“and the practical failure of the magisterium to provide a wide scope of perspicuous, consistent, approved teaching to the common Catholic.”
So you would hope. But you do not understand the Magisterium and how it works. Perhaps someday you shall.
Your response only testifies to my statement. If you want an understanding of how the Magisterium practically works, ask a random group of Catholics to define this, and how many infallible teachings there are, among others things, and you will get different answers. Not that there is not a basically right explanation to the first, but without getting into details (as here: http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html), outside the basics are found various explanations as to the details, and it requires interpretation as to what statements fits where, as no one can point you an infallible list of all infallible statements.
And relative little is provided infallibly, most especially on Bible texts. Much of the interpretive explaining of what fits where and the meaning of Rome's prolixity of pronouncements is effectively left to lay apologists on the practical level. And they themselves testify to the problems.
Robert Sungenis recently stated Rome's scholars are worse than Protestant liberals. Jimmy Akin recently chastised the interpretation of his priest saying, "This isn't exegetical rocket science." Steve Ray had some similar problems with a priest and concludes the church is "Always reforming, always in need of reform." Mark Shea accuses Robert Sungenis of lying. Sungenis says Scott Hahn misunderstands of the whole issue of justification. Over on the Catholic Answers forum, they recently had a heated discussion as to whether Scott Hahn teaches "prima scriptura." Tim Staples says he went to a mass in which the priest led the church in "the wave." Jimmy Akin says you can pray to whoever you want to, even if they aren't saints. Art Sippo says Mary should be Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Patrick Madrid disagreed with him. Karl Keating states, "Many Catholics are confused because some priests tell them contracepting is immoral, while others tell them the practice is morally neutral; some priests speak as though Mary had only one child, while others imply that she was the mother of the 'brethren of the Lord', some priests correctly explain the meaning of the Real Presence, while others refer to the Eucharist as only a symbol. Priests are authority figures, and lay people expect them to know and teach the faith accurately- not a safe assumption nowadays." Jim Burnham stated on Catholic Answers that Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.
I could go on and on. I didn't even mention any of my "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary " posts. In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible. Then there are the big issues, like evolution. If you want to see diversity of opinion, simply try and nail down a Catholic apologist or a Catholic theologian on it. You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn't such a bad guy.
Some think the anathemas of Trent apply to Protestants today and others do not. Some want to canon PJ2, while others denigrate his legacy, while one can engage in quite serious deviation (from rejecting Vatican Two to its liberal counterpart) and not see any real discipline, or one can see such, yet apparently may be received back with no required repentance.
Torture can be explicitly sanctioned by one pope and theologians for theological reasons, only to have another forbid it unequivocally, while interpretations of ecclesiam nulla salus statements still vary.
Rome assures its members that “the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error,” even in her own American Bible, a safeguard which flows from the ‘Index of Prohibited Books,’ and have Catholics require all evidence used by use to have them, and then by told by others that they are basically meaningless, and what really is authoritative teaching varies.
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
Not sure what your point is here? This is supposed to be controversial?
“Examine the context, which was that of assurance of doctrine being based upon the premise of perpetual assured formulaic infallibility”
Perhaps in your mind.
Perhaps in my mind? Such responses are hardly worth replying to. If submission to infallible decrees is not based on the premise that the sacred magisterium is infallible when speaking universally on faith and morals, then you have not the mind of a Roman Catholic.
“Rome may claim such, but assurance of her decrees does not rest upon it, and Rome can autocratically define evidence as supporting her.”
Again, in your mind only. If this were so, why would we see the vast degree of freedom which we possess to debate issues not strictly doctrinal?
Because what you chose to refer to, contrary to the context, is not infallible “decrees,” but things not strictly doctrinal. But the premise of assured infallibility is what is behind Rome's claim to supremacy.
People believe that Catholicism is a straightjacket, but that is incorrect. Yes, the church teachings are explicit, but beyond those, one has the freedom of investigation and application.
Rather, Roman Catholics often infer a wide scope of doctrinal unity, while i often point out how many things Roman Catholics can and do disagree on, which is more than most realize, because most are passive to any great degree about doctrine. But the assured infallibility premise is the main issue.
“As said one of your chief apologist quote before said on the issue at hand,”
You should already have a sense of which school I follow, and it is not Mr. Keating’s. I believe that said argument is insufficient to convince evangelicals. True as it is, there are other approaches.
Unlike you as a mystery professor, he evidences some credentials as an apologist for Rome. But unlike us, you both argue for a particular church, yet effectively require us to spend much effort determining which flavor of Roman Catholicism the poster represents, both claiming to represent Rome accurately and rejecting the other Catholics when they oppose you. therefore, unlike your practice, i work to substantiate things from approved material or Catholic of some standing, including popes, which shows Rome is subject to various interpretations. Excluding certain core doctrines, which we also commonly hold to.
You would do better to cite the Pope, but I know why you don’t. :) Interesting discussion, and yes I will try to get that list to you tomorrow. It is late and I have typed a great many words to the five of you today.
Oh you do? From a man who provides little to no substantiation himself? But contrary to your (forbidden) mind reading, your assertion just evidences again that you do not look at linked material, and are ignorant of my posting history, while what a pope says is no more infallible than you are unless he is speaking according to the criteria for that. Unless you consider all that a papal encyclical or Bull contains is.
If you want more from popes on the changeability of Rome i will look forward to providing such.
I think it is more than plain to see that the “unity” the RCC demands be acknowledge by the Christian world is nothing more than a house of cards and even the dealers (the RCC “apologists”) are unable to prop it up.
