Who Needs a Magisterium Anyway?

[Budge]

[quote]An Exchange of Letters

In the year 2000, after having grown weary of an apologetic issue favored by several Catholic apologists I had been arguing with in Christian chat rooms, I decided to discover for myself just how many verses of the Bible had been infallibly defined by the Teaching Authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I wrote a letter to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in which I asked for information. My letter and Monsignor DiNoia's courteous reply can be read below:[/quote]

[img]http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/Ltr2NCCB.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/NCCB_Reply.jpg[/img]

[url="http://www.sxws.com/charis/2letters.htm"]Link here[/url]


The Catechism of the Catholic Church, ©1994/1997 USCC, makes it clear that only the Magisterium is authorized to interpret Scripture

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

So WHY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS< HAVE THEY ONLY INTERPRETED SEVEN?

[thessalonian]

Ignornace is bliss I guess. You don't understand Catholicism Budge. Admit it.

[Eutychus]

Who does, really?

I just look at Limbo as an example.

One of the requirements of being a Roman Catholic, is you MUST submit to all the binding Dogma's of the church, right? For years, I have searched for that list, after all, if I MUST believe all of them, the very least they could do, is to tell me what they all are, don't you think?

In all the years, the closest answer I ever got, was a few that suggested I read Ott's book.

I then asked, if that was OFFICIAL, or just the speculations of ONE individual theologian, and could be disavowed whenever he proved inconvient. Seems that is the case, Ott is not speaking officially for anyone but himself.

One time, someone had the very interesting visual example. A person asked what is the difference between Christianity circa 100AD and Roman Catholicism circa 2000. There were two doorways, in one was all that you needed to know as a Christian then, which was one or two books. In the other, was the MILES of books that supposedly constitue the deposit of faith that constitutes the Roman Catholic faith.

Even the current CCC has weasle word language in the opening, I guess that gives them an out, if anything contained therein needs "revised, eliminated, or radically changed" next time the "Faith that NEVER Changes" decides to do one more ABOUT FACE.

[quote]VI. NECESSARY ADAPTATIONS

23 The Catechism emphasizes the exposition of doctrine. It seeks to help deepen understanding of faith. In this way it is oriented towards the maturing of that faith, its putting down roots in personal life, and its shining forth in personal conduct.17

[u][b]24 By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:[/b][/u]

Whoever teaches must become "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers. . . . Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct.18

[/quote]

[Budge]

[quote]Ignornace is bliss I guess. You don't understand Catholicism Budge. Admit it.[/quote]

So are you saying the Monsignor is WRONG?

Back that up with some proof...

[Lounge Daddy]

Are you seriously searching for Christian truth, or choosing deliberate ignorance?
I am asking this sincerely


can you answer this, "Budge"?

[Justified Saint]

At least the Catholic Church makes interpretations -- many Protestants (especially of the Fundamentalist ilk) do not (i.e. perspicuity of Scripture).

[Budge]

[quote]Are you seriously searching for Christian truth, or choosing deliberate ignorance?
I am asking this sincerely


can you answer this, "Budge"?[/quote]

The topic isnt about me nor do I want it transferred to me..

Answer the question.

[pyranima]

Just because they have only offically defined 7 verses does not mean that there have only been defined 7 doctrines. we dont like to difine Doctrine unless forced to. we stay within the traditional understanding of verses.

[Aloysius]

All Catholic Dogmas are considered interpretations of the Bible as a whole. Just because only a few can be said to directly declare what any particular passage of scripture means primarily doesn't mean anything. The scriptures, all of them, are revealed through the dogmas and doctrines of the Church.

We do not go through methodically verse by verse and have some authoritative view of what that verse means. That verse means what it means and cannot be interpretted contradictory to other scripture or to the doctrines of the Church.

This is why thess says you do not understand Catholicism. You're expecting the magisterium to have a protestant mindset.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1023651' date='Jul 13 2006, 12:08 PM']You're expecting the magisterium to have a protestant mindset.
[/quote]Exactly right.

The Church has made numerous declarations which [i]reject[/i] certain interpretations of Holy Scripture. For example, when Our Lord states that "the Father is greater than I," ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john14.htm#v28"]Jn 14:28[/url]) the Church had to reject heretical interpretations that concluded that He was "less divine," or even "made divine."

While this is not explicitly listed as an "official interpretation" (it doesn't appear in your list), it is critical that such a verse not be twisted by some heretical sect into a theology which contradicts a Church dogma (i.e. the equality of persons in the Trinity).

So, what can we conclude from such a short list of "official" interpretations? Is the problem, then, that the Church is giving [i]too much[/i] freedom to Her theologians to interpret Sacred Scripture? As long as interpretations do not contradict defined Catholic dogmas/doctrines, I don't see why a Catholic should be ashamed of such freedom being permitted.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Budge' post='1023618' date='Jul 13 2006, 10:22 AM']
So are you saying the Monsignor is WRONG?

