Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

[RBushlow]

michaelp:

I would like to share a confusion about objections that Roman Catholics have concerning Evangelicals/Protestants interpretation of sola scriptura. The main objection that I see that is expressed on this website concerning using the Scripture alone as the primary and only infallible source of revelation is that people will come up with their own interpretations that disagee. Therefore, the RCC is needed to interpret Scripture and protect orthodoxy. Am I right so far?

Hi Michael,

First my pet peeve. RCC is inacurate and many find it offensive and insulting. We are not all Roman Catholics; many of us are of Byzantine, Maronite, Meklite, and other rites. The correct term is The Catholic Church.

With reference to your question above, No, you are wrong so far. BTW, just for clarity, we all of course agree that Scripture is beneficial for teaching, admonition, correction. . . . By Sola Scriptura, if something isn’t in the Bible, it need not be believed. The main objection to Sola Scriptura, is that it is not contained anywhere in scripture. It is, therefore, self refuting.

Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

 

[space_ghost]

the buck stops here…

 

[Sherlock]

Michael,

You wrote: " How can you understand the Scripture? You are in God’s image. You have great ability to understand things. More than you give yourselves credit for. You will have to make up your own mind on alot of very important things in this life."

Of course. As some other poster mentioned, we don’t consult a priest or bishop over every single Scripture passage, and you are quite mistaken if you think otherwise. However, I look to the Magisterium to establish and teach doctrine derived from Scripture, and to govern the visible Church.

You wrote: “I am sorry that you had that kind of experience. I think that we lose witness to a postmodern world when we do not focus on the essentials.”

But I don’t think my experience is that unique—it is a problem within Protestantism. You told me just prior to this that “Protestants are united on much more than you think”, and then proceeded to list a number of items that you said you were united on. I gave you examples of doctrinal differences within Protestantism that include some of those same items, and you never really addressed that, instead focusing on my personal experience. Nor do you address the fact that what you consider a non-essential is not agreed to by other Protestants. You haven’t addressed that either—Protestants can’t even agree what is and is not considered essential. In contrast, Catholics can and do bicker endlessly about non-essentials, but within Catholicism there IS a standard of orthodoxy by which dissent can be called what it is, dissent. My question is, on what basis do you tell another Protestant denomination that their interpretation is wrong, when the standard (Scriptures only) is used by them as well? How can two contradicting “truths” be true? When an Assembly of God minister says that Protestant ministers who do not teach pre-millenium dispensationalism are not going to be saved, on what basis do you tell him that he’s wrong? He’s following the same Scriptures you are. You can’t really say he’s dissenting, can you? It seems to me that you can only say that his interpretation is different from yours—which means that the Holy Spirit is guiding you into contradictory truth. Since I don’t believe that God does that (Truth, ultimately, is a “who” and not a “what”)
I am left to conclude that something is clearly wrong with sola scriptura.

And another item: you mentioned earlier that you expected that those who claimed to speak for God must exhibit certain characteristics, including predicting the future or showing “signs of an apostle”. However, in Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus says, “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’” So clearly, the mere act of being able to do these kinds of things does not constitute a kind of “seal of approval”.

 

[michaelp]

RBushlow:

Hi Michael,

First my pet peeve. RCC is inacurate and many find it offensive and insulting. We are not all Roman Catholics; many of us are of Byzantine, Maronite, Meklite, and other rites. The correct term is The Catholic Church.

By Sola Scriptura, if something isn’t in the Bible, it need not be believed.

Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

This statement "If it isn’t in the Bible, it need not be believed is not true of any Protestant that I know. Neither was it true of the Reformer. Again, I think that there is great misunderstanding about what sola scriptura means. There are alot of things that I believe that are not in Scripture.

I am sorry for not calling you the Catholic Church, but Roman Catholic. I just do this because you all fall under the authority of Rome, don’t you? Also, Protestants are not willing to concede the term Catholic. We believe that we are Catholic as well. It is a theological term that describes ontological unity, not a denominational term to us.

That is why I do not call (as I am suire is the same with you) the Eastern Orthodox Church, simply Orthodox. We are not willing to concede that we are not Orthodox, which is also a theological description. But this is all a side issue. We do not need to get caught up in this. I do want to be respectful though, so I will concede for your sake.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michael,

You wrote: “I am sorry that you had that kind of experience. I think that we lose witness to a postmodern world when we do not focus on the essentials.”

