An Official Interpretation of Private Interpretation and Other Observations on Blogosphere Lay-Catholicism

In his nuanced exposition of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Dulles, Professor at Fordham University and Professor Emeritus at The Catholic University of America, discusses the inevitable (and appropriate) use of private interpretation after official pronouncements by the Magisterium:

After the Magisterium has spoken, theologians play an indispensable role in giving effect to its pronouncements. Just as they took part in preparing the way for the pronouncements to be made, so too they inform the public about what has been decreed and in doing so interpret the documents. Every papal or conciliar definition or condemnation leaves a certain margin for interpretation, so that private judgment has to complete what public pronouncements left unstated. John Henry Newman insisted on this point in his defense of the Vatican decrees on papal primacy and infallibility. Once a thesis or treatise is censured, he writes, "theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success, but that demonstration is not de fide." Newman considers this process of theological sifting a necessary safeguard, protecting the faithful against the "fierce and intolerant temper" of those who would brush aside theological distinctions and burden the consciences of the faithful with exorbitant demands. (Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith [Sapientia Press: Naples, FL, 2007], 42-43)

The significance of the quotation will not be lost on those familiar with lay-Catholic arguments on the subject. As we are often told by various lay-Catholic apologists, the use of private interpretation is unbiblical and leads to doctrinal chaos--a great spiritual evil. However, here we are told by an official representative of Catholicism that private interpretation has its place in rightly handling the public pronouncements of the Magisterium, and that it even plays a positive preventative role--inoculating the faithful against "exorbitant demands." While effective epistemological objections can be raised against the standard lay-Catholic argument above, it seems sufficient to note that the role of private interpretation cannot, on Catholic terms, be unbiblical in an unqualified sense. If Dulles is correct, and we have every reason to believe he is an official representative of Catholicism given his relevant qualifications, then the traditional texts leveled against this Protestant hermeneutical assumption are being interpreted too broadly; they strike at both Protestant and (official, authoritative) Catholic notions of private judgment. The lay-Catholic objection to private interpretation must either be abandoned or qualified. For the latter, however, it is difficult to conceive of a way in which an interpretation of a text like 2 Peter 1:20 could be seen to apply only to Protestant private interpretation, and not to the private interpretation discussed by Dulles.

I recommend Cardinal Dulles' work. Indeed, as a general matter, I think most Protestants interested in Catholicism should spend far less time reading and engaging lay-Catholic apologetic blogs and far more time reading and engaging the official works of the Magisterium and their approved scholars. The lay-Catholic convert industry, of which the lay-Catholic blogosphere is a definitive part, merely represents a conservative sociological trend. As Dulles warns, such movements may or may not properly represent the official teachings of the Magisterium:

The sense of the faithful should be carefully distinguished from public opinion in the Church, which is not a theological source attributable to the Holy Spirit, but merely a sociological fact. Public opinion may be correct, but it often reflects the tendencies of our fallen human nature, the trends of the times, and the pressures of the public media. (Ibid., 45)

Indeed, as more of us have come to see, a study of mainstream and approved Catholic scholarship shows a disparity between blogosphere Catholicism and official Catholicism (e.g. Dulles approvingly cites Raymond Brown, a scholar often dismissed as too "liberal" by conservative lay-Catholic apologists). The post-Vatican II sensibilities of the modern Magisterium cannot be found in the basic fundamentalist and evangelical sensibilities of blogosphere converts to Rome.

Consider as well how the informal hierarchy of the Catholic conversion industry functions. Acceptance into its authoritative ranks differs decidedly from entrance into the authority structure of the official Magisterium. In official Roman Catholicism, authority is transmitted via the appropriate form and application of Apostolic Succession. This naturally leads to the promotion of long-time insiders to the faith. In the conversion industry, authority is a function of the kind of conversion manifested (which necessarily excludes persons with a history of life-long Catholic commitment). The more spectacular, with respect to emotional gravity, and the more dramatic, with respect to prior involvement in Protestantism, the greater the authority of the convert to represent the (singular) core value of the movement. As such, those with a prominent voice in blogosphere Catholicism might very well be (and almost always are) completely unqualified to speak for Catholicism in any official capacity. For all their superficial attempts to cultivate an air of intellectual sophistication, Catholic sites such as Called to Communion represent little more than unauthoritative shrines to a selection of conversion narratives. Fellow converts will undoubtedly find such self-centered glorification of the cult of celebrity emotionally satisfying, as, by all accounts, they have imported and applied their evangelical altar-call sensibilities to their new faith community. But for those of us attempting to understand and engage official Roman Catholic belief and practice, nothing seems as fruitless as studying such narratives and interacting with their authors. In terms of official doctrine, they have no more standing than any other set of lay-Catholic opinions.

The natural outgrowth of such circumstances is, of course, the multiplication of situations like the one sketched above--where a popular lay-Catholic apologetic is found to be incompatible with official Roman Catholic teaching. Beyond responding to its effects on unwitting Protestants, there seems to be no value in rigorously engaging a movement that produces such arguments, since faithful adherence to the denomination it promotes would inevitably result in jettisoning many of the very arguments used to arrive at it in the first place.

The super-duper-uper Magisterial authority (aka Part 3)

First came this post and its combox.
Next came this post and its combox.
Then Paul Hoffer wrote up a lengthy reply, found here.  Unfortunately, as we'll see, he has left most of my argument untouched.  His reply consists mostly of responses of the equivalent strength of "Nuh uh!" and self-repetition in the face of substantive rebuttal.
The way I wrote it is addressed to Paul.

You say:
I disagree with Rhology’s question begging statement that the Catholic Magisterium as an interpreter is useless because magisterial statements in turn need an interpreter in order for one to understand them

It's not question-begging.  It's my contention.



unlike the Scriptures, one can consult the Magisterial interpreter and seek clarification of the decision or interpretation.

A point which I addressed clearly in my ROUND 2 post, in at least two ways.  So far you're just ignoring my points, rather than interacting with them.
Namely, 1) the infinite regress (which tries and fails to solve the "problem" of human fallibility) and 2) the fact that the Magisterium virtually never actually does any clearing up of controversies when it easily could do so.



