Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exporter. Hello, I am Catholic and Faithful to the Magestarium and scripture, and love my and your Faith.I am also a convert,Michael is one of the few protestants that has not come to this forum accussing,name calling and being overtly anti-catholic.He is asking questions because he is trying to learn, now he may or may not start to believe in all the truths we have been blessed to recieve,but if he is chastsed for asking how is he even going to find out. Please let him ask, and if you have the information to answer him, do it in love:blessyou:
 
Michaelp,

The Magisterium is the teaching office of the holy Catholic Church. It is composed of the head of the Church, the Pope, and all the Bishops united with him. They are the ones who define or interprets doctrines of the faith, and especially with regards to morality issues.

BTW, the Catholic Church is composed of 23 different rites todate, in which the Roman Catholics comprises a large portion of the one Catholic Church. They are sometimes referred to as the Latin/Roman or Western Catholics. The Church in Rome is of the Latin rite (where the Pope is), that’s why the Catholic Church is widely known as “Roman Catholic”. But the offical term is really the Catholic Church. Among the other Catholics are of the Eastern rites such as the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, Melkites, Chaldean, etc. The Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq is united with the Catholic Church. These 23 different rites are faithful to the Magisterium and is united with the present Pope John Paul II. We, although have different rites/traditions observed, are one in faith and teachings and no one among these members can teach doctrines and dogmas outside of the Catholic faith. These alone attests to the universality of the Church of Christ which transcends every culture and age in the history of Christianity.

Pio
 
This thread should be renamed, “who interprets the Magisterium”
 
40.png
michaelp:
This thread should be renamed, “who interprets the Magisterium”
Click to expand...
The Magesterium are people (Pope, bishops, etc.). I think it often is called the “Living Magesterium” for this reason.

Think of it this way: The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, as well as statutes, etc. Who interprets the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court opinions (the cases they decide) are interpreted by the Supreme Court (possibly a future court made up of different judges, but the same Supreme Court). Now imagine that this court was infallible and never overruled itself. That’s like the Magesterium.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
The Magesterium are people (Pope, bishops, etc.). I think it often is called the “Living Magesterium” for this reason.

Think of it this way: The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, as well as statutes, etc. Who interprets the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court opinions (the cases they decide) are interpreted by the Supreme Court (possibly a future court made up of different judges, but the same Supreme Court). Now imagine that this court was infallible and never overruled itself. That’s like the Magesterium.
Click to expand...
This is a great example since in the law practice, it is often very difficult to interpret the Courts decisions and apply them to indiviual circumstances. Anyone in law knows this.

Thanks for the illustration, although I know that you did not mean it to illustrate the point of this thread. It is very good.

Expecially since it illustrates the role of the Church from a Protestant perspective. The Supreme court is not an infallible authority, nor in a democracy is it the ultimate authority. The people are.

All information, by definition must be interpreted according to the situation, culture, and intent of the author. That is why the infallible Magisteriums declarations are so difficult to interpret and you can come to a “Unified” catholic website and see so much disagreement.

Thanks.

Michael
 
Maybe the way to approach this ongoing version of “Who’s on first?” is to come from a different direction.

Michael, what has the Church taught difinitively that you don’t agree with and why? Are you sure your disagreements are well founded / have you exhausted all efforts at trying to understand why/how the Church has defined the Articles of Faith as she has? Look beyond the humanity of the Church.

God (Jesus) chose 12 men (not and angels) with 1 as their rock (Peter) to teach in His name and to defend His gospel truth. Men can be fools no doubt!

Ask yourself this:

If you were alive at the time of Christ and a witness to things that took place during His life and after, are you sure you would follow the Apostles in their new Way? Consider the fact that 1 of the 12 betrayed Jesus to death, 1 denied Him three times, all but 1 (John) ran and hid in fear like cowards while He was tortured and crucified even though they professed Jesus to be the Son of God, then they chose a new Apostle to join them (Paul) who until he was knocked off his horse was a zealous Christian killer . . .
Today we can look at the men and leaders of the Church and see many, many flaws too, and for that some say w/ pride “I don’t believe in this Church or her authority because of these men who seem to make things so complicated and are such sinners!”
Would you say that to the Apostles for the same reasons if you were there then?

