Here is my response, first to another commenter named Space Bishop:
catholics have disagreement over the meaning of various things the magisterium teaches?
First off, you have to recognise that the Mag is a bit of a phantom target. They avoid sticking their neck out very far on many topics, so as to avoid getting pinned down.
The problem for RCs is that this renders most of their claims to infallible guidance totally meaningless - if the infall guide doesn't speak, it's useless.
Anyway, your list, off the top of my head - evolution/not-evolution, inerrancy/errancy, Franciscan/Dominican, church should be poor or rich, heliocentrism/geocentrism, whether EOx are heretics and schismatics or not, whether Prots are heavenbound or not, sedevacantism vs not, Augustinian predestination vs not, whether Trent closed the Canon of Scr or not, whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic, whether Luther was right about the bondage of the will, whether logic is a good measure of truth, and quite a lot of others. There are far, far too many to keep going listing them out. Bottom line - you need to deal with reality, not the lines that Catholic Answers feeds you.
you have listed are not disagreements about what the magisterium teaches but rather examples of catholics who simply say that the magisterium is wrong.
That's a distinction w/o a difference. Mere semantics. If the RCC wants to put some teeth on its Magisterial teaching, maybe it should start excomming dissidents.
is not the magisterium better as if such a case of contradictory interpretations of the magisteriums teachings arose the magisterium alone can say " A is right and B is wrong" and if disagreements arose as to what is the correct interpretation of that ruling another ruling could be issued and so on and so on.
And when has the Mag done that? How often? In fact, often it goes to serious lengths to be unclear and obscure.
Protestants however dont have recourse to this
Yep, poor us. Guess we'll just have to read the Bible or something.
I'm sorry you didn't understand that I
there is much about the Scriptures that is perspicuous, just not everything.
Yes, not everything in the Scr is perspicuous.
What's really funny about this is that the RC doctrines related to salvation and election and all that are pretty much impenetrable in their internal inconsistency, biblical illiteracy, and tradition-bound-ness. As James White likes to say: Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law.
. A written document, whether it is the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures or a Magisterial document interpreting the Word of God, do not “arbitrate” disputes. Rather, it the Church itself that safeguards and interprets the Scriptures that does the arbitrating.
Through written documents. Thus you bolster my point. Thanks!
Also, in oral proclamations, alot of the time they get written down. Then, see above.
Oral proclamations, BTW, are not immune to this. So you need a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-...
SHOW ME as Space Bishop asked where a Magisterial document
Now you're moving the goalposts. You had originally made PEOPLE AT LARGE the measure of truth, and now you want me to show two Mag docs that disagree. I probably could, and I know Carrie could easily, but that's not what we're discussing.
So rather than relying on my authority, I would rest my case on the Scriptures and how the Church interprets them.
Unless the Mag infallibly interped those Scr psgs, you're relying on private fallible interp in order to prove your position that the Mag is necessary to correct for people's private fallible interps. Something is ironic about that...
It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God
So why does it get the Gospel wrong? And posit Purgatory? And the Immaculate Conception of Mary? And the Assumption of Mary? And worshiping pictures of dead people? And the treasury of merit and indulgences? And other examples of exceeding what is written all the time?
The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority. (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring.)
Since YOU were the one who introduced the idea that a teaching authority is apparently to be measured by the laity's obedience to it, that would be YOUR red herring.
And again, thank you for acknowledging that this argument is stupid.
Unlike Protestantism which bolds that each person is his own magisterial authority
How do strawmen help the Roman cause? Is it Mag teaching that strawmen are the best strategy? Is that in Lumen Gentium too?
Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur.
One wonders how you make it work every day with your head stuck that far in the clouds.
Besides, such argumentation is not really atheistic, but is more pantheistic as Whateverman is merely saying that as far as he is concerned he is his own god.
For those who've not spent much time arguing with atheists (as Paul apparently hasn't), atheism IS pantheism and vice versa, esp when it comes to questions of authority.
Which makes it worse for him - now the RC position isn't just echoing atheism, but pantheism as well. Wow, have fun with that.
Frankly as a person who adheres to the notion of “Contra factum non valet argumentum,” I reject your assertion that logical argumentation is the measure of truth.
Ah, then Jell-O has farley bones and the further they 9 the much.
That reminds me; maybe we should add this to the long list of confusion and internal dissent within Rome - whether logic is the measure of truth or not.