While more questions may have arose about the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature, the Church was able to respond to them

Now that begs the question, that you can identify "The Church" and that "The Church" that you identify was in the right to do these things. 
Don't go off on a rabbit trail and ask me whether I disagree with those councils' which have been later identified as Big-E Ecumenical Big-C Councils statements w.r.t. Christology; the point is that the later church identifies as "The Church" those people who actually won the struggle.  The winners wrote the history books in a very real sense here.  This is simply pointing to the position with which you agree today and saying "See?  The Magisterium spoke!"  There'd be no way to falsify the statement "The Magisterium spoke." 



one does not have to decide all over again each time they are read what the Scriptures mean as the Church has already done that for them

1) But does one have to decide all over again each time Magisterial proclamations are read what they mean, as the Church has already done that for them? 
2) How can one judge whether the Church spoke correctly in a given case? 
3) How do you know when The Church spoke?  Do you have a list of those infallible proclamations?  If not, doesn't that leave open the very real possibility that you are ascribing authority and infallibility where none exists, and leaves you open to the problem of individual fallibility and error?  And doesn't that mean that "just ask your priest or bishop" would be a completely useless answer?
If so, where is it and does it include itself in the list?

B/c you have no good answers to these questions, what this means for you is that your house is built on sand. Your Magisterium is a paper tiger, a golden gun that's never fired.


Disagreements between adherents who hold different views becomes the means by which doctrines are tested and determined leading to a shared understanding of the what the Church holds thereby leading to greater unity in faith. This is an advantage that those who claim to practice sola scriptura could never have.

Such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.


If attorneys were bound by some notion of sola scriptura, we would have to start over and decide what constituted the elements of contract

A statement that makes me think you don't even understand Sola Scriptura.  This is a strawman.  I'd've hoped that you, as an attorney, would put more effort into properly representing your opposition. What was it you said earlier?
“If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.”



we Catholics do not have to re-decide all of the old questions again

How about solving some of the ones that have remained all this time?  I listed quite a few in my ROUND 2 post.  Why don't you go ahead and show us where the Magisterium has cleared all of those up?



I must say though that the James White allusion ("Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law") you use is a bit vague.

I'm a bit of a fanboy, and he has said that numerous times during his Dividing Line webcast, just FYI.  But he first said it in a debate, yes.



as a Catholic I too would say give me Romans 8 over the Code of Canon Law since Romans 8 is part of the Word of God and the Code of Canon Law

Um, except you just finished telling us we need the Magisterium to understand Romans 8 and clear up disagreements about it, whereas the Code of Canon Law comes from The Church, that body that can clear that stuff up for us!  Why move the goalposts now?



Or are you perhaps working off James White’s reputation to lend your argument an air of Protestant magisterial authority?

If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.



Why does one need recourse to a super to the nth power authority in order to make a decision IN RESPONSE TO A DISPUTE?

B/c of the problem you've been trying to solve yourself!  I've already dealt with this, like I mentioned above.  When are you going to take the next step and actually deal with my response?



And if the parties to the dispute both come into the dispute with an “obedience in faith,” that is an attitude of assent to the teachings of the Church, the parties to the dispute will submit to the decision by the Magisterium rather than breaking off to form their own Church or advocate disobedience to the teachings of the Church.

A historically ignorant statement.  This is faithful adherence to Sola Ecclesia! 
"Don't listen; it's the Kool-Aid talking."



we need only one Magisterial authority.

And when ppl disagree about the meaning and application of its proclamations, what then? 
I mean, since ppl's disagreement about the Scr's meaning and application means we need an infallible interpreting authority, let's be consistent, shall we?  Which means you haven't dealt with my points at all. 



Rhology’s smug argument suffers from more question begging as to whether the above referenced scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.

Oh, OK.  Then I'll just say the same thing about any passage YOU bring up and claim that it's unclear.  Unless you're less concerned about consistency than about defending Mother Rome.
For example, you'd said earlier in our interaction the following:
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?

Paul Hoffer's smug argument suffers from more question-begging as to whether the above referenced Scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.


No, it is Rhology that introduced the idea that a teaching authority is to be measured by the laity’s response and obedience to it as demonstrated above.

No no no no!  YOU introduced the idea!  You did!  It's in your first comments!  I just quoted you. Here it is again.
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?

You still haven't grasped my argument, and it's getting sad.  Do you need to talk over the phone or something, so I can explain it to you?  Maybe this is why you claim (when convenient) the Scriptures aren't perspicuous - you can't even understand my internal critique of your own position, and it's your position.


And since the Church has steadfastly taught since apostolic times that abortion is inherently immoral, evil, and sinful,

And since you can take any two Roman Catholics and ask them about abortion and get 2 different answers... let me virtually-quote Paul again: 
Where the perspicuity of Magisterial proclamations fall by the wayside is when there are disputes between RCs as the Mag proclamations can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the whether it's OK to dismember babies.  How does reliance on the Magisterium help when both parties rely upon them?
If Paul responds, "But it's not true that BOTH are relying on them!", he needs to tell us why that same answer is not available to me as well w.r.t. the Scripture.  I won't hold my breath.


PH had said:
Unlike Protestantism which bolds that each person is his own magisterial authority

I'd responded: How do strawmen help the Roman cause?  Is it Mag teaching that strawmen are the best strategy?  Is that in Lumen Gentium too?

PH never answers but instead quotes some fallible individual who happens to go to his church, saying:  When we speak of private judgment, then, let us be quite clear as to what we mean; it has its uses and it has its abuses. Private judgment, in the sense of compiling a creed for yourself out of the Bible, of accepting this doctrine and rejecting that, of judging what should be and what should not be an integral part of the truth revealed by God -- this, of course, is entirely forbidden, for it is directly contrary to the method of arriving at the truth instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

1) Luke 12:57“And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?"
Matthew 22: 29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."
Mark 12:26“But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses"
Luke 6:3And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him"
Mark 12:10“Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; 11THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?”
Matthew 19:4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE"

Hmm, isn't that crazy?  Jesus actually pushed people back to the Scripture to correct when 2 people disagreed! 

2) Unless Paul can produce an infallible list of Magisterial proclamations, he exercises private judgment in figuring what things the Church says that are infallible things to be obeyed and what things the Church says that are fallible and non-binding.  Paul seems not to have yet wrestled with this problem, and I've given him several chances now over the course of this interaction.

3) He never apologises for the strawman or withdraws it.  Doesn't encourage me to take his point very seriously, since he seems to be talking to someone else.


When opinion, or private judgment, or to borrow Rhology’s term “logical argumentation,” becomes the measure of truth it is only a matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant due to the utter subjectivity of one’s own opinion.

How does this address the rebuttal I've already laid out?  It doesn't.


I even read an article where a bi-sexual woman who was promoted to the status of “bishop” in the Protestant Episcopal Church proclaim that abortion is sacramental! Where is Protestant unity on these matters or is redefining what constitutes sin a non-essential matter?