“If you want an understanding of how the Magisterium practically works, ask a random group of Catholics to define this”
Why would I do this, rather than asking for instruction from the magisterium to answer this questions correctly the first time?
“and how many infallible teachings there are, among others things, and you will get different answers.”
Well, for sure, but I’m not quite sure how polling the laity is evidence of anything other than the fact that the extent of infalliability is not the same as understanding how the magisterium works. I agree with you wholeheartedly, that this is one of the most important questions, and it’s one that I had to go through when I became Catholic.
The list that I gave you has all the major doctrinal issues, there may be a few others, which is why I’ve asked those with more experience to look over the list.
“as no one can point you an infallible list of all infallible statements.”
Balderdash.
“And relative little is provided infallibly, most especially on Bible texts.”
Trent defines the infalliable Canon.
“Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.”
What do you think my calling is? I agree with you wholeheartedly that the instruction is not as good as it ought to be. Even in my RCIA class I had to go to an exceptionally good bishop before I finally got what I really needed. And even then it took considerable study on my own to understand what I needed to understand.
And even then, there is just so much stuff.
“In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible.”
Well of course they do. Just like protestants do. That there exists disagreement does not change what is true.
“Then there are the big issues, like evolution.”
Well, evolution is not a doctrinal issue. It’s not something that we are bound on. My personal belief is that the current scientific understanding is wrong, that species do not form from other species. We have exactly zero instances where such has been observed.
But, that’s a scientific belief, not one from scripture. Biology is really a primitive science.
“You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn’t such a bad guy.”
I don’t like Luther because of how he treated the Reformers that disagreed with him. But you have to understand, he was a Priest. He was invited to Trent. Most of what he taught was accepted by the Church and incorporated into the Church.
The Church does not treat Luther as it’s mortal enemy. That’s something I’m not sure is clear. There have been many scismatics. See Arius for one. See Nestorius for one, some of whom still exist, still teach and still preach just as they did 1400 years ago.
What is Rome to make of the followers of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc? Let alone of the more recent branches?
“yet apparently may be received back with no required repentance.”
I’m not sure why that’s so puzzling. If Luther had repented, he too would have been welcomed back. We are not privy to all that went on behind the scenes.
“while interpretations of ecclesiam nulla salus statements still vary.”
Extra ecclesium nulla salus is contrary to what the Church teaches. We had this discussion earlier. Yes, the Feeneyites dispute it but the Church rejects it, citing Romans which shows that God is sovereign, even over his Church.
“Rome assures its members that “the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error,”
See, this is the problem. Someone picks up a book with Nihil Obstat and picks out a statement and then goes and say, “the Church teaches X!”.
Nihil Obstat is a ‘negative’ proclamation. It’s important to understand that ‘free of error’, does not mean ‘proclaims what the Church teaches’, or even ‘the Church has a definitive opinion on this issue’.
“Such responses are hardly worth replying to.”
You are simply asserting your opinion. You look at a passage and argue “it appears to me” as X.
“If submission to infallible decrees is not based on the premise that the sacred magisterium is infallible when speaking universally on faith and morals, then you have not the mind of a Roman Catholic.”
As I said, this is controversial? No, it’s not controversial. Calling such ‘formuliac etc’, is merely your distaste for the teaching.
“Rome may claim such, but assurance of her decrees does not rest upon it, and Rome can autocratically define evidence as supporting her.”
“Because what you chose to refer to, contrary to the context, is not infallible “decrees,” but things not strictly doctrinal. But the premise of assured infallibility is what is behind Rome’s claim to supremacy.”
But infalliability comes from Christ’s pronouncement to Peter. You are asserting that it’s circular, while dismissing the core of the argument, that the Church argues that their authority comes from Christ, through Peter.
This isn’t controversial either, it’s right there in the Catechism. Frankly, for someone arguing that he can’t understand what it is Catholics teach, most of your answers are right there, in the Catechism. I should know! I got pretty familiar reading it as a protestant and then finding out I’d been lied to about what the Church actually teaches.
The interesting thing is how I came about to read the Catechism in the first place. For one, I applied the principle “in order to know what the church teaches as true, I must consult the Church teachings, not what others who are opposed to the Church have to say”.
“But the assured infallibility premise is the main issue.”
Then you’ll have to take it up with the Gospels.
“he evidences some credentials as an apologist for Rome.”
It should be self-evident who I favor. :)
“rejecting the other Catholics when they oppose you.”
You misunderstood what I said. I said, that, “right as it is”, I believe it to be insufficient to convince evangelicals.
This is a prudential argument. I agree that Keating is correct in what he teaches, I just think there are better ways to go about it. I think, ultimately, the best evidence in favor of infalliability comes from Matthew and what the Gospels teach of the office provided to Peter. If you can explain apostolic succession, you should be able to get to magesterial infalliability.
But this is just a personal opinion. I’m sure Mr. Keating would have other arguments himself.
“you do not look at linked material”
Given how I destroyed CW’s argument by fully quoting his linked material, I cannot see why you would make this already proven claim to be false.
But hey, go ahead. Tell porkies about what you link to and see if I catch it. :)
“If you want more from popes on the changeability of Rome i will look forward to providing such.”
I’m not sure what’s your ultimate goal here. You seem to believe that if you can show that person x and person y disagrees that this somehow contradicts what the magesterium teaches.
Again, the magisterium works in unity, not as individuals, and I am not certain that you understand this. If you did, then I suspect you would not be engaging in this tactic.