God bless,
Bob
 
Maybe the way to approach this ongoing version of “Who’s on first?” is to come from a different direction.

Michael, what has the Church taught difinitively that you don’t agree with and why? Are you sure your disagreements are well founded / have you exhausted all efforts at trying to understand why/how the Church has defined the Articles of Faith as she has? Look beyond the humanity of the Church.

God (Jesus) chose 12 men (not and angels) with 1 as their rock (Peter) to teach in His name and to defend His gospel truth. Men can be fools no doubt!

Ask yourself this:

If you were alive at the time of Christ and a witness to things that took place during His life and after, are you sure you would follow the Apostles in their new Way? Consider the fact that 1 of the 12 betrayed Jesus to death, 1 denied Him three times, all but 1 (John) ran and hid in fear like cowards while He was tortured and crucified even though they professed Jesus to be the Son of God, then they chose a new Apostle to join them (Paul) who until he was knocked off his horse was a zealous Christian killer . . .
Today we can look at the men and leaders of the Church and see many, many flaws too, and for that some say w/ pride “I don’t believe in this Church or her authority because of these men who seem to make things so complicated and are such sinners!”
Would you say that to the Apostles for the same reasons if you were there then?

God bless,
Bob
Click to expand...
Thanks Bob. I appreciate your concern. But it would take many different threads to express all my problems with RC Church. I have, through the months, attempted to get answers to each one of these. This is actually an old thread. The issues are still valid about the interpretation of the Magisteium. If you read this entire thread, it is my contention that any objective reader would agree that the question has not been sufficiently answered to any degree. The biggest problem that I have with the RC positions is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to have honest debate since the Roman Catholic is predisposed to being closed about any issues since their own thoughts are irrelevant, being that they are not allowed to interpret on their own (either history or the Bible), but must always agree with anything the RCC says.

This particular thread deals with part of the heart of the issue. The RC is bent upon a belief in the creedal unity that can only be accomplished by a thoughtful or thoughtless (it makes no difference) submission to the declarations of the Magisterial Church. There is no checks and balances. It does not matter if the evidence seems to be contrary to the RC position because you and every other Catholic is not truly qualified to speak on the subjects that you believe with any authority. So all arguements with RCs normally end in question begging (i.e. it is ultimately true because the RCC says it is true). This is not, in my opinion, the way that we should love the lord with all our mind. It is a denial of the intellect and a dishonor to the Imago Dei. This is my opinion and by virtue of that you are not allowed to seriously consider it, are you?

The only Catholics that I have ever seen who are open to contrary opinions (the only way that a person can truly learn), are deemed as heritics.

So, back to this issue. The Magisterium often offers infallible statements that must be interpreted. People disagree as to what the interpretation is. Therefore, who has the infallible authority to infallibly interpret the Magisterium? It leads to infinite regress.

But, this has already been hashed out in this thread. I don’t think anyone has anything new to say. In my opinion the problem (which, by the way, is not the biggest problem with the concept of infallibility–there are many others) remains.

That is where I and most Protestants scholars are at and have been since the 16th century when we believe infallibility was introduced in the 11th and 12th century. Again, my opinion.:o

Here is a good summary of this view: the-highway.com/catholic-toc_Armstrong.html

Have a great day and it is nice to talk to you for the first time.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
This is a great example since in the law practice, it is often very difficult to interpret the Courts decisions and apply them to indiviual circumstances. Anyone in law knows this.

Thanks for the illustration, although I know that you did not mean it to illustrate the point of this thread. It is very good.

Expecially since it illustrates the role of the Church from a Protestant perspective. The Supreme court is not an infallible authority, nor in a democracy is it the ultimate authority. The people are.

All information, by definition must be interpreted according to the situation, culture, and intent of the author. That is why the infallible Magisteriums declarations are so difficult to interpret and you can come to a “Unified” catholic website and see so much disagreement.

Thanks.

Michael
Click to expand...
You’re right that the Supreme Court is not infallible and that in a democracy the people are the ultimate authority. But the Magesterium is infallible and the Church is not a democracy so the people are not the ultimate authority.