But I don’t think my experience is that unique—it is a problem within Protestantism. You told me just prior to this that “Protestants are united on much more than you think”, and then proceeded to list a number of items that you said you were united on. I gave you examples of doctrinal differences within Protestantism that include some of those same items, and you never really addressed that, instead focusing on my personal experience. Nor do you address the fact that what you consider a non-essential is not agreed to by other Protestants. You haven’t addressed that either—Protestants can’t even agree what is and is not considered essential. In contrast, Catholics can and do bicker endlessly about non-essentials, but within Catholicism there IS a standard of orthodoxy by which dissent can be called what it is, dissent. My question is, on what basis do you tell another Protestant denomination that their interpretation is wrong, when the standard (Scriptures only) is used by them as well? How can two contradicting “truths” be true? When an Assembly of God minister says that Protestant ministers who do not teach pre-millenium dispensationalism are not going to be saved, on what basis do you tell him that he’s wrong? He’s following the same Scriptures you are. You can’t really say he’s dissenting, can you? It seems to me that you can only say that his interpretation is different from yours—which means that the Holy Spirit is guiding you into contradictory truth. Since I don’t believe that God does that (Truth, ultimately, is a “who” and not a “what”)
I am left to conclude that something is clearly wrong with sola scriptura.

And another item: you mentioned earlier that you expected that those who claimed to speak for God must exhibit certain characteristics, including predicting the future or showing “signs of an apostle”. However, in Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus says, “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’” So clearly, the mere act of being able to do these kinds of things does not constitute a kind of “seal of approval”.

I agree, we Protestants do not have enough unity. I concede. But Catholics, from what I see, do not either. You disagee about the essential doctrine of “Outside the Church there is not salvation.” If that is not essential, I don’t know what is. You disagree about how to test the infallibility of the Pope. Man, that is essential. This displays that the Magisterium needs to be interpreted and explains why you have many different opinions.

Secondly, if you would read both criteria for a prophet in Deut 13 and 18, it clearly states that some will be able to perform signs, but do not have sound doctrine. You need both:

1. Sound doctrine (Deut 13): Which by the way at the time of Moses did not have the Church to canonize what the doctrine was. This confuses me. How were they to test it without the proclaimation of the Church. If you say it was there, that is theological eisogesis (reading some presupposition into the text that was not there). At least that is what I believe.
2. Signs (Deut 18 and 2 Cor 12:12): Everyone who claimed to speak on behalf of God had to produce these. Otherwise anyone could claim to speak on His behalf.

That seems clear enough. Where have I gone wrong?

Thanks for hanging in there,

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: “I agree, we Protestants do not have enough unity. I concede.”

I didn’t say that I thought that Protestants should have more unity—you are not really agreeing with any point I was making. Just what is “enough” unity in Protestant theology anyway? It seems to me that since relativism is part of Protestantism (built in, as it were), and that as a perfectly predictable result of this Protestantism has continued to splinter into more and more denominations with time, I asume that “enough” unity is going to be hard for anyone to define.

You wrote: " But Catholics, from what I see, do not either. You disagee about the essential doctrine of “Outside the Church there is not salvation.”

Say what? I don’t see any disagreement in the CCC about this at all, and I understand it (though obviously the precise limits of “invincible ignorance” are for God to define, not us). That some people on this forum disagree with the Magisterium on this is interesting, but I can call them what they are based on the Catechism: dissenters, at least on this particular issue. You look at arguments by dissenters, and presumably give their arguments the same weight as Magisterial teaching. I don’t. Just because some people don’t want to agree with the Church on an issue doesn’t mean that that issue is “up for grabs” and unresolved. It means that some people don’t like the Church’s teaching.

You wrote: “You disagree about how to test the infallibility of the Pope.”

We do? This is news to me—where are you getting this from? Perhaps the problem here is that you are getting your information from this forum, which, though useful, may be confusing to a non-Catholic who can’t tell the difference between an orthodox Catholic position and a dissenting position.

I’ll have to address the rest of your post later—gotta run. Have a nice evening (and I hope today was less stressful for you). God bless.

 

[mayra_hart]

**EXAMPLES OF THE SACRED APOSTOLIC TRADITION

It has been said, that all that is written in the Gospels cumulatively, would only cover 18 days in the life of Christ. Jesus lived for 33 years or 33 X 365 = 12045 days. What about the missing 12027 days? Christ walked among humanity and gave us 3 years or 3X 365 = 1095 days of verbal teaching before his death, What about Christ’s verbal peaching of the missing 1077 days? Did not Christ promise “the heavens and earth shall pass away but, my words shall not” where are thay? Where are the ‘writings’ of over 99% of His life? Are most of Christ’s words and actions lost to Christianity? The remainder is, no doubt are the unwritten SACRED APOSTOLIC TRADITION!

