Who Needs a Magisterium Anyway?

[jswranch]

[quote name='Budge' post='1023514' date='Jul 13 2006, 05:08 AM']So WHY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS< HAVE THEY ONLY INTERPRETED SEVEN?[/quote]
The reason the Catholic Church has only [u]"[b][i]DOGMATICALLY[/i][/b]"[/u] defined 7 verses is because it has only been forced to do so. The church does not like to be authoritative, but does so usually to correct heresy/confusion or to improve the enthusiasm of the faithful.

However, the CC has defined verses at a level of authority lower than Dogma.

Remember, the CC holds different theological 'ideas' at different levels of truth and certainty. This is very important as if you do not understand, you do not understand Catholic theology. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM"]Check out this link from EWTN.[/url]These levels [u]can be unofficially[/u] catagorized into (someone correct me if I am wrong):

1. Dogma- do not change and are so true, they can be used to make other Dogmas. Infallible. (Assumption, that Mary was assumed at the end of her earthy life)

2. De fide, items of faith- Infallible. De Fide's can become Dogmas upon definitive statements from Popes or Councils. (Purgatory Exists)

3. VERITATES CATHOLICAE- Catholic truths (Knowledge of the existance of God can be known through reason).

Theological opinions:
4. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.

5. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.

6. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.

7. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

Items can be moved up in rank to and above VERITATES CATHOLICAE, but not down, be changed, or go away at level 3 and above. Only 7 verses have been Dogmatically defined, but coutless others have been been clarified as veritates/sentenia...etc.

Edited July 13, 2006 by jswranch

[Justified Saint]

Eutychus,

Not everyone can appreciate the diversity that the Catholic Church naturally entails, a diversity which is necessitated by the fullness of truth. As Chesterton said, there are many mansions in the Church of God while Protestantism simply has many churches (well he didn't say that, but he meant it . It is better to try to understand the paradoxes of the faith than to resort to the factionalism and sectarianism of Protestantism (as you can see, too many isms!).

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

[quote] 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.[/quote]

Most of the time, from what I have seen, redirecting the question to the questioner is for the purpose of getting to know what the person is looking for. I may only speak for myself but I am not likely to answer a person's question about the CC if they are looking more for a fight than an answer. If you are more concerned about being right than seeking the truth, then this websight is not for you. These questions are not an attack on you or your reputation, they are simply seeking background information.

Con much respeto,

Kenny

[jswranch]

[quote name='Budge' post='1023514' date='Jul 13 2006, 05:08 AM']
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.[/quote]
I warn you that your quote is out of context for the full intent of the CCC. Catholics may interpret scripture, but not contrary to how the Magisterium has ruled.

First, paragraph 100 is in the "In Brief" section and is a one line summary. Your use of it is out of context. Yes, the Magisterium has the final say, but it does not dogmatically define things very often on scripture. God set up such aurthority. See 1Tim 3:15 and Matt 18:15-18 for starters.

Here are a couple other CCC paragraphs for your review:
95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

Second, note:
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."


I am going to take a wild guess and say you were never instructed in CCC 133 while you were Catholic.

[rkwright]

good posts Al... listen to him, the answer is there!

JS - I appreciate seeing that list of rankings of teachings! They can get confusing at times.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Why do we need a Magisterium? Sola Scriptura has created hundreds if not thousands of interpretations of Scripture - one is correct, the rest are to some degree, false. We need an authority to decide.
[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023533' date='Jul 13 2006, 08:32 AM']
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]
Limbo of the Infants has never been a Church teaching. It is the speculation of individual theologians.

A good list of dogmas:
[url="http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm"]http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm[/url]

Christianity is a living religion. The faithful should be provided with constant instruction on how the Gospel applies to the situations they face.