There is only one true interpretation and only the Magesterium can give you that. Does that make sense? I’m not sure I see a whole lot of disagreement on anything in the deposit of faith and morals that has been infallibly defined. Do you have any examples?

Think about the Court again. The judge who wrote the opinion will be able to give you the correct interpretation of that opinion. You say its difficult to interpret court opinions, but it is not difficult for that very court that issued the opinion to interpret it. Now, as justices change, that interpretaion could change. In this repect, the Magesterium is different. The interpretaion doesn’t change (due to infallibility). Got it?
 
You’re right that the Supreme Court is not infallible and that in a democracy the people are the ultimate authority. But the Magesterium is infallible and the Church is not a democracy so the people are not the ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, this is question begging since the two of us do not agree with this. I was just showing how the illustrations is a good one to support my position more than yours. Wouldn’t you agree?
There is only one true interpretation and only the Magesterium can give you that. Does that make sense? I’m not sure I see a whole lot of disagreement on anything in the deposit of faith and morals that has been infallibly defined. Do you have any examples?
Click to expand...
Check out the threads on “extra ecclesia nulla salus.” No one seems to agree. Check out the threads on how many infallible statements the Pope has made. There is no infallible list of infallible statments! Check out the debate on the dual-source vs. material sufficiency issue. If these are not essential disagreements, I don’t know what are.
Think about the Court again. The judge who wrote the opinion will be able to give you the correct interpretation of that opinion. You say its difficult to interpret court opinions, but it is not difficult for that very court that issued the opinion to interpret it. Now, as justices change, that interpretaion could change. In this repect, the Magesterium is different. The interpretaion doesn’t change (due to infallibility). Got it?
Click to expand...
And sometimes earlier statements are over-ruled, just as is our hope for Roe v Wade.

I respect tradition (more so prior to the 11th century) and yeald to it, but I don’t by any means believe it to be infallible. It must be keep in check–like a democracy!

Michael
 
"

Originally Posted by Exporter
*MichaelP,

May I ask a simple straightforward question. A “Yes” or a “No” answer would be sufficient. Lets not get complicated, please.

Originally Posted by michaelp
OK, you got me. I believe in sola scriptura.

Do you belive that the King James Version of The Bible, when read by normal people, can be interpreted by each individual and any other individual and be in complete agreement with one another?

:tiphat: If “No”, why not?"*
O.K. how about this: Three bible only men are assigned a particular Chapter in the Protestant’s Bible to interpret. But they are each sent to separate rooms to interpret. When they are done we will compare their work. I susspect we will have three different interpretations. The Chapter I want them to interpret is Apocalypse Chap.12 v. 1 thru 17.
 
Do you belive that the King James Version of The Bible, when read by normal people, can be interpreted by each individual and any other individual and be in complete agreement with one another?

:tiphat: If “No”, why not?"

If people are using a hermeneutic which recognizes that the text means what the original author meant it to and understand the culture and situation to which it was written, and people do not come with their presuppositions, I believe that both the infallible declarations of the Magisterium (supposing that people could agree on what they are) AND the Scripture could be interpreted with much agreement.
*
O.K. how about this: Three bible only men are assigned a particular Chapter in the Protestant’s Bible to interpret. But they are each sent to separate rooms to interpret. When they are done we will compare their work. I susspect we will have three different interpretations. The Chapter I want them to interpret is Apocalypse Chap.12 v. 1 thru 17.

This would be a more difficult one.

Has the Magisterium spoken on the book of Revelation here? If not, you have the same problem, right?

But the subject is the interpretation of the Magisterium, not Scripture. Both are going to have some things that are clear, and some things that are not so clear.

Michael*
 
40.png
michaelp:
Respectfully, this is question begging since the two of us do not agree with this. I was just showing how the illustrations is a good one to support my position more than yours. Wouldn’t you agree?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how it supports your position more than mine. Your question was “who interprets the Magesterium?” My answer was the Magesterium interprets the Magesterium. This is the same as the Supreme Court interprets the Supreme Court. Your interpretation of their opinions have no force. Only the Court’s interpretaion of the Court’s opinions hold force. Likewise, the Magesterium’s interpretation of the Magesterium is what counts. The Church never overrules anything that has been infallibly defined.