A good example of this would be the “Agrapha” (unwritten things). Agrapha denotes words of Christ not written in the Four canonical gospels. Many of these are found elsewhere in the New Testament, the early Fathers. The best authenticated are of course those found in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. The following list comes from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Copyright © 2001-2002]

indent the great saying cited by Paul at Miletus: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35);

(2) the words used in the institution of the Eucharist preserved only in 1 Corinthians 11:24;

(3) the promise of the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 1:5; 11:16); and

(4) the answer to the question:

“Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:7 f). Less certain are

(5) the description of the Second Advent, said to be “by the word of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15); and

(6) the promise of the crown of life to them that love God (James 1:12).

[/indent]**

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michaelp,

You wrote: “I agree, we Protestants do not have enough unity. I concede.”

I didn’t say that I thought that Protestants should have more unity—you are not really agreeing with any point I was making. Just what is “enough” unity in Protestant theology anyway? It seems to me that since relativism is part of Protestantism (built in, as it were), and that as a perfectly predictable result of this Protestantism has continued to splinter into more and more denominations with time, I asume that “enough” unity is going to be hard for anyone to define.

You wrote: " But Catholics, from what I see, do not either. You disagee about the essential doctrine of “Outside the Church there is not salvation.”

Say what? I don’t see any disagreement in the CCC about this at all, and I understand it (though obviously the precise limits of “invincible ignorance” are for God to define, not us). That some people on this forum disagree with the Magisterium on this is interesting, but I can call them what they are based on the Catechism: dissenters, at least on this particular issue. You look at arguments by dissenters, and presumably give their arguments the same weight as Magisterial teaching. I don’t. Just because some people don’t want to agree with the Church on an issue doesn’t mean that that issue is “up for grabs” and unresolved. It means that some people don’t like the Church’s teaching.

You wrote: “You disagree about how to test the infallibility of the Pope.”

We do? This is news to me—where are you getting this from? Perhaps the problem here is that you are getting your information from this forum, which, though useful, may be confusing to a non-Catholic who can’t tell the difference between an orthodox Catholic position and a dissenting position.

I’ll have to address the rest of your post later—gotta run. Have a nice evening (and I hope today was less stressful for you). God bless.

Well, I see and have heard much disagreement among catholic scholars as to these issues, not just on this website. This has been conceded many times, but you may have a different view (does this mean you have a different interpretation).

As to Protestants being relativists (the basis of the first part of your arguement, you lost me and I think that this is either a major misunderstanding of what it means to be a relativist, or it is a great mis-characterization of Protestants. If you truly believe this, all I can say is you are wrong. I don’t know of one respected Protestant scholar who is a relativist.

I do my best not to mis-characterize you or anyone else. That would be simply building straw men arguments that do not do anyone any good.

I am feeling much better, thanks for rememebering.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

EXAMPLES OF THE SACRED APOSTOLIC TRADITION

It has been said, that all that is written in the Gospels cumulatively, would only cover 18 days in the life of Christ. Jesus lived for 33 years or 33 X 365 = 12045 days. What about the missing 12027 days? Christ walked among humanity and gave us 3 years or 3X 365 = 1095 days of verbal teaching before his death, What about Christ’s verbal peaching of the missing 1077 days? Did not Christ promise “the heavens and earth shall pass away but, my words shall not” where are thay? Where are the ‘writings’ of over 99% of His life? Are most of Christ’s words and actions lost to Christianity? The remainder is, no doubt are the unwritten SACRED APOSTOLIC TRADITION!

A good example of this would be the “Agrapha” (unwritten things). Agrapha denotes words of Christ not written in the Four canonical gospels. Many of these are found elsewhere in the New Testament, the early Fathers. The best authenticated are of course those found in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. The following list comes from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Copyright © 2001-2002]

indent the great saying cited by Paul at Miletus: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35);

(2) the words used in the institution of the Eucharist preserved only in 1 Corinthians 11:24;

(3) the promise of the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 1:5; 11:16); and

(4) the answer to the question:

“Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:7 f). Less certain are

(5) the description of the Second Advent, said to be “by the word of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15); and

(6) the promise of the crown of life to them that love God (James 1:12).

