Sola Scriptura???

[Reformed1]

Reformed…

With respect, your argument is flawed from both a logical point of view and also smacks heavily Relativism. For starters, The Magesterium DOES interpret the word with infallibility. But you want to take it to the next level… “But who’s interpreting what THEY wrote.” For you, there is no answer… anywhere… Not in Catholicism, not in protestantism… It’s more in line with Bill Clinton saying 'that depends on what your definition of IS Is… I could tell you that we have X to interpret the magesterium, you would say… whose to interpret x… this will keep going until you get to the individual… the same question to yourself… how do you know you have interpreted it properly… you dont… all you have it what is right for YOU…

And thus… Relativism… NOT Christianity

Sad to see Relativism now being used as an argument by protestants against Catholics…

I though protestants were anti-relativist as well

But to answer your question… The Magisterium are bishops, cardinals, etc… If there is confusion… you can question them to clearify…

Thus defeats your arguement because there is someone to ask…

Please dont say… "but how do you interpret their interpretations… thats childish and an illogical argument. It also nullifies EVERY learned field as the argument would also need to apply to every science, discipline and expertise…

So are you going to say that? That is the result of your argument…

In Christ

First off, you beg the question when you assert the magesterium is infallible.

Regardless, I don’t see how your position is any better than mine. I find it interesting that catholics, at least quite a few on this board, will say that protestants can’t understand the scriptures without an infallible guide (a guide which has only interpreted a handful of scriptures “infallibly”) and forget that at the end of the day, they are still relying on their understanding of the magesterium’s teachings.

How is it that the magesterium communicates to you? You have the various council documents and catechisms and I guess you have the bishops and cardinals as well. But I don’t see how this is much help. There are quite a few apparently faithful catholics that take opposing sides when asked about issues addressed in the catechism or council documents and both sides will point to the same documents to uphold their positions.

I don’t see how you bishops or cardinals are any help at all. For example, can I got to cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles with a question and be able to count on his answer being, I don’t want to say infallible, but let’s say orthodox and representative of the catholic church’s teaching? Will all the bishops give the same answer to every question? Will they all take the time to answer a question from a lay person or even a priest? You know the answer as well as I do and the fact is the answer will vary from bishop to bishop.

As far as the catechism goes and the council documents are concerned, you still have to read them and interpret them, right? Kind of like I have to read the scriptures and interpret them.

I know you said my post was “childish” (thanks for the charity by the way) but I just don’t see much difference between our positions.

You go off on a tangent about relativism and yet I am not the one that believes you have to have an infallible interpreter of all things Christian to hold your hand before you can be certain about anything. I guess it’s okay for you to ask how can I know for certain what the scriptures teach but the same question can’t be asked of catholics when applied to the teachings of the magesterium. Why?

I’ll stop here and wait for your reply.

 

[kaycee]

How many verses in the Bible have been infallibly defined? 2, 3? I hear much about the theory, but the practice seems to get reduced to infallibly defining Matt 16:18, infallibly declaring the assumption and a few other isolated issues.

 

[jemfinch]

First off, you beg the question when you assert the magesterium is infallible.

Well, no. To beg the question would be to say that the Magisterium is infallible because the Magisterium is infallible. Simply to say, “The magisterium is infallible” is to assert a point which can be contended.

Regardless, I don’t see how your position is any better than mine.

You also didn’t reply to my post, I note.

I find it interesting that catholics, at least quite a few on this board, will say that protestants can’t understand the scriptures without an infallible guide

A claim confirmed in the same reality accepted by any Protestant.

and forget that at the end of the day, they are still relying on their understanding of the magesterium’s teachings.

With the knowledge that our misunderstandings can be corrected by that very same Magisterium.

How is it that the magesterium communicates to you? You have the various council documents and catechisms and I guess you have the bishops and cardinals as well. But I don’t see how this is much help.

How can you not? Just look at the theological consistency in Catholicism, especially among the Catholics educated about their faith, and you’ll see far more doctrinal unity than exists in the whole of Protestantism. Clearly, whether you understand how the Magisterium works, that its work–infallibly interpreting Scripture and Tradition–happens and improves the situation for Catholic faithful cannot be denied.