1) Ah, the tried-and-true method of lumping me in with flaming liberals!  Maybe Paul would like to be held responsible for everything Mel Gibson does.  After all, he's "Catholic".  He says so!  Just ask him!
2) Again, such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.


As I stated in the FIRST ROUND above, Jesus Christ is the measure of truth since He is the one Way, the Truth and Life, not logical argumentation.

Gosh, I wonder if anyone reading this will stop to wonder whether, when I say "logical argumentation", I mean it in the naturalistic materialist sense, or whether I mean it in the presuppositional Reformed sense, wherein one applies logical and contextual hermeneutics to the final standard of truth - God's Word?  Hmmm... I guess I could go back to my blog and delete all the references to "but, believing in Jesus is more probably true than not b/c the Earth's axis is tilted just right!" 
Oh wait, I don't say that kind of thing.  Never mind.  Then maybe Paul could actually do me the service of remembering to whom he's talking.



After all, I can point to some 252 dogmas that have been infallibly defined by my Magisterium.

That sounds like a fallible list to me.  Where is Paul's imprimatur? 
See, that's the thing - to Paul, apparently, the "authority and infallibility of the Magisterium" is a tool to be pulled out of the shed when convenient, say like a screwdriver, but when he needs to cut through a board, he hides his saw behind his back and tries to convince us all he's actually using the screwdriver. Then he shows us the cut board - "See?" 
Buy into the sleight-of-hand at your own peril.

The Divine Nature of Scripture and the Magisterium

Whitaker comes to the defense of four arguments from Calvin, which Stapleton attempts to refute, the first of which is (in the words of Calvin, not the summary Whitaker provides) as follows (emphasis mine):

A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the goodwill of men?¹

Yet what is Stapleton's reply? He claims that the Magisterium's judgment is not merely human, but really is both divine and infallible, therefore Calvin's argument fails to be of relevance.

Here Whitaker raises a point I would raise as well, one that is equally relevant today: "But what is the meaning of this assertion, that the church's judgment is not merely human? Be it so. But is it merely divine? For surely it is requisite that the truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and supported by a testimony purely divine."²

What, exactly, is meant by saying that the nature by which the Magisterium has come to identify the canon for us is not just human opinion, but is divine and infallible, yet not totally divine and infallible? Scripture, we would say, has been inspired by God in a completely and totally divine manner, therefore it is binding and authoritative. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of the Scriptures such that in no way did any of it originate or arise through human wisdom, creation, thought or contribution (even if human means--learning, intelligence, writing ability, etc.--were still used). It is completely and totally the intentions, thoughts, words, etc. of God toward humanity, therefore we should respect it as if God himself were speaking directly and presently to us.

But does the Magisterium, in its judgment that Scripture is really the Word of God, claim to be inspired, superintended, etc. by the same process as that which the Holy Spirit used to write inspired Scripture? I don't see how that's the case. Consider CCC #66 where the revealing of revelation proper is considered to have ended in the Apostolic era:

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And since the infallible identification of the canon within Roman Catholicism first occurred at Trent, it cannot be said that this proclamation was purely divine. And if it is not purely divine, why is it ultimately binding?

Only the thoughts of God are infallible. These can be expressed through various means (the burning bush, dreams, written Scripture, etc.), yet all are categorized as revelation. If Roman Catholicism denies that the Magisterium has received additional revelation by which to identify the canon for believers, it is difficult to see how the pronouncements of Trent would be authoritatively binding in any real sense. Where in Scripture are the words of the uninspired ever held to the same authoritative standard as those who said or wrote inspired material? For Scripture there are two categories: inspired and uninspired. By placing itself in the latter camp, the Magisterium has denied itself access to binding, infallible authority.

But, returning to the line of argumentation provided by Whitaker, let us suppose it is divinely inspired in the same manner Scripture is divinely inspired. If it is divine, then it carries the same nature and authority as Scripture. But if that is the case, why do we need the former to know the latter? Cannot the divine nature of Scripture speak to us directly, just as the divine nature of the pronouncements of the Magisterium speaks to us directly? What is preventing us from accessing the authoritative of Words of God in Scripture directly?

_____________________________


1. Henry Beveridge, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7.1.

2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 340.

Intellectual Inconsistency in the Infallible Magisterium?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Q: Does the Magisterium pick and choose among all the writings of the Early Church Fathers to come up with its doctrine? To be more precise, does the Magisterium pick one aspect of what an ECF wrote while rejecting other parts of what that very same ECF wrote that happens to contradict what the Magisterium has declared as Church dogma?

Yes or no?

If so, then why all this blabbering about citing Lampe and not accepting Lampe's other conclusions? After all, if the Magisterium cites an ECF on one issue, but doesn't accept that ECF's other conclusion on other matters, isn't John Bugay merely doing what the Magisterium has done way before John Bugay was ever born?

Hypocrisy. Pot. Kettle. Black. Special pleading. Etc. Are just some of the words that come to mind when reading the criticisms lobbied at Bugay and others by their Catholic detractors.

5:38 PM, September 10, 2010

Paul Hoffer all over the map

Paul Hoffer has been doing yeoman's work in a recent thread about whether Mary sinned in "anxiously" looking for the boy Jesus in Jerusalem, in Luke 2.  He is an attorney, so we'd hope that he'd be versed in the art of consistent argumentation.  Unfortunately, if these comments are any indication, he's among the 99% of attorneys that give the other 1% a bad name...

Let's start, though, in the middle of Paul Hoffer's first comment to me, where he said something very interesting:

can you point me to the official binding Calvinist interpretative authority that interprets Scripture to mean what you think it does?

Unfortunately for PH, this question is meaningless and has been dealt with dozens of times on this blog alone.
So let's ask PH:  Can you point me to the official binding Magisterial interpretative authority that interprets Scripture to mean what you think it does? 
Let's see how many times he does so.  Or does he just give us a bunch of personal, private, fallible interpretations of biblical passages and "Magisterial documents", and does he ever give us an infallible means of knowing whether these "Magisterial" statements are infallible?  Let's find out.



Apologetics is the responsibility of all Christians.

How does he know that?  Did the Mag infallibly state such? If he appeals to a verse like 1 Peter 3:15, can he give an infallible Mag interp of it?
If not, how does he know any of this?



The Magisterium is only an office within the Church that has limited parameters and specific responsibilities.

How does he know that?  Did the Mag infallibly state such?
How does he know the Mag won't in the future correct him?



