To live by faith

[Cinette]

Hi Lief,

I appreciated this post very much. It was most moving to read your analogy of a man falling into a pit and the GRACE of Christ dragging us out of the pit.

I love it, dear brother in Christ, when you write with such devotion about Mary. This comes through in your posts and, incidentally, this is one key reason why I so respect you. In this post you assert:

“By the same blood, Jesus saves Mary, only He saves her by snatching her up at the brink of the pit before she fell, so that she never would be stained with sin. He saved her from experiencing sin. If not for His blood, she never could have entered Heaven, much less been pure from conception. She was as completely saved as you and I, only she was saved early, so that from the first moment of her conception, she was immaculate. You and I will one day experience the same grace she received. We will be immaculate and fully righteous in every thought, word and deed, foreigners to sin. Mary simply received that grace at an earlier stage in existence than any of the rest of us except Jesus, Adam and Eve: Conception.”

Great Stuff!

I actually don’t disagree with this. It does not clash with any scriptural teaching and my spiritual instincts are heightened at the contemplation of these sublime truths. You acknowledge that Mary was SAVED BY CHRIST’S PRECIOUS BLOOD and received God’s grace; and, can I add, all of this according to God’s infallible foreknowledge and predestined plan! Praise God!

There is one part of your post, though, that I would need to give more consideration and thought. You wrote:

“This is not the only time Jesus has broken the laws of time by offering His blood to people early, either. He actually offered His body and blood to His disciples, and they ate and drank it, before He even had suffered on the cross! This was at the Last Supper. At the Last Supper, Jesus broke the laws of time by offering them the wine of His Passion early, making them true participants in an event that had not even physically taken place yet.”

On the Last Supper aspect of your postulation, I am not sure.

We may discuss this aspect more, perhaps, on another day; on another occasion.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

Hi Craig!

Just as Mary had to be pure to be the Mother of our Lord so must we prepare ourselves for heaven. We need to undergo purification before we can be united with God. If we die without the stain of sin we go straight to heaven but if we do not then we spend time in Purgatory to purge ourselves of sin. I understand that “Purgatory” is the pain of separation from God.

But the Lord thought of everything and provided us with all the resources for our sanctification here on earth - the greatest gift being is Body and Blood. We have the sacraments also.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Hi Craig!

Just as Mary had to be pure to be the Mother of our Lord so must we prepare ourselves for heaven. We need to undergo purification before we can be united with God. If we die without the stain of sin we go straight to heaven but if we do not then we spend time in Purgatory to purge ourselves of sin. I understand that “Purgatory” is the pain of separation from God.

But the Lord thought of everything and provided us with all the resources for our sanctification here on earth - the greatest gift being is Body and Blood. We have the sacraments also.

Hi Cinette,

I love your devotion to Christ! Thank you.

I need to give what you say here more thought. My initial thought and thinking, however, is that our Lord’s infinite love and mercies are not tied EXCLUSIVELY to the Sacraments. This would be a key and abiding principle of my spirituality and committment to Christ.

God bless you, Craig

 

[Cinette]

I have always been open about the appearances of Mary.

Out of interest, though, what criteria does the Church use in ascertaining whether a miracle is credible or not? Who gets to decide? What is the process involved?

God bless you, In Christ Craig

I am going to try to respond to this.

You will recall that Benedictus2 mentioned in an earlier post that there is a team of doctors at Lourdes who make a study of miracles and that they comprise Doctors both Christian (not all Catholic) and agnostics.

I saw a documentary on EWTN on Lourdes. There are many healings (some physical, some spiritual). Not all are reported but in the 150 years of Lourdes only 66 (the last time I looked) miracles were declared. I remember that number 66 took place in the 1950s and was only declared in 2006. The team makes a thorough study - x-rays, interviews of the person concerned and family and friends, etc etc etc. The Church is very careful not to precipitate.

There have been reports of “apparitions” and “stigmata” which the Church rejected after years of investigation. I confess that I am very skeptical. The Church looks into the “fruits” of each case.

When a person is declared a Saint there is a huge investigation and this sometimes also takes many years. During discussions by those appointed to investigate a “Devil’s Advocate” is appointed to question every bit of evidence. It is a long drawn-out process.