There are quite a few apparently faithful catholics that take opposing sides when asked about issues addressed in the catechism or council documents and both sides will point to the same documents to uphold their positions.

Examples?

I don’t see how you bishops or cardinals are any help at all.

“Remember your leaders, the ones who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.”

For example, can I got to cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles with a question and be able to count on his answer being, I don’t want to say infallible, but let’s say orthodox and representative of the catholic church’s teaching? Will all the bishops give the same answer to every question? Will they all take the time to answer a question from a lay person or even a priest? You know the answer as well as I do and the fact is the answer will vary from bishop to bishop.

Being a bishop is hard. That’s why Paul says to Timothy, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching,” and why James says “Let not many of you become teachers.”

As far as the catechism goes and the council documents are concerned, you still have to read them and interpret them, right? Kind of like I have to read the scriptures and interpret them.

There are significant differences, though, even in addition to the argument I presented earlier (that the Magisterium can add, modify, rephrase its explanation so as to be more easily or clearly understood).

First, there is a significantly larger corpus of Magisterial works than there are works in the Bible, so the task of seeking a coherent interpretation thereof is significantly easier. We can see the proof of this in the fact that there is more consistency among Catholics, and even more consistency among ancient Churches in general, than there is within Protestantism.

Second, the Magisterium speaks in terms of a more modern, more understandable historical context. When the Magisterium speaks, it speaks in the social context of today, a context we are all quite familiar with. When the Bible speaks, it speaks in the context of a society that existed 2,000 or more years ago, and none of us are remotely as familiar with that society and that context as we are with our own society and our own social context.

I guess it’s okay for you to ask how can I know for certain what the scriptures teach but the same question can’t be asked of catholics when applied to the teachings of the magesterium. Why?

Your question, “Who interprets the Magisterium?” is like asking, “Who interprets jemfinch?” I, being jemfinch, interpret jemfinch. The Magisterium, being the Magisterium, interprets the Magisterium. You can ask “Who interprets the Magisterium?” all you want, but unless you have an argument to the contrary, you need to recognize that it’s self-interpreting

Jeremy

 

[VociMike]

How many verses in the Bible have been infallibly defined? 2, 3? I hear much about the theory, but the practice seems to get reduced to infallibly defining Matt 16:18, infallibly declaring the assumption and a few other isolated issues.

The purpose of the Church is not to infallibly define bible verses. It is to infallibly teach and pass on the entire faith as received from Christ.

 

[jemfinch]

How many verses in the Bible have been infallibly defined? 2, 3? I hear much about the theory, but the practice seems to get reduced to infallibly defining Matt 16:18, infallibly declaring the assumption and a few other isolated issues.

Far more than that, in fact. But it seems Protestants don’t really understand what it means to “infallibly define” the interpretation of a verse. In fact, the term “infallibly define” seems a bit of a misnomer in light of what the Church actually does.

(Disclaimer: this is “as I understand it” and is subject to correction by the Magisterium of the Church )

The Church doesn’t ever say, “This verse means X and only X.” Church dogmas assert facts, propositions, like “Jesus Christ is one in substance with God the Father.” These propositions subsequently constrain the interpretation of verses of the Bible; verses like Proverbs 8 or Colossians 1:15, which were used in defense of the heresies that these dogmas were defined to oppose. They constrain it by saying “Whatever Colossians 1:15 means, it does not mean that Jesus Christ is a created being.” Other dogmatic propositions, like “Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist,” constrain passages of the Bible in a different way. The passages relating to the Last Supper all contain Christ’s words, “This is my Body,” and the dogmatic proclamation that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist constrains that passage by saying, “What else that passage means, it must also mean that the Eucharist really is His body.”

In that way, given my belief in the material sufficiency of Scripture, there are at least as many “infallible definitions” as there are dogmatic proclamations, and many more, in some cases, given that multiple passages of the Bible are applicable to certain doctrines of the Church.

Jeremy