Or are there times when one only needs a mechanic or could roll up one’s sleeves and change the oil himself.

Bad analogy.  What I hear from RCs all the time is that I need infallibility to be sure of things theological, that as a fallible individual, I have no hope to escape the chaotic quagmire of Protestantism.  But when convenient, apparently PH doesn't (edit: toe) that line.


I certainly can repeat what the Magisterium does teach

How does PH know that?  Did the Mag infallibly state such?

Whom to believe?

Catholic Nick said:

You said: "Irenaeus was clearly wrong when he said that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome." According to who? Liberal scholars (who want to discredit the Christian faith and Bible as much as possible) or traditional minded (faithful) Catholic scholars and historical appeals to Irenaeus by Catholic documents? 

I could toss liberal Protestant Scholars at you who discredit the Bible and claim "factual errors" on your part.
In other words, the liberals are so sneaky that they discredit any given doctrine in any way they can while still "believing" in the doctrine so as to attempt to avoid guilt. The Raymond Brown quote above is a beautiful example of this, where he attempted to smear and discredit the traditional Christian notion that St Paul wrote Ephesians, and he did so with the overall goal of smearing the Bible as likely tampered with.

Nick,

Why are these "liberal Catholic scholars" Catholic? If they're scholars and they write and get read by churchmen and aren't roundly refuted by the RCC, then why shouldn't I put a lot more faith in them than in you, anonymous blogger layman? Who the heck are you, exactly?


the liberals are so sneaky that they discredit any given doctrine in any way they can while still "believing" in the doctrine so as to attempt to avoid guilt

And isn't the Magisterium shrewd enough to figger that out? Why not do sthg about it? Why does the task fall to you? Who the heck are you, again?


The Raymond Brown quote above is a beautiful example of this

"St. Anthony Messenger Press Publisher Jeremy Harrington, O.F.M., said, "Raymond Brown reached scholars, religious educators and clergy with his academic books, but in his zeal he wanted to reach more: the people in the pew who hungered for a greater understanding of the Bible. We were honored that a scholar of his stature would write for a popular audience.

"Brown once commented that Catholic Update and St. Anthony Messenger reached hundreds of thousands, more than his books. He also reached that wider audience through Scripture From Scratch and the paperback books that he wrote for St. Anthony Messenger Press. He was a joy to work with. Some authors resist any suggestions, but Brown was open to ideas and editing. He was a gracious man and a brilliant scholar who knew the fruits of his labor were for everyone."

Brown, a Sulpician priest, was Auburn Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, New York. He was twice appointed a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, by Pope Paul VI in 1972 and by Pope John Paul II in 1996. He wrote extensively on the Bible. In addition to his books, he was a frequent contributor to Catholic Update, St. Anthony Messenger magazine and Scripture From Scratch (all publications of St. Anthony Messenger Press)." (Source)

And then...on the other side...there's Nick. Ah yes, Nick, who has been appointed a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission...zero times. Is an INfrequent contributor to Catholic Update. Is NOT a priest. Is NOT a professor of Biblical Studies, at any university or seminary. Has written...zero books.
Hmm, whom to believe?


I've yet to see any Protestant around here appeal to any given Church Father as "one of their own"

Ah true. FAR better to express fantastically incorrect views about a CF than to hold a realistic view that actually fits the evidence! How silly of me!
You didn't read the "where I put it all together" post, did you? Please do, and don't come back till you do.

On Being Guided In All Truth

Over the last week or so, I've been watching the massive thread on "the Doctrine of the Church" over at Greenbaggins. It started as a simple comment by Lane Keister to the effect that "Confessions of the church carry much more weight than an individual person’s opinion, even if they are not on the same level as Scripture." That comment in turn has been used as a wedge issue by Bryan Cross, and the whole thread has been turned into a circus by various Catholics.

Over the next few posts, I hope to be able to comment on a couple of different aspects of that thread. But following up on a posting about the misuse of 1 Tim 3:15, here's another common Catholic "proof-text" that is also badly misused:

The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple. In them He prays on their behalf and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons. The Church, which the Spirit guides in way of all truth (Cf. Jn. 16:13) and which He unified in communion and in works of ministry, He both equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits. (from Lumen Gentium, paragraph 4).

Note a couple of things here: First, see that "the Church" is separate from "the hearts of the faithful." Even at Vatican II, "The Church" is significantly "the hierarchy."

But note also that little reference, "cf" which is used with respect to the reference to John 16:13. It's an abbreviation for the Latin word confer, meaning "compare" or "consult". The Roman hierarchy will throw that little reference out there -- it's not given as a firm exegesis for "infallibility," but possibly with the intention that through the process of "mental reservation," some of "the faithful" will begin to use this verse, incorrectly, as a proof-text. And in this thread, that's exactly what happened: John 16:13 was thrown out there as a kind of proof for infallibility of the Magisterium. See this statement from the Catholic Catechism:

The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. [Emphasis supplied, JB; see the comment from "Tori" below.] Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms...

One form that's not explicitly given in the Catechism, but is nevertheless "out there" (cf) is that this verse is a support for "the Magisterium". See comment #400 by an individual named "Toli":

See Jn. 16:13. What does Christ say the Spirit will do? That text,among others, through good and necessary inference, opens the gate to an infallible magisterium. The continuity that exists is the same, but better.

This is one key reason why I think that Catholic apologetics, from the top level on down, is fundamentally a dishonest exercise.

What we've seen here is a clear, outright example of the Catholic Hermeneutic, as I've discussed, in which a Catholic does not rely on an exegetical process to understand what a verse means, but instead will start with an existing Catholic teaching, and then read that teaching back into the verse. This "method" has notably been defined by, among others, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, Humani Generis:

“theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”

But what does this verse really say? What does it promise? I've consulted two commentaries on John, both D.A. Carson (1991) and Andreas Kostenberger (2004) for clarification:

The Paraclete will guide you in (Gk. en is the best reading; eis, 'into', as in NIV, is secondary) all truth. If there is a distinction between 'in all truth' and 'into all truth', it is that the latter hints at truth the disciples have not yet in any sense penetrated, while 'in all truth' suggests an exploration of truth already principally disclosed. Jesus himself is the truth (14:6); now the Spirit of truth leads the disciples into all the implications of the truth, the revelation, intrinsically bound up with Jesus Christ. There is no other locus of truth; this is all truth. The notion of 'guidance' (the Gk. verb hodegeo) in all truth has nothing to do with privileged information pertaining to one's choice of vocation or mate, but with understanding God as he has revealed himself, and with obeying that revelation -- as the occurence of this verb in the Psalms makes clear (e.g. Pss 25:4-5; 143:10).