[/indent]

Thanks. That is interesting.

 

[Sherlock]

Hi Michael,

You wrote: “Well, I see and have heard much disagreement among catholic scholars as to these issues, not just on this website.”

Catholic scholars are not the Magisterium, interesting and useful that they might otherwise be. I am not aware of what specific arguments they are raising against Church teaching that you have in mind, so I can’t really comment on them. I was assuming, regarding “no salvation outside of the Church”, that you were referring to those on this forum that adhere to a Feeney-ite interpretation. Since their position has been rejected by the Magisterium, I don’t pay much attention to them and do not see their continued arguments as an indication of an unresolved issue, but as an indication of the stubborness and pride that is part of human nature, a pride that does not submit readily to correction.

You wrote: “This has been conceded many times, but you may have a different view (does this mean you have a different interpretation).”

I’m afraid I don’t know what has been “conceded”, so I don’t know how to respond: I will concede that there are dissenters within the Church, but that doesn’t mean that their arguments reflect unresolved Catholic teaching, but an unwillingness to accept it. 2+2=4, but some people insisting that it equals five does not mean that the formulation is false, with the question remaining unresolved.

You wrote: " As to Protestants being relativists (the basis of the first part of your arguement, you lost me and I think that this is either a major misunderstanding of what it means to be a relativist, or it is a great mis-characterization of Protestants."

Let me explain: since Protestantism accepts Scripture as the only infallible authority, it is clear that as long as a particular individual’s or denomination’s interpretation of Christianity is in accord with that authority, it is valid. However, the history of Protestantism demonstrates that different individuals and different groups have come up with many different interpretations based on this same authority regarding essential “truths”. Sometimes these “truths” contradict one another: an essential “truth” of an Assembly of God doctrine can contradict an essential “truth” of a Lutheran doctrine. Since both interpretations are based on their understanding of Scriptures, it seems reasonable to say that a kind of relativism is inherent in Protestantism: you have your truth, and I have mine. Truth is thus relative: there is no basis for you to say that a particular Protestant denomination’s interpretation is false, as long as it is based on the same authority. What authority do you have to make a judgement?

You wrote: " I do my best not to mis-characterize you or anyone else. That would be simply building straw men arguments that do not do anyone any good."

And I recognize and appreciate that… man, do I appreciate that!!! I have been called a “practicioner of SATAN’S DARKEST CRAFTS”, a “MOUTH OF SATAN”, etc., as well as being informed that I am going to BURN IN HELL—these people like to use capital letters—for being a Catholic, and you are a breath of fresh air. You have been very respectful----thank you very, very much.

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Hi Michael,
You wrote: " As to Protestants being relativists (the basis of the first part of your arguement, you lost me and I think that this is either a major misunderstanding of what it means to be a relativist, or it is a great mis-characterization of Protestants."

Let me explain: since Protestantism accepts Scripture as the only infallible authority, it is clear that as long as a particular individual’s or denomination’s interpretation of Christianity is in accord with that authority, it is valid. However, the history of Protestantism demonstrates that different individuals and different groups have come up with many different interpretations based on this same authority regarding essential “truths”. Sometimes these “truths” contradict one another: an essential “truth” of an Assembly of God doctrine can contradict an essential “truth” of a Lutheran doctrine. Since both interpretations are based on their understanding of Scriptures, it seems reasonable to say that a kind of relativism is inherent in Protestantism: you have your truth, and I have mine. Truth is thus relative: there is no basis for you to say that a particular Protestant denomination’s interpretation is false, as long as it is based on the same authority. What authority do you have to make a judgement?

Got ya. Here is the difference. You say our belief is relative to our denomination, sect, (both are relative) or opinion (subjective). Fair enough. But we do not believe truth is relative or subjective. We believe in objective truth. This does not mean that our perception of the objective truth is correct, but it is very wrong to say that we are relativists or subjectivists. Postmoderns gladly concede to such titles, any believer in the Truth of Scripture cannot or His faith is worthless.

Hope this clarifies what I mean.

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: “Got ya. Here is the difference. You say our belief is relative to our denomination, sect, (both are relative) or opinion (subjective). Fair enough. But we do not believe truth is relative or subjective. We believe in objective truth.”

I wasn’t saying that you were declared relativists. What I was saying was that despite your belief in objective truth (and yes, I am sure you believe in objective truth), each Protestant denomination believes in its own “objective truth”—otherwise, why would they believe in it? Since some of these “objective truths” contradict other Protestants’ “objective truths”, then either it’s OK that you have your truth while another denomination has its own, and possibly contradictory, equally valid truth (in which case the effect is relative or subjective “truth” whether you believe in it or not), or the system of sola scriptura as the sole infallible authority is flawed.

