Roman Catholic Delusions - 2

lozeerose has responded here to my earlier post and the post is quite long. That's the way it goes sometimes, so let's see what comes of it.
First, let's recall that lozeerose told us earlier:

if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture? Also, if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well, then how is your interpretation valid and mine not?

Don't forget that this is a conversation-killer. Once we start talking about "well, that's just your interpretation!", there is nothing else to say, from either side. Either you admit that God is capable of revealing Himself in such a way as to be comprehensible to people or you don't. Either you admit that people can speak in such a way as to be comprehensible to others or you don't. Unfortunately this doesn't cover the issue of human diversity and sin. It is not necessarily the author's fault when a reader distorts, misunderstands, neglects parts of, ignores parts of, is ignorant of other parts of, or twists his text. Much less God's fault.

Also, I deny the premise - neither of us are inspired by the Holy Spirit. And only one of us is illumined by the Holy Spirit, and it ain't him.

Finally, let us remember that part of lozeerose's thesis can be pushed right back on him. If there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Magisterial declarations? Also, if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well, then how is your interpretation of Magisterial declarations valid and mine not?
Does he answer the question? Let's take a look.

(Sidenote - this discussion originally branched off of a discussion on the topic of the permissibility of divorce, so I'll be skipping over those parts. For a biblically-sound and actually quite enlightening discussion of the biblical teaching on divorce, listen to John MacArthur's sermon series on the topic as he weaves it together with church discipline. RCs would do well, also, to listen to it so they could learn what the words "church discipline" mean.)

If you were to examine these verses, removing your own prejudices (difficult for any person) and place them in context you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings.

1) I have examined them many times.
2) They do not, when EXEgeted, lead the unbiased reader to place his entire faith and spiritual heritage in a church to be founded sometime in the authors' future, in a city thousands of miles away, under a man who usurps the Holy Spirit's rightful title of "Vicar of Christ", who contrary to all biblical indications is the sole exception to the biblical "only God is infallible" rule, who tells us to worship dead people, and who adds works (which we can't perform) and legalistic extra dogmas (like the Assumption of Mary) to the Gospel. If you want to EISEgete that stuff in there, of course, nobody can stop you, but let's not act like it's derived from the text.
3) Notice the voice of fideistic devotion to Rome. Rome is automatically and by default above examination and judgment by the Scripture, b/c lozeerose assumes that Rome's teaching cannot contradict Scr.

After all, the Bible is a Catholic book.

I don't even know what this means. Does he mean it was written by the Roman Church? That would be indefensible. Does he mean little-c "catholic", but his finger reflexively held down the Shift key? Does he genuinely not know the diff between little-c "catholic" and big-C "Catholic"? Or does he simply not care?
And since he told us earlier that he intended "to approach you both on your Sola Scriptura level", does he think that making such crucial distinctions is unimportant?

you and Vox make the assumption that the Church teaches that individuals cannot interpret Scripture on their own.

Actually, that's what lozeerose just finished telling us himself. And what CatholicNick was telling us before that.

What it prohibits is the acceptance of interpretations that are contrary to Church teaching.

Which means precisely what we said.
And, as noted above, is the statement of an unthinking drone, who refuses to put the Scripture above his church.

Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament (John 6 for one)

1) Note how he inconsistently presumes us to be able to interp John 6 properly.
2) Even though John 6 has very little to do with the Eucharist.
3) And even though the Roman Eucharist is actually heretical by both our standards.

I cite these passages because they themselves are cited in the Catechism

1) So now an individual can understand the CCC, eh? But moreso than the Bible, apparently.
2) Does he ever stop to ask himself whether the CCC is in fact correct to cite them?

If, by reading Scripture, your interpretation lends to a contradictory understanding then you are definitively wrong concerning this truth and must reconsider in order to truly call yourself a Christian (see the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-39).

It is difficult to know what the Acts 8 psg is supposed to tell us.
1) Philip was not an apostle, and so is not part of the supposed "apostolic succession" of the Magisterium.
2) And he was an individual anyway. When we cite individual early church writers that disagree with modern Roman dogma, what do we hear? "He was just speaking as a private theologian" or some other line of turtle droppings. I guess I missed where "infallible ex cathedra" indicators appear in the Acts 8 psg. Maybe lozeerose can point it out to us. In fact, just look at further down his post - I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose's statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can - " I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy."
3) Sola Scriptura is not: A claim that the Bible contains all knowledge; A denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth; A denial that other Christians can help those less knowledgeable to understand the Scr; A denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
4) The eunuch didn't tell Philip that he had no idea what the psg said. He asked for clarification on ONE THING.
5) And that was very plausibly b/c he didn't know the story of Jesus' earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. Philip did know it. We in modern times hardly have that excuse.

