“First, I have trouble with the glorification of the concepts of “majority rule” and “stare decisis” via replacing their names with the single term “Magisterium”.”
Well, then. Who do you believe has the authority to interpret scripture accurately?
“Since we do not accord any of them with the power of infallibility”
Which is why this debate is meaningless. You yourself do not regard the Fathers of the Church as authoritative, so why are you citing them in defense of your own beliefs?
It makes no sense to me. I was a Protestant. I was a sola scripturist. I encountered many folks like you who were willing to quote the Catholic church in everything.
Which raises the question. Why is St. Augustine authoritative? Why has he come down to us? Because the Catholic church appointed him to be a bishop. This is a historical fact. If you are acknowledging him to be an authority on God, you are in effect, arguing in favor of the Catholic church.
Third, when the citation is inaccurate, and doesn’t even actually say what is claimed, that just demonstrates to most people that you aren’t really interested in truth.
I’m having trouble with a couple of things:
First, I have trouble with the glorification of the concepts of “majority rule” and “stare decisis” via replacing their names with the single term “Magisterium”.
Second, I have trouble with claims that someone is “cherry picking” the Church Fathers. Since we do not accord any of them with the power of infallibility or with impeccability, it should be obvious that the Church Fathers may have been wrong about some things, and all of them were certainly wrong about something at some point in their writings. Who gets to decide which quotes “count” and which constitute “cherry picking”? Why is the Catholic practice of selective citation, arranged neatly so as to support the claim that “to read the Church Fathers is to become Catholic” or however the line goes. not a prime example of cherry picking”? What objective, external standard can be appealed to, to verify when a Church Father is “orthodox” and when he is “heretical”?
“You don’t have to tell me the answer, because I think we can all guess it by now: “The Magisterium”, or to use a better word, “by majority vote”. “
The magisterium as a whole.
“What objective, external standard can be appealed to, to verify when a Church Father is “orthodox” and when he is “heretical”?”
The catechism of the Catholic church.
Again, one bishop speaking on one topic doesn’t speak for the body, the 400.
The authority, or the ability?
You yourself do not regard the Fathers of the Church as authoritative, so why are you citing them in defense of your own beliefs?
Where and when precisely did I post that "I do not regard the Fathers of the Church as authoritative"? When exactly did I cite any Church Fathers? Please do not put words in my mouth, especially if you're not going to tell me where they've been. Eeew.
But if we're going to continue with that argument, when did the Magisterium conclude that the Church Fathers were more authoritative than the apostles' inspired writings?
It makes no sense to me. I was a Protestant. I was a sola scripturist. I encountered many folks like you who were willing to quote the Catholic church in everything.
I would take issue with your use of the phrase "sola scripturist", as well as <"Protestant", as both phrases are associated with the churches that came out of the Reformation. Earlier on this thread, you claimed to have formerly been a Mennonite. When you were Mennonite, did you consider Mennonites to be a product of the Reformation, or for Mennonites(as anabapists) to have preexisted the Reformation? I'm guessing that you believed the latter, hence my taking issue with the choice of words.