chain of succession or if anyone baptized properly and striving to follow the commandments is sufficient.

As I posted to you in post 939…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

how would you apply this verse today?

Let us look at the example of St. Paul…Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and the other apostlets…and submits himself and states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Those other denoms claiming to be teaching the true gospel…how do they follow the example of St. Paul? Who did they submit their understanding, their gospel? How do you know what they teach is true?

 

[joe370]

Before protestants came to the scene, Christianity had only one way of worship…the Mass or Divine Liturgy, had the saints, the Real Presence, oral confession, one belief in baptism, the Virgin Mary, one Bible, had bishops as the authority…etc…you get the picture…after the protestant reformation…each generation from the original reformers started throwing out their catholic roots…that the Christianity that came out was totally different…and the ever growing denominations…different beliefs…no more mass, prayer became worship, questioning the Virgin mary…accusations of worshipping saints…claims of the true church…different understanding of the Bible, KJV onlyists…etc…

Sadly, true. The further away from the original reformers, the more we see disinformation being disseminated, and it is always aimed at the Catholic Church as opposed to the churches founded by the original reformers, who’s churches resembled the Catholic Church, in many ways, more than any modern-day Protestant/Evangelical Church.

 

[MartinJordan]

Sadly, true. The further away from the original reformers, the more we see disinformation being disseminated, and it is always aimed at the Catholic Church as opposed to the churches founded by the original reformers, who’s churches resembled the Catholic Church, in many ways, more than any modern-day Protestant/Evangelical Church.

I just received from a Catholic friend a verse from John 14:26, from one of the mega churches here which states that The Holy Spirit gives each individual guidance. But we all know that is not the point of the verse.

MJ

 

[guanophore]

I haven't rejected that God has investment in preserving His Word.  I've said that the bible is His Word.

You are right, you have affirmed that consistently. You just reject the part you don’t want to accept as non-existent. In doing so, it appears that you reject the scriptures that say God preserves His Word where He has placed it, and that His Word will continue where He has sent it until His purpose has been accomplished.

To do this, you redefine the nature of the Sacred Word so that it excludes the part you don’t want to accept. You then redefine God’s purpose so that it does not include the part you reject. You have not done this in a vacuum or alone. You are acting in accordance with the human traditions that were created during the Reformation that have shaped the new and improved christianity that replaced the version left by Christ.

  I don't appreciate your insinuation that the whole point I'm discussing this is because I wish to avoid obedience.  Why would I bother discussing it at all then?  I'd go hide in a corner and not wish to confront these matters.

This is a good point. And it is obvious that you are here grappling with these issues because you are invested in your exploration. However, you have made many references to authority and excluding certain sources of it as invalid or non-existent. One is left rather puzzled, to be sure.

 Blah.  I would obviously disagree that it is "quite clear."  I've also demonstrated that the "parts" are parts of God's message and that the bible makes more sense as the compilation of those messages.

Yes, of course! As an advocate of Sola Scriptura, it is necessary to create and cling to such foundations. Otherwise, a person of integrity cannot, with good conscience, reject the remainder of the Apostolic message. If you accepted it as valid, you would be obligated to subject yourself to it.

Do the messages from the Holy Spirit put together equal complete revelation or do they equal Christ?

Neither. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit reveals Him as such. Yet human beings are ultimately inadequate to the task of understanding and grasping the unfathomable reality of the Trinity, the incarnation, and many other divine mysteries. For that reason, we will always fall short of apprehending the fullness of His revelation of Himself.

 Furthermore, Christ was already here.  I'm not trying to outright deny your claim, but I don't understand it.

Actually, you did outright deny the claim, by replacing what the Apostles taught with your own construction that the “perfect” is the Bible, rather than the Christ. Jesus came to bring God’s revelation and part of that Revelation is that He will come again at the end of time, to be united with His Holy Bride, at which time the Church will be taken up with Him into glory.

In the light of this pending fullness to come, it is clear that we now see through a glass darkly. We only know in part, in this life, because we are limited by these mortal bodies. But when the perfect has come, we will all be transformed,

"I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality…
1 Cor 15:51-54

Our new imperishable bodies will enable us to understand those things that we cannot now grasp.

1 John 3:2-3
2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.

If the perfect that was to be revealed was the Bible, then there would not be these references to our present imperfection, and the fact that we cannot at present know, even with the Bible the fullness of His revelation of HImself to us. This revelation cannot possibly be contained in that which is perishable.

 

[guanophore]

 I would encourage you to have more patience with people than to try and dismiss everything they say as "well obviously you don't want to be obedient.

Your point is well taken, though the issue of obedience is a critical one, it is also not the only factor in your rejection of the teachings of the Aposltes contained infallibly in the Church founded by Christ.