If I include Church docs it is to provide you with Church teachings in her own words.

Which he expects me to understand. Else he wouldn't cite them. This is treading awfully close to disingenuousness.

This is why it is important to read Church documents so that you and/or I can scrutinize her teachings against Sacred Scripture

That's rich. Didn't he just finish telling us that "you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?

You cannot have Church docs without Scripture.

Sure you can. Church docs on the Assumption of Mary, Mary as Co-Redemptrix... in fact, virtually the entire edifice of Mariolatry is built on an entirely different foundation than Scripture, simply b/c Scr knows nothing of the Marian dogmas.

Remember that the Bible is not the end-all, be-all of the Word of God.

Perhaps lozeerose could make a positive case for why he thinks the Word of God is also found elsewhere. And how that fits in with Mark 7:1-13. And why the Apostle Paul never directed us to this other Word of God, but only to Scr.

2Thess 2:15

Does lozeerose prove that the word of mouth is different in content than the letter mentioned? That the tradition mentioned there is distinct from the Scripture?

Rhology: If you are suggesting that we accept the RCC a priori as the infallible interpreter, please let me know why I should. After all, there's lots of competition out there for that spot! EOC
lozeerose: You must look at history.

1) How would that help? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn't simply say "you will note that history does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?
2) Which is how all of these bodies I mentioned operate. Bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they're written out, assigned to "just a private theologian" status. Or part of the "Great Apostasy" or something. And it all makes sense - if the modern body is infallible, then history, just like Scripture, says what the modern infallible body says it means. No means of correction is possible.

Remember I mentioned above that I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose's statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can - " I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy."
That's why it's intellectually dishonest for someone in lozeerose's position to tell me to verify RCC's claims against history.

the first ecumenical council was the Council of Jerusalem where Matthias was elected to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:20, 25-26)

1) Where does the Scr refer to the Acts 1 meeting as a "council"?
2) Why do other RCs refer to the "Council of Jerusalem" as that which occurrs in Acts 15? After all, if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture? Also, if lozeerose is inspired by the Holy Spirit and other RCs as well, then how is his interpretation valid and others' not?
3) Matthias wasn't elected at all.
Acts 1:23So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
4) Uh oh - we have a problem.  lozeerose has just told us that Matthias was elected.  No doubt other RCs, who actually take the time to read the passage, would tell us that Matthias was, for example, chosen by lot.  lozeerose disagrees with other RCs.
5) We have another problem. 
From here:  He (Peter) headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26)
From here: After Judas’s death the eleven apostles convened; the Holy Spirit chose Matthias to take Judas’s place
From here:  The one exception to this was Matthias, who replaced Judas. He was confirmed in office by God (Acts 1:24-26), and, though he did not receive his commission from Christ in person, he was a witness to Christ's ministry (1:15-23).
From here: Matthias was chosen as apostle by the other apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. This choice was, according to the Acts of the Apostles, made directly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once elected, he was treated exactly as one of the original Twelve.

The problem is twofold:
a. 3 of the 4 articles cited here get it wrong.  Where does the Acts psg give any indication that Matthias was "elected"?  Will lozeerose dare to tell us that when Acts says "the lot fell to Matthias", since The Church has apparently spoken, it actually means "Matthias was elected"?  It's not as if the psg is unclear, and it inspires that much less confidence in RCs' exegetical abilities that they mix up something this simple.
b. These RC documents don't agree with each other on this question.  And, again, it's not as if the Acts psg is unclear.  Further, it will not solve lozeerose's problem to appeal to "they're just private theologians" here, since he has repeatedly claimed unity in the RCC, and that multiplicity of conflicting interps = disunity, which he decries.  Judging by his own standards in this very simple exegetical question, RCC shoots a big fat fail.

Not sure what your getting at here, but again, the Church does not prohibit personal interp, just warns us that personal interp can lead to error and as such if your interp is contradicts the Church then you can rest assure your interp is wrong.

Throughout this whole post, lozeerose shows no recognition of the obvious fact that you still have to engage in personal interp to understand Magisterial declarations. So, if we apply his ultra-skeptical (when convenient for him and for Rome) epistemological position consistently, it's all a matter of "if your interp of Scr contradicts your interp of what RCC says". How does that get him or anyone anywhere? The guy whose interp of Magisterial docs differs from mine could simply say "Nuh uh, the Church said this"...

Both the JW and LDS, and even yourself, presuppose many things concerning Scripture and even the Church.

And the RC doesn't? More disingenuous special pleading.

infallibility is not something the Church invented; it is a characteristic that was conveyed on her by Jesus via the Holy Spirit (Matthew 16:16,18; 28:20, Luke 10:16, John 14:26; 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 John 2:27, Acts 6:10; 15:28).