There have been claims of “apparitions” which rendered some good fruit but which was never declared “authentic” by the Church. I believe that the “fruits” were a result of the faith of the believers - God allowed this but the actual claims were and are still questioned.

This is only to say that the Church is painfully careful in these matters.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I am going to try to respond to this.

You will recall that Benedictus2 mentioned in an earlier post that there is a team of doctors at Lourdes who make a study of miracles and that they comprise Doctors both Christian (not all Catholic) and agnostics.

I saw a documentary on EWTN on Lourdes. There are many healings (some physical, some spiritual). Not all are reported but in the 150 years of Lourdes only 66 (the last time I looked) miracles were declared. I remember that number 66 took place in the 1950s and was only declared in 2006. The team makes a thorough study - x-rays, interviews of the person concerned and family and friends, etc etc etc. The Church is very careful not to precipitate.

There have been reports of “apparitions” and “stigmata” which the Church rejected after years of investigation. I confess that I am very skeptical. The Church looks into the “fruits” of each case.

When a person is declared a Saint there is a huge investigation and this sometimes also takes many years. During discussions by those appointed to investigate a “Devil’s Advocate” is appointed to question every bit of evidence. It is a long drawn-out process.

There have been claims of “apparitions” which rendered some good fruit but which was never declared “authentic” by the Church. I believe that the “fruits” were a result of the faith of the believers - God allowed this but the actual claims were and are still questioned.

This is only to say that the Church is painfully careful in these matters.

Thanks Cinette,

This was a well thought out and presented post and I gained a lot from it.

I thought you were careful and measured in your statements and, therefore, your post merits referring back to again and again.

You wrote about the team of Doctors at Lourdes:

“The team makes a thorough study - x-rays, interviews of the person concerned and family and friends, etc etc etc. The Church is very careful not to precipitate.”

Your whole post, I think, remains open to apparitions and so on while remaining duly CAUTIOUS. I, myself, can identify with your approach.

You sum up, very ably, the plea in your post to be VERY CAREFUL, WHEN YOU WRITE:

“This is only to say that the Church is painfully careful in these matters.”

Very well said, indeed. I don’t rule out the possibility of apparitions, but I share your GODLY RESERVE.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[twb1621]

For TOM,

By the way, I forgot to thank you for the excellent link you gave on the Virgin Mary, found here:

catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

There’s some great material here.

God bless, In Christ Craig

 

[twb1621]

Hi Cinette,

I love your devotion to Christ! Thank you.

I need to give what you say here more thought. My initial thought and thinking, however, is that our Lord’s infinite love and mercies are not tied EXCLUSIVELY to the Sacraments. This would be a key and abiding principle of my spirituality and committment to Christ.

God bless you, Craig

No Craig, you are correct in that they are not tied EXCLUSIVELY to the Sacraments. There are always circumstances that enter into the judgment of our Lord’s infinite love and His divine mercies. To Catholics who have the fullness of faith and the sacraments however, the grace to succeed against temptation and evil and to grow deeper and deeper in the relationship of devotion and pristine love of our Lord is given to us in the sacraments and salvation itself is within the Body and Blood of Jesus through the Eucharist for those who receive Him with this love, trust and devotion.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Cinette,

I love your devotion to Christ! Thank you.

I need to give what you say here more thought. My initial thought and thinking, however, is that our Lord’s infinite love and mercies are not tied EXCLUSIVELY to the Sacraments. This would be a key and abiding principle of my spirituality and committment to Christ.

God bless you, Craig

I tend to disagree with you here Craig and I will explain why. I will put it first into the words Of the CCC.

Quote: The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ, and finally to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also INSTRUCT. They not only presuppose faith, but by the words and objects they also nourish strenghten and express it. That is why they are callled sacraments of Faith. unquote. Anotherwards the sacraments are the Church, They are what the church is made up. Without them you have no church. They were instituted by the Lord himself. The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Now I understand that you may or may not agree with this, which is fine, and up to you. But I just want to make clear that according to the RCC that is the teachings. So imo the Church is tied exclusively to the sacraments because they are what make up the Church.