Back that up with some proof...
[/quote]


Where did I say he was wrong. First of all the Catholic Church and it's teachings didn't come from the Bible. The Bible came from it's teachings. Second of all, contrary to popular protestant opionion the Church does not make dogmatic statements to control our minds and our interpretations. It makes dogmatic statements to free our minds. These dogmatic statements set bounds for interpretation like the commandments set bounds for behavior. These "bounds" free us to delve more deeply in to the mysteries of scripture which are inexhuastable. The Church does not want to limit interpretation to singular interpretations in my opinion as many protestants I've heard do when they say each passage has one unique interpretation.

Blessings though

[Budge]

[quote]Just because they have only [u]offically [/u]defined 7 verses does not mean that there have only been defined 7 doctrines.[/quote]

Some around here seem to be masters of weasle words and double-talk.

You folks would give politicians a run for their money.

[Eutychus]

[quote]Some around here seem to be masters of weasle words and double-talk. [/quote]

You noticed that too, huh?

I cherish this one greatly, when cornered, you will quickly find that YOU are the object, and YOUR reputation, character, and personality IMMEDIATELY become the object of wrath.

But then, this is hardly new. Note the DATE on this observation someone made some time ago after trying to intelligently engage some apologetic sorts of that era:

[quote]The following important observations were made in 1851:

* “We cannot allow that every private Priest or member of the Church of Rome should give his own opinions merely as the standard of doctrine. We will have recourse to the oracular response of the Church, and insist that they be represented by themselves; not, however, by private individuals, but by their legal representatives

But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church. ...

IT IS A PRINCIPAL AIM OF ALL [ROMAN CATHOLIC] CONTROVERTISTS TO EMPLOY EVERY MODE OF EVASION IN ORDER TO DISCONCERT THEIR OPPOSERS.

There is even a marked difference between the tone of these Romish Divines
who speak dogmatically for the instruction of their own members
and that of those who attempt to answer the objections of their antagonists.
With the former, all is matter of downright certainty;
with the latter, all is doubt, difficulty, subterfuge, and evasion.

When the faithful are to be instructed, every Priest becomes the sure depositary
of the infallible decisions of an infallible Church;

but when Protestants are to be confuted,
the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority.
Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved
Popes did not speak ex cathedra;
Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors;
And who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar?

Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and
WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES,
HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE {The Catholic author} IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH”

(Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, London: John Mason, 1851, p. 23).[/quote]

[Aloysius]

There is nothing to this: The Councils, when talking about faith or morals, are infallible. Audit them, show their inconsistancies, and we have no recourse. EVERYTHING about faith and morals said by a council we will defend. plain and simple. no "double speak".

individual priests and bishops are only to be trusted when they do not contradict the teachings of the councils. we only trust them insofar as they do nothing but pass on what the Church has said.

Those observations from the nineteenth century asuredly didn't survive the age of Newman or Chesterton among the academically honest, and of course came before Vatican I cleared up a lot of things a lot of people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, were not sure about because it had been so twisted in the world.

The Catholic Church puts the most stock in its own doctrines out of any 'christian church' and you wine and complain because we don't give ENOUGH stock to EVERYTHING every priest or theologian says. You have a ton to work with from councils and encyclicals and catechisms... but it's not good enough, you want us to guarentee that dissenters within our Church be defended by apologists as well. No, we don't play that game.

and FYI, nobody has disagreed with the letter posted here. the thing is you asked the wrong question. you're looking for a verse-by-verse definition of what each verse is supposed to mean. every doctrine of the councils, every doctrine the pope has bound the church in, and every doctrine that has been consistently taught over the entire history of the Church IS OUR INTERPRETATION OF EVERY VERSE OF SCRIPTURE. Of course scripture has alot more to offer as well, but no verse can mean something contradictory to those doctrines-- that's what it means when it says '0only the Magisterium is authorized to interpret scripture.' it means individuals are not authorized to interpret doctrines from scripture which are contrary to the Magisterium's interpretation of scripture, which is all the doctrines.

[Eutychus]

[quote]The Catholic Church puts the most stock in its own doctrines out of any 'christian church' and [b][u]you wine and complain[/u][/b] [/quote]

So....now OBSERVATIONS have become WHINING?

That really does tend to just buttress up the comments made about languge being such a flexible too in the hands of a Catholic apologist...of whatever age.

[quote]when cornered, you will quickly find that YOU are the object, and YOUR reputation, character, and personality IMMEDIATELY become the object of wrath.[/quote]

Edited July 13, 2006 by Eutychus