[PetroniusMaximus]

***But relying on your own personal view of Scripture is?***

You accuse others of subjectivity in interpreting the Scriptures.

Is not your own understanding of the Magesterium based on your subjective opinion of what they mean?

[Conservative til I die]

Is not your own understanding of the Magesterium based on your subjective opinion of what they mean?

No. When the Magisterium says that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ, there's not much subjective interpretation I can do.

[HarleyD]

"Is not your own understanding of the Magesterium based on your subjective opinion of what they mean?"

I believe CTID would respond, "We have the historical tradition of the Church." Personally I think this is flawed reasoning because:

1) Historically and admittedly, the RCC has erred in their views later to be corrected. (Think of all those Catholic crusaders in which now the Church says was wrong.) What's to say there isn't some error going on now that won't be corrected 100 years from now? Perhaps adoration of Mary. Perhaps gay clergy? The Catholics could all be arguing for something now only to have it changed by "official decree" later. Doesn't this seem the least bit like follow the precepts of man?

2) The RCC "tradition" argument IMO doesn't make sense based upon the tradition of the RCC itself. The early church fathers knew there was a distinct difference between the inspired scriptures and other writings. Thus they composed the Bible. Yet as soon as one starts to look at inspired scriptures then "tradition" is brought in and forget sola scriptura. Ironically, church tradition says there is a difference between the writings yet this distinction is ignored in favor of "tradition".

This view on tradition has lead the RCC into error IMHO. For example, the Council of Trent accepted the Apocrypha as inspired; something the early church rejected but treated as an Appendix. What did the CoT know 1000 years later that the early church fathers didn't? Where was the reliance on tradition of the early church fathers? Rather inconsistent if you ask me.

Irenius stated that if a heathen was converted and heard heresy spoken from the pulpit without having the word of God, he would be so convicted that he would plug his ears and run the other way. Think what he could do with the word of God. I would agree.