What good do all these citations do anyone? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn't simply say "you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?
Since in his mind Scr cannot contradict RC dogma, it is a given, unable to be examined and parsed, that these psgs support RC dogma. You do not have the right to interp these psgs in a way that dissents from RC teaching.

That is why these two sects must go outside of Scripture to claim a type of infallibility (they do not proclaim is like the Catholic Church does, as far as I know) and why Protestant churches don’t even attempt it.

Actually, their methods of claiming infallibility seem to be exactly the same as RCC's. Trumpet their infallibility, then when challenged on an indefensible point, retreat to special pleading.
An LDS example - The Bible says God "knows of no other god". LDS response - "the infallible Prophet tells us that it doesn't mean that"; or alternatively "this was not translated correctly".
A JW example - The WatchTower claimed the world would end in 1914. When it didn't, it just hoped people would ignore the failed prophecy and hastily redefined what they really meant back then, but the world would end in the 70s, etc. If challenged on that, just retreat to "your church is apostate".
A RC example - claim "the ancient and constant faith of the universal church" affirms a doctrine like Vatican I did of papal infallibility. Then when an ancient dissenting voice is brought fwd to demonstrate this statement is ludicrous, retreat to "he was just speaking as a private theologian"; or alternatively "I can show you dozens of pages of (out of context) church fathers affirming the doctrine", as if "constant" and "universal" allow for exceptions.

You are spot on except that I do not wrestle with the interplay of unity vis-a-vis disunity that is obviously expected and anticipated in the passages you cite especially the Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-26.

That's already been dealt with and dismissed.

The Catholic Church, as an institution, does not exhibit doctrinal disunity

1) Uh oh.
2) Uh oh again.
3) See above for the slipup with respect to Matthias.
4) Is lozeerose really unaware of the rampant liberalism at work within official RC circles?  And by official, I mean "not mostly-anonymous RC laymen bloggers, but actual priests and Vatican staff and theologians".
5) And there is a multitude of issues on which RCs do not agree.

• Darwinian evolution vs not-Darwinian evolution
• Papal infallibility
• Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
• Whether the Pope is subject to Ecumenical Councils
• What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian
• Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
• Mass in Latin or in vernacular
• Whether Trent closed the canon or not

etc.
IOW, that claim is empty.

Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, has stood for over 2,000 years without compromising her doctrines.

As I said above, bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they're written out, assigned to "just a private theologian" status.

Did Judas’ betrayal disprove the divinity of Jesus? No.

That's a funny thing to say.
So, does Lutherans' getting the doctrine of the Eucharist wrong disprove the true biblical doctrine of the Eucharist? I guess, if lozeerose were to be consistent, he'd say no.
Do some Baptists' getting all hot and bothered about teetotalling disprove the true biblical doctrine of the permissibility of imbibing adult beverages (but not getting drunk)? Apparently not.
This concession destroys any argument lozeerose was trying to make about the preferability of RC unity over Protestant chaos.

Rhology: What's more, you're instating an over-realised eschatology. There's a reason why this is not Heaven.
lozeerose: You are aware that eschatology is the study of “last things” right?

Yep, I sure am. The point is that expecting perfect unity on this Earth, before the Eschaton, is chasing the end of the rainbow. "Perfect unity" is the crock o' gold. And since it's a fantasy, most of lozeerose's argument is consigned to the fantastic as well.

How else do you interpret Scripture if not through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

His exegesis of 2 Peter 1:20 is surprisingly, but typically, bad. Interpretation of a prophecy received by an individual church member, is not in view here; rather the emphasis is on the means of God's inspiring the text. Peter says that the prophetic word is yet more certain than his own eyewitness experiences, and goes on to tell us that "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God".

So every church is its own truth, yet they differ in doctrine?

I have no idea how this question follows from my treatment of 1 Tim 3:15.

Sounds like God is a bit confused.

So apparently, if God's revelation were really clear, there would never be any differences in doctrine. If differences DO occur, it's God's fault.
1) How does lozeerose get there?
2) Since RCC doesn't have unity, this cuts his own throat.

So did lozeerose solve the problem of his own creation, namely "why so many interpretations if there's one God"? Or did he assume that divine revelation and text are actually comprehensible to human beings, thus undercutting one of his main points? Come to think of it, did he write a blogpost, expecting it to be comprehensible to human beings? After all, if there is only one lozeerose, then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of his blogpost? If I were to remind him that his blogpost actually consisted of various methods for eating a grilled dogpoop sandwich, is that a valid interpretation? Who are you, mere unauthoritative, fallible, private individual, to tell me it does not in fact deal with the topic of dogpoop? He's not one of those Sola Scripturists, is he?