Likewise, democracy does not apply here. I think we can both agree that the Truth is not determined by the majority. The Truth never changes. The Supreme Court may be kept in check by the people, but the Magesterium and Tradition are kept in check by the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference.

As for disputes on these threads, there is a right interpretation and a wrong and that’s why it’s good the Magesterium is alive. If some teaching of the Church became significantly misunderstood, the Magesterium can clarify. This is different than when non-Catholics disagree on the Bible, because there is no one there to clarify.You are left without a teacher.
 
The Church never overrules anything that has been infallibly defined.
Click to expand...
That is right, but the supreme court can! Therefore, not a good illustration for your position.
Likewise, democracy does not apply here. I think we can both agree that the Truth is not determined by the majority. The Truth never changes. The Supreme Court may be kept in check by the people, but the Magesterium and Tradition are kept in check by the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference.
Click to expand...
Agian, going to show how your illustration was not good for your position.
As for disputes on these threads, there is a right interpretation and a wrong and that’s why it’s good the Magesterium is alive. If some teaching of the Church became significantly misunderstood, the Magesterium can clarify. This is different than when people disagree on the Bible, because there is no one there to clarify.You are left without a teacher.
Click to expand...
But you still need to interpret the Magisterium and there is inevitably going to be perpretual disagreement as to what she meant. Do you think that all Catholics agree %100 as to what the Magisterium means? No? Well then, you have to rely on your own interpretations since your local priest or bishop cannot speak infallibly on the issue and you may not live long enough to see another council which deals with it. So, practially speaking, who interprets the magisterium?

I appreciate your time, my friend.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
That is right, but the supreme court can! Therefore, not a good illustration for your position.

Agian, going to show how your illustration was not good for your position.

But you still need to interpret the Magisterium and there is inevitably going to be perpretual disagreement as to what she meant. Do you think that all Catholics agree %100 as to what the Magisterium means? No? Well then, you have to rely on your own interpretations since your local priest or bishop cannot speak infallibly on the issue and you may not live long enough to see another council which deals with it. So, practially speaking, who interprets the magisterium?

I appreciate your time, my friend.

Michael
Click to expand...
Hahaha, ok I see your point now. The Supreme Court was the best worldly example I could think of. That’s why I made distinctions. I guess I should have said “imagine a divinely instituted Supreme Court…” That would have been better maybe.

Let’s put it this way, there is perpetual disagreement among non-Catholics and these disagreements keep getting greater and greater. There are non-Catholic Churches that now accept homosexuality, contraception, no Hell, abortion, OSAS, etc. I think even you’ll agree these beliefs are far from those of the apostles (I think you’re not an OSAS guy). The Magesterium as a living organism has kept the teachings of the Church intact. An interpretation is never allowed to get far from the Truth. The disagreements between Catholics on these threads pale in magnitude compared to the disagreements between non-Catholics.

Without a living teaching Church to act as a safeguard, doctrines continue to evolve (or devolve) as they stray farther and farther away. Jesus knew this so He gave us a living teaching Church.

Ok, I am going to ask you to humor me a minute. Let me give you a hypothetical. You have two choices:
  1. You just read the Bible and come to your own personal conclusions.
  2. You read the Bible, but you have an infallible teacher. When you have a question, you can ask him, and he’ll mail you a written response.
Which set-up would be best? (I know you don’t believe in infallibility, but play along for this hypo)
 
Ok, I am going to ask you to humor me a minute. Let me give you a hypothetical. You have two choices:
  1. You just read the Bible and come to your own personal conclusions.
  2. You read the Bible, but you have an infallible teacher. When you have a question, you can ask him, and he’ll mail you a written response.
Which set-up would be best? (I know you don’t believe in infallibility, but play along for this hypo)
Click to expand...
This is a great question. It really, more than anything, shows how the RCC argument comes down to pragmatics. If it works to create unity, it must be true.

I will go along with this and say 2.

Let me ask you this now.

Here are your choices:
  1. You just read the Bible and come to your own personal conclusions.
  2. You read the Bible, but you have an infallible teacher (the Magisterium made up of sinners). When you have a question, you can ask him, and he’ll mail you a written response.
  3. Christ Himself meeting with you daily, giving you direction for the day?
#3? Great. Me too. But this does not make it true. We work with what we have. We don’t create something and use pragmatics to justify its validity.