 

[Cinette]

Hi Craig!

Talking about the Sacraments, what about the great Sacrament of the Eucharist? It is the “source and summit” of our faith.

Do you not believe in transubstantiation? Or do you believe that it is just a symbol?

If you believe the Eucharist to be only symbolic how do you explain John 6 and especially 1 Cor 11 27-29? Let me quote 29: * For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves?*

Surely this indicates that the “body and blood” of Christ in the Eucharist is a very very Holy thing and anyone who does not have the highest reverence is committing a very grace sin?

I should like to hear your opinion on this.

Cheers
Cinette

 

[TOP]

Hi Craig, Here is something from the CCC. 1116 Sacraments are “powers that comes forth” from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are “the masterworks of God” in the new and everlasting covenant.

If you want to learn more, check out this link to the CCC on the Sacraments. Tim

 

[Genesis315]

To live by faith is to follow Christ in all things no matter the cost trusting that if we die with Him we will be raised with Him. We believe this not because we have seen others do so, but because God has promised it. Thus, we walk by faith and not by sight.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I tend to disagree with you here Craig and I will explain why. I will put it first into the words Of the CCC.

Quote: The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ, and finally to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also INSTRUCT. They not only presuppose faith, but by the words and objects they also nourish strenghten and express it. That is why they are callled sacraments of Faith. unquote. Anotherwards the sacraments are the Church, They are what the church is made up. Without them you have no church. They were instituted by the Lord himself. The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Now I understand that you may or may not agree with this, which is fine, and up to you. But I just want to make clear that according to the RCC that is the teachings. So imo the Church is tied exclusively to the sacraments because they are what make up the Church.

Rinnie, if God reveals Himself exclusively through the sacraments, what were all those spiritual experiences–visions, miracles and the like–that the saints had?

Also, how, in your view, were the Old Testament saints saved? And what about people who grew up, lived and died in America before the first settlers and missionaries arrived?

The Church teaches that people ignorant of the ordinary path of salvation through no fault of their own may yet be saved, as they cannot be judged for failing to participate in what they have not known.

Also, it teaches that God can reveal Himself in extra-sacramental experiences, such as the visions of the saints.

 

[benedictus2]

Alas, from your point of view, I cannot share fully your view:

"…the Catholic Eucharist (Jesus Christ) and being swallowed up in the majesty of absolute truth (Magesterium + Tradition + Scripture), in unity of Church, without any subjectivism remaining on matters important to the Christian faith are the highest of all the many blessings God has poured out on me in this change. "

I do not say this, of course, to agitate you or annoy you. I say this out of honesty. I cannot concede that Scripture shares its authority with Sacred Tradition and I do not believe that Scripture affords a PLACE or SPACE to a MAGISTERIUM.

These, my friend, are the differences between us. However, they will not prevent us from being united in the Church Triumphant, in heaven.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

I’ll do a quick reply to this and maybe think of a more detailed one later on.

The Magisterium has not really loomed large for me until a protestant friend started questioning me about it.

I think of Jesus when he said thou art Peter…, and in John 13 promising to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth.

When I think of it, Christ did not ask the apostles to write this and that. He did not go around, scribe in tow to take the details down.

Instead he starts a Church. And on top of that He hands over the keys of the kingdom to someone who I think is quite illiterate and denies Him three times.

When the canon of the Bible was established, there were a few other gospels floating around and a few other letters. It was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, who determined which ones are truly the Word of God and which ones weren’t.

The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church and so determines which ideas or doctrines truly reflect God’s will

The one issue that comes to mind is contraception. When Humane Vitae was released, Catholics were in uproar. It was thought to be insensitive, out of date, etc.And yet now, we see its vindication. Kimberly Hahn who was a prebysterian was started off on her journey to Rome when she was researching contraception. She found out that the Catholic Church’s position was the most Biblical and that the Catholic Church was the only one who has stuck to it’s guns and uphold this doctrine which until the 1930s every Christian Church believed.

When Sandusky in another thread told me that the Catholic Church also believes in pre=destination I was horrified. And yet I found out that he is correct. It is a de fide dogma. I thought do I just accept this dogma blindly when everything in me revolts against it.