You must concede the point that a well intentioned Christian has a much easier time justifying not following the Word of God contained in the Church if such a Christian is pursuaded that it does not exist. If all of what the Apsotles taught is contained in the Scirpture, then the basis upon which the Church calls the faithful to follow the “traditions” that were committed outside that source is well voided. This was the whole purpose of inventing the doctrine of SS in the first place. It functioned to undermine and remove the authority of the Church.

Yeah, yeah.  You're just being coy.  I get it.

You are right again, I was. But I do maintain my position that you have not provided any Bible verses that prove the Gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased, or that the Bible claims of itself it is the “perfect” which was to come that resulted in the extinction of the Church’s need for those gifts.

Then SHOW me. That’s all I ask. I do not think it is strange to want to see the spiritual gifts in the modern age demonstrated.

I think it is quite a valid request. Just as much as I can demand evidence from you that they are expired, you in turn have the right to evidence to the contrary. So, if you hold to your position that they are ceased, then you will be obligated to find the Catholic position that they are not heretical. The CC, in taking the position that the gifts of the HS will be with the Church till the end of the Church age, has strayed from the One Faith taugth by the apostles.

  It doesn't deny any of those things.

I think it does. There is no need to have a Church that has existed since it was founded by Christ if a Church can be extracted from the pages of the book two milennia later. The Church could have died out, as some claim, when Constantine came to power, and the gospel “lost”. This is why it would need to be “restored” or rediscovered during the Reformation, and to do so, the Reformers extracted from their Bibles their concepts of what the Apostles believed and taught, in isolation from the Church that He founded (believing said Church had been “lost”). If the book contains all that is necessary for salvaiton, as you claim, there was really no need to maintain a church.

  Well obviously I don't think I have a fragment right now.  I would not be content with a fragment.  But you have not sufficiently explained to me how I have a fragment.

You are right again, and not just yourself, but the vast majority of Protestant Christendom. They believe that Catholics “added” to what is in the Scripture, rather than the Reformers stripping those aspects of the faith that were not consistent with their perceptions.

Can you see my point that it is difficult to pursuade anyone that something may exist when they have already made up their mind that it does not?

Is it likely that I will be able to convince you that Pluto exists, when you can’t see it with your naked eye, or if the spot of light I point to claiming it is Pluto is not distinguishable from any other lights in the sky? I can assure you that it will not happen if you refused to look into the telescope, insisting that either the telescope is not real, or the telescope, if it does exist is irrelevant because you have your planetary chart (composed before Pluto was discovered) that you believe is more valid that anything that can be seen through it.

Seriously, man. You’re really rude.

I won’t deny that I did that purposefully to be provocative, but I am not trying to be personally rude to you, so if it comes across that way, I apologize. I am responding to your sentiment:

The dispute is whether or not we still get the word of God through word of mouth, not whether or not we should hold to it if we do.

As for the assertion that the bible doesn’t contain everything necessary for salvation… I don’t see how it doesn’t. …What else is there?

Sacred Tradition, in my experience, has been used to convey the catholic church’s hierarchy, not illustrate additional requirements for salvation.

I do believe these truths, but based more on** common sense **than the authority of sacred tradition.

Clearly you are stating here that your “common sense” is telling you that nothign else is necessary, and that Sacred Tradition is a negative influence on faith. How could ST hold anything of value to a person with such a position?

 

[Traverse]

Hey Traverse…

Don’t all non-catholics and catholics, to some degree, read scripture with a bias, such as too many books in the catholic bible, as taught and believed by non-catholics e.g. most of my family?

It’s certainly a struggle to get out from bias, because sometimes bias are just the things we think we know to be true. My claim wasn’t so much an argument that I am magically free from bias (though I try to be) but that it’s hard for me to take a catholic’s word for it on a matter when they seem just as biased as anyone non catholic. Does that make sense?

As a former non-catholic, what bothered me the most was the fact that the practice of sola scriptura (and I searched and searched…) could be found nowhere within the pages of sacred scripture, making the practice a man-made tradition stemming from the 16th century at best. Your thoughts friend…

I see your point, and it’s a good one, but I’m not so sure the bible has to say “follow the bible alone.” This is falling back on the idea that while I know that the bible is God’s word I don’t know if a priest is wielding sacred tradition properly and therefore, is God’s word. After all, we are all fallible, but I see something that has been delivered to us and is unchanging. Less a denial in the concept of sacred tradition, it’s an admission that men are fallible. CAN they have moments of infallibility? Sure! Paul did. Peter did. Etc etc. But how can I tell when those moments happen? By comparing what they say to the written word. When you say there’s no history of sola scriptura until about the 16th century that is probably quite accurate in that the reformationists were big on “IGNORE EVERYONE, READ THE BIBLE” but I’m big on not ignoring everyone, just comparing what they say to the bible. We were warned to judge the doctrine delivered to us.