... it makes sense to suppose that the Holy Spirit is unpacking [the significance of Jesus' death/exaltation]. The verb used here and repeated in vv. 14. 15 (anangello, NIV 'tell' in v.13 and 'make known' in vv. 14, 15) suggests an announcement, indeed in this context a revelatory declaration (as its use in 4:25 suggests), but it is a reiterative announcement. These features square best with the view that what is yet to come refers to all that transpires in consequence of the pivotal revelation bound up with Jesus' person, ministry, death, resurrection and exaltation. This includes the Paraclete's own witness to Jesus, his ministry to the world (16:8-11) primarily through the church (15:26, 27), the pattern of life and obedience under the inbreaking kingdom, up to and including the consummation. All of this the Spirit of truth 'announces', yet in making it known he is doing little more than fleshing out the implications of God's triumphant self-disclosure in the person and work of his Son. (Carson, pgs 539-541, emphasis in original.)

Also Kostenberger:

Yet when the "Spirit of truth" comes (see 14:17; 15:26), he will guide (hodego) them in all truth. "Guidance in all truth" (better than "into all truth") entails providing entrance to the revelatory sphere of God's character and ways. In one very important sense, Jesus is the eschatological Word who has explained ["exegeomai", from which we get the word "exegesis"] the Father (1:18). In another sense, however, by salvation-historical necessity is the Spirit who guides his followers in "all" truth. Such divine guidance was already the Psalmist's longing (Ps. 25:4-5; 43:3; 86:11; 143:10). The prphet recounts how God led his people Israel in the wilderness by his Holy Spirit (Isa. 63:14) and predicts God's renewed guidance in the future (Isa. 43:19). Yet as he guides Jesus' followers in all truth, the Spirit will speak only what he hears--his dependence on Jesus enacting the pattern set by Jesus in relation to the Father--and also tell Jesus' followers what is yet to come. The object of revelation is "what is yet to come" subsequent to the giving of the Spirit, which cannot be the passion, but must be events following Pentecost. The emphasis may lie not so much on predictive prophecy but on helping the believing community understand their present situation in light of Jesus' by-then-past revelation of God. This entails both "a more profound penetration into the content of revelation" and "the application of that revelation to the behaviour of the community within the world."

I just wanted to suggest one more thing here. Note the verb "exegeomai," which Kostenberger refers to, John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known..." This process of "making known" is "exegesis," which, used in the Gospel of Luke means "to give a full account" in the sense of "telling the whole story," which is the most probable meaning here, too.

Jesus is very clear, especially in the Gospel of John, that he only speaks what he hears from the Father (See John 3:34-35, 5:19-20, 7:16-18, 8:26-29, 42-43, 12:47-50, 14:10.) The Spirit repeats this pattern (John 16:14-15). If there is a pattern of "succession," it is this "succession in the truth," demonstrated within the Trinity, that is to be followed. This flies in the face of the "Catholic Hermeneutic," which superimposes its own meaning onto Scripture.

The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority, part 2

Paul Hoffer was kind enough to comment at length on my last post, but unfortunately between his original comment that spawned the aforementioned post and his comments on the post, he forgot his own argument, and ironically in many places ends up affirming my own point.  For that, I thank him for tacitly disavowing his argument.  I commend the practice, of course, for while it is a common argument, it is also a very bad and stupid one.

Here is my response, first to another commenter named Space Bishop:


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.


Paul Hoffer,
I'm sorry you didn't understand that I parotted (Edit misspelling: parroted) you for a specific reason, that is, to show how the same "problem" of individual fallible interpretation is true for your position as well.  Positing a Mag only moves the question back a step, which is why I'm saying you'd need a super-super-Mag to fix the problem.  But then you'd need aNOTHER level back to which to move the question, and on and on unto infinity.


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.

The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority

louis said:
It's almost as if he thinks those scripture passages are perspicuous or something.
He also evidently thinks he understands Marbury v. Madison, but unless an infallible interpreter explained it to him, I'm not sure how he can.

Paul Hoffer said:

Louis, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree upon (sic). Where the perspecuity (sic) of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them? Fortunately, the Scriptures does point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a magisterial authority was established that people could take such disputes to. 

Paul Hoffer, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree. Where the perspicuity of Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Romanists of different opinions as the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the (in)errancy of the Scripture, at what point in the development of the unborn baby it's OK to decapitate and dismember the baby, to what extent the Church should have material wealth, etc. How does reliance on Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" help when both parties rely upon them?

One wonders whether Paul will be so quick to tell us that the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" do point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a super-Magisterial magisterial authority was established to which people could take such disputes.  And then when there are disputes about what the super-Magisterial magisterial authority says, whether Paul will posit a super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority.  And then whether he'll later posit a super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority...

What is really ironic is that in this kind of argumentation that Paul uses here and that RCs ignorantly use all over the place, they echo atheists as well.  Here's a recent example:
Whateverman said:  It matters that other Christians wouldn't agree with your attribution (of God's influence) because that demonstrates the subjectivity of the assertion.
My response there:  You know, there are ppl who think they can float by Yogic meditation. Their mistaken thoughts of gravity's application does not mean that gravity is subjective. You're making man the measure of truth. I'd recommend making logical argumentation the measure of truth, myself.


And that's what I'd recommend for our Romanist friends like Paul Hoffer.  For one thing, when you argue like an atheist, but you're a theist, and when you denigrate the clarity of what God spoke, just like atheists do, shouldn't that raise a bit of a red flag?

The Shroud of Turin and evolution

Umm, right, so Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, has spoken out in "favor" of the Shroud of Turin, basically saying that it is authentic, that it really is the shroud in which Jesus was wrapped after His crucifixion. 
From here:

Benedict focused in his meditation on the message that the blood stains conveyed, saying the Shroud was "an icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was whipped, crowned with thorns, crucified and injured on his right side.
"The image on the Shroud is that of a dead man, but the blood speaks of his life. Each trace of blood speaks of love and life," Benedict said.
The Vatican to date had tiptoed around the issue of just what the Shroud of Turin is, calling it a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering while making no claim to its authenticity.

 I have two thoughts on this incident.