You wrote: “Postmoderns gladly concede to such titles, any believer in the Truth of Scripture cannot or His faith is worthless.”

I agree heartily, and am not saying that you or any other Protestant thinks that relativism is OK. What I am saying is that sola scriptura leads to relativism whether you or any other Protestant thinks it’s OK or not. By what authority could you say that the Episcopalians are wrong in appointing to the bishopric an active homosexual? They are claiming the same Scriptures that you do as their infallible authority. By what authority could you say that the Assembly of God ministers who claim that all Protestant ministers who don’t preach “The Rapture” will be damned are wrong, seeing as how they too are very fervent in their use of Scripture to support their position?

 

[RBushlow]

michaelp:

RBushlow:

*Hi Michael,

First my pet peeve. RCC is inacurate and many find it offensive and insulting. We are not all Roman Catholics; many of us are of Byzantine, Maronite, Meklite, and other rites. The correct term is The Catholic Church.

By Sola Scriptura, if something isn’t in the Bible, it need not be believed. By Sola Scriptura, if something isn’t in the Bible, it need not be believed. The main objection to Sola Scriptura, is that it is not contained anywhere in scripture.
Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord.*

This statement "If it isn’t in the Bible, it need not be believed is not true of any Protestant that I know. Neither was it true of the Reformer. Again, I think that there is great misunderstanding about what sola scriptura means. There are alot of things that I believe that are not in Scripture.
Michael

Thank you Michael.

Let me rephrase my statement for clarity:
By Sola Scriptura, if a key doctrine isn’t in the Bible, it may not be true. That most certainly is the common understanding of the majority of those who profess Sola Scriptura. The main objection is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not contained anywhere in scripture. It is, therefore, self refuting.

Peace be with you.

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michaelp,

You wrote: “Got ya. Here is the difference. You say our belief is relative to our denomination, sect, (both are relative) or opinion (subjective). Fair enough. But we do not believe truth is relative or subjective. We believe in objective truth.”

I wasn’t saying that you were declared relativists. What I was saying was that despite your belief in objective truth (and yes, I am sure you believe in objective truth), each Protestant denomination believes in its own “objective truth”—otherwise, why would they believe in it? Since some of these “objective truths” contradict other Protestants’ “objective truths”, then either it’s OK that you have your truth while another denomination has its own, and possibly contradictory, equally valid truth (in which case the effect is relative or subjective “truth” whether you believe in it or not), or the system of sola scriptura as the sole infallible authority is flawed.

You wrote: “Postmoderns gladly concede to such titles, any believer in the Truth of Scripture cannot or His faith is worthless.”

I agree heartily, and am not saying that you or any other Protestant thinks that relativism is OK. What I am saying is that sola scriptura leads to relativism whether you or any other Protestant thinks it’s OK or not. By what authority could you say that the Episcopalians are wrong in appointing to the bishopric an active homosexual? They are claiming the same Scriptures that you do as their infallible authority. By what authority could you say that the Assembly of God ministers who claim that all Protestant ministers who don’t preach “The Rapture” will be damned are wrong, seeing as how they too are very fervent in their use of Scripture to support their position?

Cool. But I would put it this way. Protestants believe in objective truth and are therefore objectivists. Their perception of the truth is based upon their interpretation of the Bible (only infallible authority), tradition, general revelation, experience, emotion, and reason. If you would like to see a presentation of this, go to www.thetheologyprogram.com and watch the first course in Introduction to Theology. It will help you better see where we are coming from.

Therefore, like Catholics, we our interpretation is relative to our situation (your situation is that you are Roman Catholic and must yeald to the interpretation of the magisterium). But we all agree that our beliefs are only true to the degree that the correspond to reality. This is called the correspondence theory of truth. This is the theory to which we both ascribe.

So, in reality, neither you or I are relativists. Just because we see thing relative to our own traditions as sources, does not mean that we are relativists.

Hope this clears things up.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

RBushlow:

Thank you Michael.

Let me rephrase my statement for clarity:
By Sola Scriptura, if a key doctrine isn’t in the Bible, it may not be true. That most certainly is the common understanding of the majority of those who profess Sola Scriptura. The main objection is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not contained anywhere in scripture. It is, therefore, self refuting.