1 Timothy 6:3
If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness…

I don’t know how else to do that other than referring to the bible. So if I’m doing that to determine the validity of the doctrine a man presents I see the bible as being of a higher authority. That is not to deny the authority of the church, but the church gets its authority from God and the bible is God’s message to his people. Or am I mistaken on this?

Agreed. Of course there are so many autonomous churches. What is important to one person may not be to another. For example, I wanted to belong to a church founded by Jesus, in the 1st century, as opposed to a mere man in the 16th, 17th…21st century. Others like my sister do not see the relevance.

I agree with this sentiment whole heartedly. Hence it is my desire to not be a protestant (and truly I do not label myself as one even though that’s how I’m often labeled here). I desire to be a part of the church that Christ established. So the question is, how do you become a part of that church? Do you attend a church that strives to follow the pattern of the New Testament or do you join a church like the catholic or orthodox that claim to have apostolic succession. The issue I tend to have with apostolic succession is not that it makes sense but that often I hear catholics say “we are the only church that can show an unbroken succession” while the orthodox claim the same thing and, furthermore, in secular history catholic claims often end up as “according to legend…”

If there is a better source for these histories I would like to see it. It’s hard to find ANYTHING on the internet without coming across an obviously biased article whether catholic or not. Usually catholic articles will claim things as facts without citation (not that that’s necessarily wrong) and protestant articles will say the catholic church is the whore of babylon. Lots of back and forth.

Do you believe in one invisible church, for lack of a better term at the moment? BTW, corruption has been a problem in the CC since the days of the apostles. Jesus predicted that scandals would be impossible to avoid, so we should not be so shocked. Jesus only promised to transmit and preserve truth.

I believe in both in so far as the people are physical. But we are promised that “by your fruits you will know them” and not “you will know them because there is a pope and you can trace apostolic succession.”

That’s a good starting point. That was my starting point. IMHO, an unbroken chain of succession is the way in which God preserves doctrinal truth in spite of the chaff mixed in with the wheat. Saint Paul seems to have understood the importance and it is found the NT. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the death of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession - his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

Very good point.

Out of curiosity, what denomination did you convert from. Though I am not catholic I am estranged from my family in a religious sense as well (they don’t understand the need for a church or authority for that matter, whether scriptural or otherwise) so it’s a trying relationship even though I don’t want it to be. So I can sympathize at least somewhat I imagine.

 

[Traverse]

Traverse,

You are wrong and do not understand the translation of the book you cannot prove is Scripture…

Jesus said that there would always be Wheat and Chaff…and while you may want to think and believe as you were taught, because you can’t find this in the Bible or any Translation you cannot prove is Scripture…

“a huge problem when in the middle ages when the catholic church was considerably corrupt”

The Church was never and has never been corrupt. There is corruption within the Body of Christ because there are people.

Correct your thinking and understand what Jesus taught. Was he lying when He said He would build a Church? Was He lying when He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? Was He lying when He said that there would be Wheat and Chaff…?

Where in the Translation of the Book you cannot prove is Scripture did you learn that the Catholic Church was corrupt at anytime? If you did not learn this in this book, you are passing on a Protestant Oral Tradition.

With respect, a friend of mine who is catholic is the one that told me the church was very corrupt. I am partly here on this forum thanks to his own perhaps unintentional inspiration. Really, this is mostly semantic disagreement. “The church can never be corrupt, but there can be corruption within the body because of the people in the body.” Given that the church IS the body it kind of means the same thing. But obviously the body will not be corrupt because those corrupt in the body will be separated like wheat and chaff. But that doesn’t mean there has never been corruption.

 

[Traverse]

Before protestants came to the scene, Christianity had only one way of worship…the Mass or Divine Liturgy, had the saints, the Real Presence, oral confession, one belief in baptism, the Virgin Mary, one Bible, had bishops as the authority…etc…you get the picture…after the protestant reformation…each generation from the original reformers started throwing out their catholic roots…that the Christianity that came out was totally different…and the ever growing denominations…different beliefs…no more mass, prayer became worship, questioning the Virgin mary…accusations of worshipping saints…claims of the true church…different understanding of the Bible, KJV onlyists…etc…

So what do you make of the orthodox church being a separate worship before protestants? I understand that you believe they have valid succession and holy orders and believe many of the same things (although they have a different canon, deny the pope). They are separate in as far as they do not call themselves catholic and claim that you have separated from them. Even if the worship service is the same, it is a separate worship because there is division amongst the catholics and orthodox.