1) So the Pope is more than happy to come out in support of the theory of evolution because "the scientists" think it's true, and yet when scientists present evidence using very similar methodologies (ie, radiocarbon dating) that the Shroud of Turin is actually only around 800 years old, he ignores it and leads his people in acts of piety that express dissent with the scientific opinion?
And don't try to play the "but there's debate within scientific circles on the Shroud" card.  There's plenty of debate in scientific circles about evolution as well, not to mention a ludicrous amount of logical argumentation against it.  The Pope went with the scientific "academy" then, why the inconsistency now?

2) These and other news articles are careful to say that Benedict "all but endorses its authenticity". 
It is mind-boggling to me that this man would do such a disingenuous thing as to hold a "meditation" in front of this object, modeling meditation on the Cross of Christ, when there's plenty of reason to doubt that it actually is the shroud that wrapped Christ's body for a time.  Further, all the reason to doubt aside, could not the Pope make a pronouncement that it either is or isn't authentic, for sure?  Why dance around the issue?  Does it matter whether the shroud actually wrapped Christ or doesn't it?  When the Pope speaks infallibly, is he right even when the contemporary "scientific establishment" disagrees or not?
It seems very comparable to the RC practice of bowing down and performing acts of religious and worshipful piety in front of and directed toward pictures of dead people.  Outside of icons of Christ Himself and a few specifically-identified elect angels, such as Gabriel and Michael, the RC worshiper has zero guarantee that the dead person to whom he's praying is actually in Heaven.  S/He might be in Hell, or s/he might be in Purgatory.  The Magisterium could clear all that up, but chooses not to, chooses not to get involved in such trivial matters as truth in worship and spiritual meditation. 
It's pathetic, really. How is this the action of a church that is the self-proclaimed "pillar and support of the truth"? 

Catholic Nick's Silver Bullet doesn't come with a user manual

Rhology said...

Hi Nick, I'd like to know sthg specific. Given your claim that to your knowledge no one has ever come up with this argument before, why would this not raise a red flag for a RC like you? Why wouldn't the arguments produced by the infallible Magisterium be sufficient for you? If you argue that this is simply an internal critique of Protestantism, I respond in two ways: 1) Why wouldn't the internal critiques produced by the infallible Magisterium be sufficient for you? 2) The Bible matters for RCC too, so it's not only an internal critique if you intend to tell us what the Bible says. Why are you, an anonymous layman blogger, doing the serious job of biblical exegesis? Peace, Rhology

April 14, 2010 10:03 AM

Nick said...

Rhology, Coming up with a new argument against a heresy is perfectly fine. Heresies pop up all the time, even old ones under new forms, thus we'd expect new arguments against them. The only time 'novelty' is to be looked upon with suspicion is when it comes to redefining or introducing new doctrine.

April 15, 2010 11:50 AM 

 

Rhology said...

Coming up with a new argument against a heresy is perfectly fine. I'm not all that interested in your say-so. I'd like some evidence, please. I'd also like you to answer my questions. Thanks!

April 15, 2010 12:08 PM 

Nick said...

Rhology, Your comments are not relevant to the topic of this post, I'm not on any sort of trial and don't need to answer your question which are ultimately aimed at taking this discussion off topic (so as to avoid the main arguments) and turning this discussion into a an all too common game of you keep asking endless questions while I invest my time answering (and you having no intention of returning the favor). Question and answer is a two way street. I consider myself pretty well read in terms of Catholic theology and practice, and I can say with a clear conscience I'm not going against any Church teaching in what I've said. If I am, and you know about it, it's your duty to point it out. Otherwise, I have no reason to do your homework for you.

April 15, 2010 12:36 PM 

 

Rhology said...

I consider myself pretty well read in terms of Catholic theology and practice Wow, and I'm really happy for you. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell me anything about my questions. If you think I'm only interested in asking questions, you haven't read any of my blog writings. Sad to see you won't answer simple questions. In my experience, it's usually b/c you can't. See you. Peace, Rhology

April 15, 2010 12:40 PM 

Nick said...

Rhology, One of the Decrees of the Second Vatican Council is APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM*, a decree focused on the life and place of the layman in the Church, here is some of what it said: "Since, in our own times, new problems are arising and very serious errors are circulating which tend to undermine the foundations of religion, the moral order, and human society itself, this sacred synod earnestly exhorts laymen-each according to his own gifts of intelligence and learning-to be more diligent in doing what they can to explain, defend, and properly apply Christian principles to the problems of our era in accordance with the mind of the Church." * http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html

April 15, 2010 12:49 PM 

Rhology said...

I don't see how that answers the question.

April 15, 2010 12:50 PM 

Nick said...

There is no satisfying you, and I'm not spending anymore time with *your* agenda, especially when this combox is for an entirely different subject. Rather than have this combox flooded with anymore of that type of posts, I'll likely be deleting them if they show up. Lastly, I'm not afraid of you and my apologetics abilities are far superior to yours. Based on our interactions of the past, and examining what your work elsewhere, you'd be crushed in a written debate against me. My work on the blog and my webpage are open for all to see, if there's anything you think you can expose, go ahead and try. I invite any challenge to any of my work.

April 15, 2010 12:57 PM 

Rhology said...

Based on our interactions of the past, and examining what your work elsewhere, you'd be crushed in a written debate against me. Tee hee, you must not've read any canon law on the topic of humility this week. Thanks for not answering. Have a good one.

April 15, 2010 12:59 PM 

 

Raise your right hand, Mr. Windsor

Continuing with Scott Windsor:

No matter how *I* answer, you will try to find fault with it because, as you stated, your mission is to sow discord - not healing.

I guess I need to spell it out for you. Here's what you need to say.

---
I, Scott Windsor, am appalled at:
1) the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy's obvious and obstinate refusal to accomplish biblical New Testament church discipline by insisting Pelosi repent in a reasonably brief amount of time and formally excommunicating her if she refuses;
2) the Pope's going so far as even to serve the Eucharist to her recently; and
3) the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy's refusal to make something so clearly necessary and exemplary happen, even if it should mean the disciplining of the priest, bishop, and archbishop, and anyone else clogging up the works, in order that the Church's witness be not tainted by appeasing political power that prefers to murder babies than to admit it is wrong.

In light of these facts, I, Scott Windsor, state unequivocally that the Roman Catholic Church has in modern times done much to change its reputation as unabashedly pro-life, though it claims that its pro-life stance is unchanged. I call upon the Church to do what it should do, and contend firmly that it must change, now, or else stand in direct opposition to God's clear command.
---/---

I don't think that's too much to ask. I'm not even sure leaving the church for one who actually does what it says with respect to baby-murder is too much to ask. Question is, do you have the guts to do it?