Besides this, you assume that disagreement is a totally unhealthy thing. I think that you are wrong. I think that it is through disagreements and controversies that God makes us grow deeper. I don’t think that a church can grow in understanding when indoctrination of only one “valid” viewpoint must be adhered to without any true personal struggle. Therefore, doctrinal disagreements are heathly for the church because it helps us to grow deep. But it must be said, this does not make it true. If I was using this as proof for sola Scriptura, it would be purely pragmatic and I would be committing the same fallacy which I have just accused you and other Catholics of committing. But it does serve to illustrate how disagreements may be the will of God. Have you ever thought of that?

Therefore, all the disagreements about interpreting the Magisterium could be valuable if you would see them as such.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
This is a great question. It really, more than anything, shows how the RCC argument comes down to pragmatics. If it works to create unity, it must be true.

I will go along with this and say 2.

Let me ask you this now.

Here are your choices:
  1. You just read the Bible and come to your own personal conclusions.
  2. You read the Bible, but you have an infallible teacher (the Magisterium made up of sinners). When you have a question, you can ask him, and he’ll mail you a written response.
  3. Christ Himself meeting with you daily, giving you direction for the day?
#3? Great. Me too. But this does not make it true. We work with what we have. We don’t create something and use pragmatics to justify its validity.

Besides this, you assume that disagreement is a totally unhealthy thing. I think that you are wrong. I think that it is through disagreements and controversies that God makes us grow deeper. I don’t think that a church can grow in understanding when indoctrination of only one “valid” viewpoint must be adhered to without any true personal struggle. Therefore, doctrinal disagreements are heathly for the church because it helps us to grow deep. But it must be said, this does not make it true. If I was using this as proof for sola Scriptura, it would be purely pragmatic and I would be committing the same fallacy which I have just accused you and other Catholics of committing. But it does serve to illustrate how disagreements may be the will of God. Have you ever thought of that?

Therefore, all the disagreements about interpreting the Magisterium could be valuable if you would see them as such.

Michael
Click to expand...
As for pragmatics, I’d imagine if one system worked better than another, Jesus probably set up the superior one. We just disagree which one is superior. (can I ask what denomination you are?)

As for disagreements being good, I have to disagree 😃 . God has one Truth. There’s no spectrum of viewpoints. God’s Truth cannot contradict itself. I don’t think He wants people to disagree on things as important as salvation and the Eucharist. Jesus did not want to establish a bunch of disagreeing Churches. The Church is His mystical body. The members of His Body should not contradict each other.
 
As for pragmatics, I’d imagine if one system worked better than another, Jesus probably set up the superior one. We just disagree which one is superior. (can I ask what denomination you are?)
Click to expand...
But pragmatically speaking, you must admit that having Christ’s physical presence would be the best case senerio right?
As for disagreements being good, I have to disagree 😃 .
Click to expand...
Ah, but the concept itself has made you think about it deeper and differently than you ever have before. Right? Whatever postition you end up taking the principle remains, “in contrast, there is clarity.”
God has one Truth.
Click to expand...
Right
There’s no spectrum of viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Wrong, as illustrated by this conversation.
God’s Truth cannot contradict itself.
Click to expand...
Agree.
I don’t think He wants people to disagree on things as important as salvation and the Eucharist. Jesus did not want to establish a bunch of disagreeing Churches. The Church is His mystical body. The members of His Body should not contradict each other.
Click to expand...
Hey brother, I respect your opinion and your right to have it. But this does not mean it is true.

This thread also demonstrates that the Magisterium does not create quite the unity that some RCs would believe and champion since many people interpret it differently becuase of some inherent ambibuity.

Michael
 
Michael I know what he is asking;) He wants to know if everybody read the same Bible would they ccome up with the same interpretations or conclusions.God Bless:)
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Michael I know what he is asking;) He wants to know if everybody read the same Bible would they ccome up with the same interpretations or conclusions.God Bless:)
Click to expand...
Hi Lisa, I answered it in #151.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top