Peace be with you.

I do not agree (and I cannot rehash all the arguements that have been given in this forum by me over the last couple of weeks), but let’s just say for the sake of argument that you are right. Where do you find the doctrine of infallible apostolic succession in the Bible. Don’t use illusions, give me explicit teaching. I think that this would be needed. You cannot say that the Church teaches it, or it is circular.

By the way. Formally, what you said above is not “self-refuting.” This is a wrong use of the fallacy.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Once again to you all,

I will have to pull out of this conversation for a while. I hope that you all have gained as much as I have from this. I think that I better understand your positions. Becuase of this, I promise not to misrepresent you in any of my teachings. I have been further pursuaded by you all about the importance of tradition and I greatly respect your views, even if I disagree.

Many of you have been kind and gracious. I hope that I have been the same with you. I feel as if many of you are my friends. You will see me around soon, but please do not be offended if I do not answer any more for a while. And, also, please do not think that I have given up learning from you all.

Your brother in Christ,

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: “Protestants believe in objective truth and are therefore objectivists.”

Heh heh—I’ll assume that you DON’T mean you are a follower of Ayn Rand!!

But you haven’t addressed the problem: how can truth contradict itself? Can it contradict itself and remain truth? Clearly, this happens within Protestantism. And frankly, this is one reason why I left Protestantism.

You wrote: “Therefore, like Catholics, we our interpretation is relative to our situation (your situation is that you are Roman Catholic and must yeald to the interpretation of the magisterium).”

But this doesn’t address the main problem, as I’ve said above: not all of these interpretations can be true, in particular where there is contradiction. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. By what authority does a Protestant make a judgement between two contradicting doctrines (each held to be “objectively true” based on the infallible authority of Scripture)? Since the other means you mention (tradition, general revelation, experience, emotion, and reason) are of course subjective, how can you be sure? Yes, Catholics must “yield” to the Magisterium (if you want to put it that way), but I do so because I see that Jesus founded a Church and gave it authority. The authority the Church wields comes from God. Your extra-Biblical means are subjective because they come from man, and your sole infallible authority (the Bible) is being asked to do something that it clearly was not meant to do—I say clearly because, if it was, there wouldn’t be so many contradicting doctrines within Protestantism. And the result is, as I have said, a kind of relativism whether you believe in objective truth or not. I’m afraid you really haven’t said anything that dispels this, though I’m appreciative of your efforts and am thankful for your politeness and charity.

God bless.

 

[RBushlow]

michaelp:

Once again to you all,

I will have to pull out of this conversation for a while. I hope that you all have gained as much as I have from this. I think that I better understand your positions.

Many of you have been kind and gracious. I hope that I have been the same with you. I feel as if many of you are my friends.
Your brother in Christ,

Michael

God bless you Michael, and thank you for participating and helping us understand your prespective.

Yours in Christ.

 

[michaelp]

michaelp:

On this website alone there are thousands of different opinions on how to interpret the counsels (especially Vatican II).

In the original post I said that there were thousands of different opinions on how to interpret the councils (especially V2).

I take that back. I don’t know if there are “thousands.” I should not have put that. I am sorry if I mischaracterized the RC unity.

In Him,

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Exporter:

MichaelP,
I just read something you wrote that makes no sence at all on a Catholic Website. Maybe you thought you were posting on some Protestant Forum. You wrote,“Many people trying to interpret the Magisterium, each believing that they are led by the Holy Spirit. What is the difference in this and those who just start with Scripure. We are ultimately left to the unifying guidence of the Holy Spirit.”

1. Can you name just one who is trying to interpret the Magisterium(to use your turn of the phrase)?
   2.Who are these people who are taking the place of the Magisterium in wrongy assuming they can “interpret”?
   3.My friend, we have worn that false argument,“Sola Scriptura” out.
2. No Sir, WE are not left to the instruction by the Holy Spirit…the Magesterium is left to interpret , anything, with the help of the Holy Ghost.
3. After this , you should not have more questions.

You say you do not understand. Could it be your Protestant Prejudice? You think anyone and everyone can read the Bible and then automatically be able to interpret it. It seems you want Catholics to say they can interpret what the Magesterium has You want to impose your Sola Scriptura on to Catholic teachings - it will not work any more than trying to put 10 pounds of sand into a 9 pound bag.

To us the fact that so many Protestant Churches have only the Bible of King James and all these P. Churches interpret the same Bible differently. How can that be Mr. MichaelP?