So I thought, well, here is one instance when the Church is asking me to believe a doctrine which I just can’t. But then I remembered Jesus’s promise to guide her into all truth so I accepted. Who am I to think that my own piddly mind could better comprehend the will of God than all those theologians, all those church fathers and saints who have gone before me. Christ was there asking me to be humble and to accept the limitidness of my own intellect.

Once I did accept it though, Voila!, I got it. It made sense. The reasoning that has been eluding me for days finally arrived and very gently settled in my soul.

When I was in college, based purely on my own reasoning, I sided with the pros in a Euthanasia debate and people thought my defense was brilliant (and that was only because I think the cons were rather ill prepared). Now I know better but I can’t explain to that audience now that I was wrong. I hope the same Spirit that guided me to truth will guide them too.

I like what G K Chesteron said about the Church: " We do not want a Church who is right when we are right. Rather we want a Church who right when are wrong".

I think Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of that.

And yes, we will all see each other in heaven. And I think we will be quite shocked who else we will find there before us

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

No Craig, you are correct in that they are not tied EXCLUSIVELY to the Sacraments. There are always circumstances that enter into the judgment of our Lord’s infinite love and His divine mercies. To Catholics who have the fullness of faith and the sacraments however, the grace to succeed against temptation and evil and to grow deeper and deeper in the relationship of devotion and pristine love of our Lord is given to us in the sacraments and salvation itself is within the Body and Blood of Jesus through the Eucharist for those who receive Him with this love, trust and devotion.

Thanks Tom,

You have provided BALANCE in your post here. Thank you.

I am not belittling Sacraments in any way. I am only suggesting that God is free in His sovereignty to express His infinite love and mercies, in a variety of ways.

God does move in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform!

I am glad you agree with me; and I am also glad that this does not contradict Catholic Teaching.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I tend to disagree with you here Craig and I will explain why. I will put it first into the words Of the CCC.

Quote: The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ, and finally to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also INSTRUCT. They not only presuppose faith, but by the words and objects they also nourish strenghten and express it. That is why they are callled sacraments of Faith. unquote. Anotherwards the sacraments are the Church, They are what the church is made up. Without them you have no church. They were instituted by the Lord himself. The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Now I understand that you may or may not agree with this, which is fine, and up to you. But I just want to make clear that according to the RCC that is the teachings. So imo the Church is tied exclusively to the sacraments because they are what make up the Church.

Hi Rinnie,

I have read your post carefully but find myself in conscientious disagreement with your position.

In your post you write:

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.”

This is a very “neat” and “tidy” statement but one which fails to resonate with the truth of scripture.

My position has been affirmed by Tom (twb) and Lief Erikson. I think their posts are excellent and should be carefully considered.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Hi Craig!

Talking about the Sacraments, what about the great Sacrament of the Eucharist? It is the “source and summit” of our faith.

Do you not believe in transubstantiation? Or do you believe that it is just a symbol?

If you believe the Eucharist to be only symbolic how do you explain John 6 and especially 1 Cor 11 27-29? Let me quote 29: * For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves?*

Surely this indicates that the “body and blood” of Christ in the Eucharist is a very very Holy thing and anyone who does not have the highest reverence is committing a very grace sin?

I should like to hear your opinion on this.

Cheers
Cinette

Hi Cinette,

I have the highest reverence for the “body and blood” of Christ.

You ask me, very specifically, in your post:

“Do you not believe in transubstantiation? Or do you believe that it is just a symbol?”

I believe that transubstantiation is a philosophical model that attempts to explain how Christ is present in the Eucharist. The theory has been hotly disputed and debated.

I believe that Christ is PRESENT in the Lord’s Supper in a dynamically SPIRITUAL WAY. Therefore, when I eat the “bread” and “drink the blood” I believe that I am nourished by Christ AFTER A SPIRITUAL FASHION. I believe that I feed on Christ, in my heart, with thanksgiving.

When I go to a Catholic Church, I bow to the altar and RECOGNISE CHRIST’S SPIRITUAL PRESENCE. I see no hypocrisy here on my part. I utterly respect the faith of true Catholics who differ with me here. I do not, of course, have any desire or wish to convince any Catholic of my viewpoint here. Also, I respect the wish of Catholics that I do not take the consecrated host, as this would indicate that I am in full accord with Roman Catholic teaching. I ask for a “blessing only” if I am in a Catholic Church.