Am I mistaken?

As I posted to you in post 939…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

how would you apply this verse today?

I would apply it exactly the same way.

Let us look at the example of St. Paul…Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and the other apostlets…and submits himself and states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Those other denoms claiming to be teaching the true gospel…how do they follow the example of St. Paul? Who did they submit their understanding, their gospel? How do you know what they teach is true?

This is a really good point I hadn’t though of and I will meditate upon it. The idea that Paul who SAW the resurrected Christ felt the need to go to the apostles is an interesting one I admit freely that I’ve overlooked. I always thought of it in the reverse, that the other apostles vouch for Paul so that the early Christians would know Paul is worth hearing, but not that Paul was seeking approval.

Thanks for the passage.

 

[PRmerger]

I see your point, and it’s a good one, but I’m not so sure the bible has to say “follow the bible alone.”

I rejoice in your humility in ceding our point, Traverse. You are a good man.

I find it interesting, however, that you profess that you are not certain that the Bible has to say, “follow the Bible alone.” If this is indeed your paradigm, do you allow Catholics this same model?

That is, is it permissible for Catholics to hold views that are not explicitly in the Bible, like you are allowing for yourself?

 

[pablope]

So what do you make of the orthodox church being a separate worship before protestants? I understand that you believe they have valid succession and holy orders and believe many of the same things (although they have a different canon, deny the pope). They are separate in as far as they do not call themselves catholic and claim that you have separated from them. Even if the worship service is the same, it is a separate worship because there is division amongst the catholics and orthodox.

Am I mistaken?

 

[pablope]

It’s certainly a struggle to get out from bias, because sometimes bias are just the things we think we know to be true.

I see your point, and it’s a good one, but I’m not so sure the bible has to say “follow the bible alone.” This is falling back on the idea that while I know that the bible is God’s word I don’t know if a priest is wielding sacred tradition properly and therefore, is God’s word.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, Traverse, the same question can be asked of you…every Sunday in your services, when your pastor speaks…and he reads a Bible passage…and he says this is what he means…do you believe everything he says? How would you know he is wielding Sacrad tradition, or the apostolic teachings…properly?

How do you know he is truly wielding God’s word?

Indeed. And as fallible men, their pastors are going to be wrong at some point in their preaching. That’s what fallible means, right?

Now, to be sure, no one is claiming that Catholic priests, when they preach from the pulpit every Sunday, are never going to be wrong.

But if and when we doubt, we have a final authority to go to to say, “He says that Scripture says [A]. What does the Church say it means? Well, the Church says it says [A, B and C] so we’re good to go.”

Those without a Magisterium, or authority, can only say, “My pastor says the Scripture says [A]. I believe it says [not-A]. Now what?”

 

[pablope]

Indeed. And as fallible men, their pastors are going to be wrong at some point in their preaching. That’s what fallible means, right?

Now, to be sure, no one is claiming that Catholic priests, when they preach from the pulpit every Sunday, are never going to be wrong.

But if and when we doubt, we have a final authority to go to to say, “He says that Scripture says [A]. What does the Church say it means? Well, the Church says it says [A, B and C] so we’re good to go.”

Those without a Magisterium, or authority, can only say, “My pastor says the Scripture says [A]. I believe it says [not-A]. Now what?”

Hi, PR…I just want to share a quote from St. Jerome, …and to highlight what you say here:

What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?

 

[Traverse]

Well, Traverse, the same question can be asked of you…every Sunday in your services, when your pastor speaks…and he reads a Bible passage…and he says this is what he means…do you believe everything he says? How would you know he is wielding Sacrad tradition, or the apostolic teachings…properly?

Study in proper context with meditation and prayer. Currently I think it’s more about reading and studying properly than it is about finding the right person with the right interpretation.

Indeed. And as fallible men, their pastors are going to be wrong at some point in their preaching. That’s what fallible means, right?

Now, to be sure, no one is claiming that Catholic priests, when they preach from the pulpit every Sunday, are never going to be wrong.

But if and when we doubt, we have a final authority to go to to say, “He says that Scripture says [A]. What does the Church say it means? Well, the Church says it says [A, B and C] so we’re good to go.”

Those without a Magisterium, or authority, can only say, “My pastor says the Scripture says [A]. I believe it says [not-A]. Now what?”

This is what’s so confusing to me. I agree completely. Men can be wrong. I can be wrong. You can be wrong. The IDEA of an infallible magisterium is comforting, but it doesn’t makes sense to me because that magisterium is made up of men, which we’ve already discussed can be wrong.

Is this something catholics take on faith, that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t let the church be led astray?