If I were Speaker Pelosi's bishop, I'd probably do things differently

Scott Windsor sets himself over a bishop of the RCC:

All I can say is that if I were Speaker Pelosi's bishop, I'd probably do things differently. I'm not her bishop and this is his responsibility, not mine. It is scandalous - I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, but this is NOT a matter of infallibility so to try and bring that up under this topic is diversionary. As I said, I really agree with you on this particular matter and I wish her bishop would take a firm and public stance with her especially in light of her public stance.

Fair enough, you're not her bishop, but it doesn't stop there.
1) Where do you get off criticising a member of the Roman clergy? You're a layman, aren't you? What authority do you have to correct someone who works directly for the Magisterium?
2) You're conceding that your church doesn't do what it should in terms of enforcement of its doctrine. Doesn't that put its actual commitment to that doctrine in serious question? Isn't this "faith" w/o works?


The REAL topic here is the overall authority of the Church, not the authority of individual bishops over individual sheep in their flock.

And the overall church hasn't done anythg to remedy this situation, despite its high profile.
What should an outside observer thus conclude? It's pretty obvious - for all her high-sounding talk about abortion, when it comes to ppl in power, she fears human power and the criticism of men rather than God.


Now, is valid apostolic authority a guarantee that every bishop will do the right thing in every situation? No, it is not.

Is it closer to a guarantee that SOMEONE in the church will eventually do the right thing, given hundreds of chances over the course of decades?
Is it closer to a guarantee that the Pope himself, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, wouldn't go ahead and allow the Eucharist to be served to Pelosi at a Mass he attends?
If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean in real life? You can SAY they have that authority, but if they never use it, you don't really know, do you? It's just as if they didn't have it. And that's been one of the major points in our discussion. You say the Magisterium is infallible and all that, but they won't infallibly tell you what they've infallibly taught. For that matter, they won't UNOFFICIALLY tell you what they've infallibly defined.
You say the Magisterium has authority to bind and to loose, yet when faced with the awesome power (not to mention the nearly unlimited rhetorical and analytical skills) of the weak-minded and big-mouthed Speaker of the House, who is clearly in serious sin even according to lax Roman standards, the Magisterium does...nothing. If it does nothing, it's the exact same as if it can do nothing. It's nothing.

Seen Scott Windsor's imprimatur?

Scott Windsor has responded to some of our recent interactions on his blog, in two parts. I'll address this first part here and then go on to the other post later.

It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post

Yes, that's what's commonly called an "example". An "illustration". I apologise for using a concept that's apparently unfamiliar to you.
My question related to that post was very, very specific. You then responded to the Eph 2 post itself, which is not what I asked about. That is what I mean by your failure to follow the line of argumentation, and then you project your failure onto me and accuse me of shotgunning and partaking with Satan. Again, knock yourself out.


Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.

Sigh. The bold word indicates a critique. If you weren't so busy acting offended, you might remember that I've already explained this to you.
-Here's the original comment from me.
-Mr Windsor's is right after, where he says: "Your use of "Romanist" in a truly bigoted fashion (related to another thread going on here and on my blog too as well as White's) is noted...but even make sure we take note by using bold text?"
-My next comment explains: "I put "from Romanists" in bold b/c I was trying to help you understand what I'd said. It appeared you hadn't followed that I was noting an inconsistency between what you'd said and what *other* ppl have said many times in the past."
-Mr Windsor ignores my explanation and offers this: "For example, if I were using a term like "Prottie" here - and someone expressed to ME that it was a bit of a bigoted term - I would respect them and refrain from further use - I would not go on and not only use it, but bold face it as well!"
-I responded in the next comment: "And again (see how boldface imparts emphasis?), I bolded "Romanist" to try to be helpful and direct attention to my meaning." And then I even explained it AGAIN: "Thus you are showing that you care not for the argument that *OTHER PEOPLE* have often made *IN THE PAST* here on this blog, that private, individual interpretation is useless. That is the extent of my point here."
-Mr Windsor seems finally to get it: "I can't speak for "*OTHER PEOPLE*" - but as for me, the only times I would have to be concerned about "private interpretation" is if I am interpreting something contrary to an already defined teaching"

If only you'd kept right on that train of thought, but no, it's apparently more amusing to vilify me. Whatever, have fun with that.



As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics among those 8 questions.

Yes, b/c YOU RESPONDED TO THE EPH 2 POST, Mr Windsor. Sauce for the goose and all that.
And there aren't 5 diff topics. They're all directed at taking your comment that "works" in Eph 2 refers to "works of the OT Law", so I was asking you if you attempt to fulfill the OT Law since Eph 2:10 says we're created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Since "works" = "works of the OT Law", it should be obvious to any reader that, if you believe that, you'd better get right on top of obeying the OT Law!
I note in passing that you've never put fwd any answer beyond "Christ fulfilled the OT Law for us"...as if you completely forgot the original context of the question - Eph 2. It's yet another thread of the argument you've lost track of, but I'll look at your other post on that topic.


Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).

Seriously? Asking whether you fulfilled the circumcision commandments in the OT Law for your sons is "a personal question"?


5) Question 7 asked about graven images...which is wholly a different subject

Oh, the OT Law doesn't deal with graven images? Not even in, say, the 10 Commandments? Like the 2nd one?
Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3 29:17; Num 33:52; Lev 26:30? Aren't those psgs in the OT Law too?


Vague references to entire postings or entire threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation.

I told you where to see a couple of examples. You know, as an apologist you're not all that helpful. Don't you ever answer hypotheticals? It's not like it's not a specific hypothetical.


It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that congregation before acting? Or, did he just walk in and start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?

(You're shotgunning again, I note. I brought this up as an EXAMPLE, and you're taking it far afield, if we go by your own standard.)
Why would he consult the elders of a wrongdoing congregation?
Maybe he was very, very certain that such a thing was wrong and acted to communicate its wrongness to that church? Maybe he had consulted with the bishop. And wait a sec, why would he need to consult with the local bishop? I thought Christians and especially bishops throughout history have been in agreement about such important things as images. No doubt he agreed with you and knew his own bishop said images in church are a no-go, and thus figured the local bishop would agree, since bishops in Christ's church bind and loose and all that and have all that unity you like to talk about so often.


There may be some around, but I don't "use them" in "worship."

Let the reader judge whether the actions performed by RCs before their images is "using them" in "worship".

One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.
How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?


Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda. (source)

And why precisely can't the Magisterium take care of that? The Pope? Is he too busy making official visits to Hugo Chávez and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?