I allow Catholics to be fully themselves and I delight in their genuine piety.

I do claim, though, to be a genuine Christian and I know I am part of Christ’s Church.

I believe this post answers your questions.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Hi Craig, Here is something from the CCC. 1116 Sacraments are “powers that comes forth” from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are “the masterworks of God” in the new and everlasting covenant.

If you want to learn more, check out this link to the CCC on the Sacraments. Tim

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the link. I will follow through with this.

I am always grateful for good reading material, for this helps me learn and grow.

These posts are helping me to grow in my love and appreciation for Catholics; they are also helping me to clarify my own thinking in many areas.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Rinnie, if God reveals Himself exclusively through the sacraments, what were all those spiritual experiences–visions, miracles and the like–that the saints had?

Also, how, in your view, were the Old Testament saints saved? And what about people who grew up, lived and died in America before the first settlers and missionaries arrived?

The Church teaches that people ignorant of the ordinary path of salvation through no fault of their own may yet be saved, as they cannot be judged for failing to participate in what they have not known.

Also, it teaches that God can reveal Himself in extra-sacramental experiences, such as the visions of the saints.

This is my position entirely.

God’s love and infinite mercies cannot be tied EXCLUSIVELY to the Sacraments.

God is sovereign and free to dispense His mercies in ways that accord with His own infallible foreknowledge and mysterious wisdom.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I’ll do a quick reply to this and maybe think of a more detailed one later on.

The Magisterium has not really loomed large for me until a protestant friend started questioning me about it.

I think of Jesus when he said thou art Peter…, and in John 13 promising to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth.

When I think of it, Christ did not ask the apostles to write this and that. He did not go around, scribe in tow to take the details down.

Instead he starts a Church. And on top of that He hands over the keys of the kingdom to someone who I think is quite illiterate and denies Him three times.

When the canon of the Bible was established, there were a few other gospels floating around and a few other letters. It was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, who determined which ones are truly the Word of God and which ones weren’t.

The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church and so determines which ideas or doctrines truly reflect God’s will

The one issue that comes to mind is contraception. When Humane Vitae was released, Catholics were in uproar. It was thought to be insensitive, out of date, etc.And yet now, we see its vindication. Kimberly Hahn who was a prebysterian was started off on her journey to Rome when she was researching contraception. She found out that the Catholic Church’s position was the most Biblical and that the Catholic Church was the only one who has stuck to it’s guns and uphold this doctrine which until the 1930s every Christian Church believed.

When Sandusky in another thread told me that the Catholic Church also believes in pre=destination I was horrified. And yet I found out that he is correct. It is a de fide dogma. I thought do I just accept this dogma blindly when everything in me revolts against it.

So I thought, well, here is one instance when the Church is asking me to believe a doctrine which I just can’t. But then I remembered Jesus’s promise to guide her into all truth so I accepted. Who am I to think that my own piddly mind could better comprehend the will of God than all those theologians, all those church fathers and saints who have gone before me. Christ was there asking me to be humble and to accept the limitidness of my own intellect.

Once I did accept it though, Voila!, I got it. It made sense. The reasoning that has been eluding me for days finally arrived and very gently settled in my soul.

When I was in college, based purely on my own reasoning, I sided with the pros in a Euthanasia debate and people thought my defense was brilliant (and that was only because I think the cons were rather ill prepared). Now I know better but I can’t explain to that audience now that I was wrong. I hope the same Spirit that guided me to truth will guide them too.

I like what G K Chesteron said about the Church: " We do not want a Church who is right when we are right. Rather we want a Church who right when are wrong".

I think Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of that.

And yes, we will all see each other in heaven. And I think we will be quite shocked who else we will find there before us

Hi Benedictus2,

I really enjoy your posts!

However, in this post you write:

“The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church and so determines which ideas or doctrines truly reflect God’s will.”

You are doing here what Lief does on this particular issue, viz: you are ASSUMING the propriety of the so-called MAGISTERIUM without any proof or evidence.