You are misunderstanding the portion of the Catechism you quoted. All it is saying is that different cultures/peoples respond differently to different methods of instruction - therefore you should present the doctrines in ways that they can understand.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023793' date='Jul 13 2006, 04:40 PM']
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]
sorry, that was intended hyperbolically. it was merely meant to illustrate the point that although we offer up our doctrines to be scrutinized severely, putting high stakes on having none of them throughout the whole history of the Church, you cry 'deception' when we consistently and categorically say which things do have authority and which things do not have authority.

individual priests and bishops-- only authoritative when consistent with everything else
council of all bishops in union with pope-- always authoritative on faith and morals
pope binding the church-- always authoritative on faith and morals
all bishops through all time-- always authoritative on faith and morals, hardest category to pinpoint, more of an abstract concept but still can carry weight

there is no deception here. if anything from the first category says something contradicting the faith, nothing is proven except that that individual does not represent the Church. if any of the other categories contradict the faith, or contradict one another, you have disproven the Catholic faith.

very simple. no deception. we put our faith completely on the line here. its fundamental core is routinely exposed because we believe it to be our greatest weakness: you can disprove our faith by showing contradicting or erring doctrines taught by the Church herself (in any of those last three categories)

and please don't cry victim while ignoring my arguments. you are not the object of any wrath on my part. every cent of both my posts has been spent ad argumentum.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Here are a couple other CCC paragraphs for your review:

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."[/quote]

[b]In short, SOLA ECCLESIA. [/b]

Define yourself as being directed by the Holy Spirit, then freeing yourself from the contraints UPON men that the scriptures are designed to be.

Thereby freeing man, to add to, change, and redefine God's Word in any manner that the current regime wants to.

We define what scripture means, we define what constitutes tradition, we define what God wants you to know. And thereby, we sit OVER and ABOVE all three.

SOLA ECCLESIA.



[quote] there is no deception here. if anything from the first category says something contradicting the faith, nothing is proven except that that individual does not represent the Church. if any of the other categories contradict the faith, or contradict one another, you have disproven the Catholic faith.[/quote]

Not really. Time and time again, when inconsitancies are provided, the ONLY answer is the complete disavowal of the Pope issuing the decree, the Council was not universal, the theologian was not speaking for the entire church, etc.

Essentially, the Catholic Church has this out, you disclaim all the past that is inconvienient in light of what is taught today, and embrace ONLY those councils, decrees, and encylicals that support the regime of the month.

Everyone that has debated seriously Roman Catholics has seen this pattern and the only ones that are not are the apologists themselves.

One only has to read the legalists that are the TRADS, they have reams and reams of documentation of the church teaching something for ages, then about face, the new boys on the block flip flop into a new mode, without breaking a sweat.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Paul said it well:


But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:3 (New American Standard Bible)



For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

1 Corinthians 2:2 (New American Standard Bible)



See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Colossians 2:8 (New American Standard Bible)[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Haha. That letter mentions "Divino Afflante Spiritus." It's "Spiritu," not "Spiritus."

Seven biblical passages is more than enough. If God said it once more, would you believe it then? What if He said it only once?

Oh, and limbo isn't a dogma or doctrine. It's a theological speculation used by some to try to explain a doctrine.

[Justified Saint]

When phrases like "sola ecclesia" are used, it shows the mark of anti-Catholic disingenuousness. Not only is doctrine being misrepresented and misunderstood, it is then given a false label that has been concocted and invented in the mind of the Protestant. This is usually a guarantee that geunine conversation is not a very high priority.

[Guest JeffCR07]

It seems to me that there is a glaring inconsistency and fallacy in the arguments of those who are being critical of the magisterium. The authority of the Church to interpret scripture is not limited mearly to dogmatic proclamation. Just because there are only severn verses that have been dogmatically interpreted does not mean that the Church's power of interpretation is limited to that.

The Church interprets Scripture and the Faith dogmatically through the Councils and [i]ex cathedra[/i] statements, but also through the ordinary universal magisterium, which can be found in the universal teaching of all the bishops. Moreover, this authentic teaching and interpretation is also found in the [i]sensus fidelium[/i], which, of its very nature, is submissive to the authority of the Church.