Anyway, the main point of this whole thing is that Mr Windsor apparently wants everyone to take his word for it on the question of whether he's submitted to the Magisterium. "Oh don't worry," he says, "I've written to my bishop, and in the past I've had good success getting a response." That's nice, and I'm sure such responses from men who wear such elaborate vestments and who hide and transfer pædophiles and can't decide what to do with obviously pro-baby-murder politicians among their constituents impart warm fuzzies, but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance. I mean, I'm supposed to let RCC's dogmatic proclamations bind my conscience on pain of mortal sin (or, on pain of somehow wriggling out from under the virtual panacæa of the concept of "invincible ignorance"), but if Mr Windsor relies on his private interpretation to find out whether his own teachings are thus bound, I feel less motivated to do anything more than that.

4 questions

Given the recent discussions surrounding the infallibility of the Roman Magisterium, I have 4 questions to help further mutual understanding.

1) Please name one, just one, Bible verse that the Roman Magisterium has infallibly interpreted.
2) Please state how you know the answer to #1. (Edit: I want to know the source for your answer and how you know that particular proclamation is infallible.)
3) Please explain whether the answer to #2 is infallible.
4) Please explain if you know the answer to #2 infallibly.

Thanks!

Magisterial snobbery

Alexander Greco has graced us with an exposition of the worth of the Magisterium.

He apparently can't tell when I am engaging his position on its own grounds. He and Dozie continually attribute the logical conclusions of the Roman position to my own.
Reading this post would do them some good.

Being aware that their understanding of my philosophy was flawed, I began to clarify my philosophy by both narrowly defining certain principles and outright condemning others on an ad hoc basis.

Holy Spirit's job, sometimes working thru people, sometimes not.


Surely after I have "Greco's Philosophy for Dummies" published there will still be people who just do not get it; however, there are those who would.

Correct. And presumably, one would not find, in a work on Greco's philosophy, absolutely nothing on a topic (say, the Assumption of the BVM or the Immaculate Conc) but go ahead and say it's there anyway, and then have you come and affirm that it really is there.
Or...maybe it WOULD happen like that.


Would I totally eradicate misunderstanding? Of course not!

So what you're saying is, it's not the Bible's fault if people misunderstand. Thank you - that is my point exactly.


if he were to do that, then why would he have allowed us to become sinners to begin with?).

Maybe b/c He has a perfect plan that you, as a limited human, don't fully understand.
I refuse to let someone get away with the argument-equivalent of putting God in the dock. You don't get to judge His plan. You are to submit to it.


You emphasis the erroneous straw man idea that the individual must know infallibly, or have infallible knowledge in order to have certainty regardless of the amount of clarification given to them

Actually, that would be you and Dozie who emphasise that very thing.


Have you not considered that certainty can be a gradual process?

Sure. But how does that leave a Magisterium-based epistemology in better position than Sola Scrip?


how does this take away from the objective value in an infallible Magisterium?

B/c the very grounds you use to criticise Sola Scrip - that people don't understand it, people misinterp it, people end up in disunity, people end up disagreeing - you've just admitted are the case or could be the case for your own position. But have you not considered that certainty can be a gradual process?


Can the Bible actively tell you when you have erroneously derived false doctrines?

The Holy Spirit does. This is not that hard, seriously.


you might claim that it could, by reading Scripture within context and exegetically.

1) That's part of what the HS uses to bring us into understanding.
2) You have to do that with Magisterial proclamations, the same as the Scr. Yet somehow Magisterial documents are better, more sure, have better communicative ability.


Could the Holy Spirit guided Church actively tell you when you have erroneously derived false doctrines?

Happens all the time. What do you think excommunication is for?
What do you think 2 Tim 3:15-17 and the surrounding context are talking about? Or 1 Tim 3:15, for that matter? An infallible Magisterium is not required to accomplish that!


Yes as evidenced in history.

And history also evidences loads of Church screw-ups.
See, on the one hand you say "the Church" will serve as the always-good guide. Yet the Church is made of people, and people, by your own admission, "are complex animals who contain the rational faculty, but due to other factors they do not always make the best use of this faculty". which is it?


Mind you that the Bible is only acting passively, dependent upon you to find the correct meaning.

Thank God for providing His Holy Spirit, for not leaving us alone.
You continue to strawman the Sola Scrip position. Is it really that hard to learn?


It cannot stop you and say, “Hey, you are not reading me correctly.”

Paul never does that in Romans 6? Mark never does it in Mark 7? The Psalm 119 Psalter didn't think the HS can, thru the Scripture?


You might claim that another believer could stop and correct you. However, you are still left with their possible erroneous beliefs which influence their reading of the text.

1) That's one reason why the church is there. God uses means to accomplish His will, you know.
2) If you are reading a Church document in error, you might claim that another believer, even a priest, could stop and correct you. However, you are still left with their possible erroneous beliefs which influence their reading of the text. when's the last time you received direct correspondence from the Magisterium? Could you scan the letter and post it somewhere, in photobucket? What did you ask them? What did they say?


On the other hand, when the Holy Spirit-guided Magisterium steps in to correct you via infallible proclamations, their corrections are infallible (when proclaimed to be)

When was the last time an infallible correction was made?
Then, when was it proclaimed to be?
Does the Magisterium ever make fallible proclamations?
How do you know the difference?
How do you know the difference infallibly? If you don't know it infallibly, does it matter whether you know the difference infallibly? What is the difference, if not, between that situation and a believer reading the Scr?


So the Protestant has his fallible teacher and fallible self, and the Catholic has his infallible teacher and fallible self.

The Sola Scripturist's teachers are the Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
John 6:45 - "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."
1 John 2:27 - As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
Jeremiah 31:34 - "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

The church's job, biblically, is to teach the Scr to believers and call out sin, etc.
The source is infallible. The guide is infallible. The individual teacher is fallible.

Contrast that with the Roman system, on the Roman position.
The Scr is (supposedly) infallible (though that depends on which Romanist you ask).
The Magisterium can be infallible, when it 'wants' to be.
The individual reader of a Magisterial/papal infallible proclamation and/or the priest who teaches it, expounds on it, and answers questions about it to his congregation is fallible.

Tell me again where the advantage is? At least with the Sola Scrip position, we KNOW that the Scr is infallible. We apparently can't know the Scr is infallible, and we certainly can't know when the Magisterium is speaking infallibly, on the Roman position.








(Edits in green, for clarification's sake - see Alexander Greco's first comment)