I ask, politely - where is the word MAGISTERIUM found in the Bible?

You NEED to project this idea and concept into your reasonings to justify and support a theory. In my opinion, the Bible knows of no such thing.

Can you supply me with any hard proof?

God bless, In Christ Craig

 

[Cinette]

John 6:52-59 “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 So Jesus said to them "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them….”

John 5:60-67 *"When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe… 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “o you also wish to go away?” *

When the disciples said "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?? Jesus repeated what he had said and reinforced it by saying “…for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”. He did not say it was spiritual. God can do all things and we can only see things through our 4 dimensional perception. Do we understand? No, but we believe because we trust and love God.

From the time of Peter and his apostles’ ministry they believed in the Eucharist just as we do in the Catholic Church today. I am not sure but I think that maybe even Luther believed in the Eucharist - perhaps Calvin and Zwingli? (somebody on this thread my know). As Protestantism developed the beliefs of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was watered down, changed and splintered into all kinds of different beliefs. The CC held firm because we believed that Jesus would always be with us and the Holy Spirit was there to guide us.

The H Spirit didn’t “kick in” when Protestantism was planted. He was there with us from the very beginning, from the very time Christ established His Church. He remains with us today. He has kept his promise.

 

[Rawb]

I ask, politely - where is the word MAGISTERIUM found in the Bible?

Right next to the word Trinity, Craig!

You NEED to project this idea and concept into your reasonings to justify and support a theory. In my opinion, the Bible knows of no such thing.

Can you supply me with any hard proof?

I will do my best, though I’m not Leif or benedictus.

First, from this website: christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/exegesis.htm

The history of the magisterial interpretation of Scripture has its roots in the attitude of Jesus Christ to the inspired text. For him Scripture exercises a role of infallible authority in the understanding of divine Revelation (cf. John 10:35), and that, as such, it has a perennial value (cf. Matt. 5:17). Nevertheless, Jesus presents himself as an authority superior to that of Scripture, not to correct it, but to give it its perfect fulfillment and completion (cf. Matt. 5:21-48). He interprets it with authority, in showing, for example, what is the first commandment (cf. Mark 12:28-43 and par.). He corrects the erroneous interpretation of the Pharisees on the matter of divorce (cf. Matt. 19:1-9 and par.).

Christ taught that Scripture was orientated towards himself and that it is of himself it speaks (cf. Luke 24:25-27). His authority to interpret the written Word derives precisely from the fact that Scripture gives witness to his Person and his work (cf. John 5:39). [17]

The disciples fully understand the Scriptures only when they are explained to them by the Risen Christ (cf. Luke 24:25-32), Previously, although they were familiar with the texts, they were unable to interpret them in their true meaning as referring to Christ. The paschal events are the key to the interpretation of Scripture and to the teachings given by Christ during his public life (cf. John 2:22). St. John’s Gospel explains why: The Holy Spirit, sent after the glorification of Christ, leads the disciples into the fullness of truth (cf. John 14:26; 16:13-15).

So our bishops are acting in the manner of Christ, who explained and taught Scripture and doctrine even though the apostles may have thought they understood and knew it.

I can see an argument forming in your brain - but shouldn’t all Christians mimick Christ in this way? Yes, in a sense but Christ chose to ordain Bishops (and we’ve seen, in Scripture, already that only certain men were chosen, and then only after they had been thouroughly taught as per St. Paul’s directions to St. Timothy). I know you see the translation as more as Overseer. I’ve been meaning it ask you what you feel the difference is?

So now, as an example of the original magisterium in action, I’ll direct you to the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts 15. The council is called to discuss the question of Judaizing, specifically circumcision. Note that only the “apostles and elders” (Bishops and priests) meet, not the rank and file Christians (what we’d call the Laity). They then discuss amongst themselves what they believe God would have them do, and issue a response. It is the response that St. Peter gives, interestingly enough.

drbo.org/chapter/51015.htm

So while the word Magisterium is not in Scripture, I believe the actions of Christ Our Lord and His Apostles strongly imply it, just as it does the Blessed Trinity, and it is apparently the manner in which the Church organically grew.