If you want to know what a Catholic "has" to believe in order to be Catholic, all you have to do is look at the infallible teachings of the Ecumenical Councils (the proclamations typically end with "anathema sic"), but if you think that is all there is to being Catholic, or if you think that the Church's role as authentic interpreter of Scripture ends there, you would be sorely mistaken.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1024147' date='Jul 14 2006, 08:10 AM']Thereby freeing man, to add to, change, and redefine God's Word in any manner that the current regime wants to.[/quote]It's always curious to see someone who is so willing to accept the Church's authority to proclaim the Canon of the New Testament, yet be unable to see the same Church authoritatively speak on the meaning of the contents. See link: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp"]"What's Your Authority?" at Catholic.com[/url].

One could even say that Martin Luther was actually [i]consistent [/i] when he not only rejected the Church's ability to infallibly interpret the New Testament, but also rejected the authority of the Church to determine the Canon of the New Testament (quoting Wiki, "Martin Luther...made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon"--[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Reformation_Era"]link[/url]).

Can anyone imagine the outcry from Protestants if the Catholic Church had felt free to reject the established Canon of the New Testament like Martin Luther did, and "[i]change, and redefine God's Word in any manner that the current regime want(ed) to[/i]"? This is the hidden truth of the Reformation. The reformers actually attempted to "change and redefine" Christianity, based on the pressures of the times. The Church isn't blamed for changing its teachings during the Reformation; it is blamed for [i]preserving its teachings[/i]!

If someone is a purist "Bible-Only" Christian, he must face the question of the Canon of New Testament Scriptures. In the New Testament, there is no explicit listing of books which make up its canon. The only two answers are, (1) the canon somehow materialized out of thin air, or (2) some historical institution was divinely guided to establish the Canon of inspired writings. Both options break the of "Bible-Only" theory.

A last thought: Unlike Muslims, Catholics do not believe that the Word of God is just a book. For us, the Word of God is a Person--Our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is the One on whom we base our Faith.

[Aloysius]

there's 21 ecumenical councils. every word about faith and morals of every one is infallible. show any to have inconsistencies, from nicea to vatican ii, and I will leave the Church at once.

everything any pope has ever bound the church in about faith and morals is infallble. show any statement from any pope [i]binding the Church[/i] and I will leave the Church.

and you're darn tootin the Magisterium is who interprets scripture. That's why, out of all the hundreds of Christian writings from the first, second, and third century, only 27 are considered part of the canon of scripture. but the Church doesn't have free reign to change things from generation to generation; we put our whole faith on the line saying there are never any CHANGES from one teaching to another.

don't talk to me about your experience with other apologists, or other protestants' experience with other apologists. just because some dialogues end in misunderstandings doesn't proove any point. here, from the get-go, I've given the categories by which we judge whether something has the weight to disprove the Church. an Ecumenical Council, or a statement by a pope which binds the whole Church. we will stand by 100% of those. anything that doesn't fit those criteria is not "suddenly discovered" not to have fit those criteria, it never has. either the pope binds the whole Church or he doesn't, it's very clear and self-evident through history.

basically, we're saying the Church has authority limited to certain things, and because we do not extend it to everything you say we're deceiving. we are not, because we are very consistent as to which things have authority and which do not.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Budge' post='1023641' date='Jul 13 2006, 11:55 AM']
The topic isnt about me nor do I want it transferred to me..

Answer the question.
[/quote]
Ok.
Catholic Teaching is waaaaaaay beyond 7 passages of the Bible… 2000 years beyond that. For real.
Pick up the current edition of the Catholic Catechism... you will see about 700 pages filled with Biblical citations and Christian teaching explained.
Take a look, it’s worth it.

Does that answer your question? I could have simply said "no." lol
God bless you and your friend.
--- LD

Edited July 14, 2006 by Lounge Daddy