Well, isn't that interesting?
When there are differences of opinion on something by non-Catholics, Catholics consider that proof of the inherent weakness of each man interpreting Scripture for himself.
And yet here we have the magisterium, which Catholics and Catholicism claim is led by the Holy Spirit, not being unanimous, or even NEEDING to be unanimous.
If they're not unanimous, that means that some of them are not being led by the Holy Spirit. So how do you know which ones are and aren't? How do you know that if some of them are not listening to the Holy Spirit, that it's only the minority in the vote?
What if the majority are not being led by the Holy Spirit? That would mean they passed something and passed it off as being from the Holy Spirit under false pretenses.
One would think that if God is protecting the Catholic church and they are pronouncing the pronouncements of God, they WOULD be unanimous. After all, it would be the same Holy Spirit leading them, would it not?
The fact that their votes are not unanimous is proof positive that they are not being led by the Holy Spirit.
What a double standard to allow something for Catholicism and condemn it for non-Catholics.
More staggering hypocrisy.
“When there are differences of opinion on something by non-Catholics, Catholics consider that proof of the inherent weakness of each man interpreting Scripture for himself.”
Absolutely. The difference between us and you is that we have a standard to go on when there is disagreement. You do not. If there is a disagreement - everyone goes on his own and divides the body.
“And yet here we have the magisterium, which Catholics and Catholicism claim is led by the Holy Spirit, not being unanimous, or even NEEDING to be unanimous.”
Yet, we do agree that when a majority agrees - that everyone agrees to abide by that decision - even if they personally may have disagreed. This is the difference between us and you.
“If they’re not unanimous, that means that some of them are not being led by the Holy Spirit.”
Not so. It simply means that some of the Bishops are wrong about a particular issue. Not everyone is perfect all the time as an individual.
“So how do you know which ones are and aren’t?”
Again, you misunderstand. Just because a bishop is wrong on one issue doesn’t mean that he is wrong on all issues.
Two, how do we know the correct answer - again - what the magisterium decides as a whole.
“How do you know that if some of them are not listening to the Holy Spirit, that it’s only the minority in the vote?”
If it were so, then they would be in the majority. Simple as that.
“What if the majority are not being led by the Holy Spirit?”
Give me an example.
“One would think that if God is protecting the Catholic church and they are pronouncing the pronouncements of God, they WOULD be unanimous.”
Nonsense. One would think if God is protecting the Catholic church that the magisterium as a whole would be preserved from error. I find it interesting that you demand uniformity, and yet refuse to submit to the majority.
“The fact that their votes are not unanimous is proof positive that they are not being led by the Holy Spirit.”
Again. Nonsense. All it shows is that some of the bishops are incorrect about one issue.
“What a double standard to allow something for Catholicism and condemn it for non-Catholics.”
We don’t hold non-Catholics to Catholic standards. We do, however, hold non-Catholics to their own standards.
You say scripture is from God and that scripture alone is sufficient. How then do you determine who is correct in a dispute with scripture?
LOL Some of them must be listening to a different spirit or something. At least that’s what I’ve been told when Protestants don’t all agree on something in scripture. Who’d a thunk it happens in the RCC as well. If it wasn’t so eternally serious it would be funny watching the double speak.