Actually, the argument i was responding to here is one that is basically often made by RCs, that since "we gave you the Bible, why do you disagree with us."
But, insofar as you speak of "the stewards of Scripture" I fear you may be following yet another modernist error which is not actually what the Church is about. The true historic model of the Catholic faith is not about individual men interpreting the bible and presenting that as definitive, which your statement seems to imply. What matters is the Spirit speaking through the Church throughout history and all time, and that means that we look not to a pope, or even Sts. Augustine or Jerome or Abmbrose. Rather, we look for what has been accepted as true for all that time, and that means listening to the entire Church in history. Or at least that is how it is supposed to be
That is more the Easter Orthodox model, but in reality rather than minimizing the role of the pope and magisterium, both are exalted by Catholics due to their need for interpretation. And looking for what has been accepted as true for all that time is quite restricted with much of a full universal sense, and esp. at the time of the Reformation there was a lot of variance.
The claimed "unanimous consent " hardly ever actually true, if at all in much of a full sense. And there was and is later disagreement and need for interpretation as to what the Spirit speaking through the Church throughout history and all time.
Besides what Rome can justify under its theory of development of doctrine , the tradition-based "Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
And due to wanting doctrinal certainty you have Trent, and later you have the ultramontanism that led to the formal declaration of papal infallibility, and emphasis on his full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. And who cannot be deposed without his consent. Which is the height of exaltation of the individual, often replete with royal titles,clothing and assertions of power. Quite contrary to what Christ taught in reproving such. (Mt. 23:5-11)
Individuals can err, including even great saints. If some interpretation from some important person, even a pope, contradicts what has been held from the beginning then guess what? It is not the true Catholic teaching, but just another novel innovation to be avoided.
That is superficial, much is interpretive. As the CE says, we judge the church fathers more than they judge us. Note also that there are different levels of magisterial teaching, and with varying levels of assent and dissent being allowed, but with infallible teaching being held as unable to err or dissent from. Yet there is no infallible list of what level each teaching falls under, while all teachings are subject to varying degrees of interpretation.
Thus in once century it can be declared,
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” And thus
schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart `into everlasting fire.
And having lost the unholy power of the sword of men, in another century it can be declared,
there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.
In this and other like things interpretation is much at work here, and which once again places an emphasis upon the magisterium.
Thus if you hang around here much, you will see RCs basically invoking the argument you thought was a bit of a loaded statement, and that i then refuted.
However, this is not true anymore....The same is true for councils, and rather than looking to whether they are orthodox to determine their ecumenical nature, we now find them being called such and therefore being accepted as true just because of the label. That is why nobody knows what real heresy is anymore. What was heresy a thousand years ago is what a pope is preaching today, and that is accepted as absolutely true because of who is saying it.
Oh, it seems you are somewhat confirming some of what i said. Are you SSPX or something? The question is, on what basis did souls have assurance John the Baptist and then the Lord were of God. But it is too late to write much more now. Good night.
That is more the Easter Orthodox model, but in reality rather than minimizing the role of the pope and magisterium, both are exalted by Catholics due to their need for interpretation.
No, that is not true. The Orthodox do also follow the historic Catholic model, but that is because they are historically Catholic. That shouldn't surprise anyone. But it is the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, and is why the Church was such a stalwart of dogmatic reliability for almost 2000 years. The abandonment of that truly Catholic understanding of the faith has created all the chaotic dissonance of recent past.
And looking for what has been accepted as true for all that time is quite restricted with much of a full universal sense, and esp. at the time of the Reformation there was a lot of variance.
Yes, but it was not variance arising out of a historic understanding of the Church, but from one of innovation. It was a reinterpretation of the faith from humanistic ideals, fueled by the Enlightenment, and as such was an artificial twisting of doctrinal reliability. Fortunately the Church survived that trauma, but only to unimaginably capitulate on most of the same issues four hundred or so years later. Talk about inexplicable.
The claimed "unanimous consent " hardly ever actually true, if at all in much of a full sense. And there was and is later disagreement and need for interpretation as to what the Spirit speaking through the Church throughout history and all time.
Here you buy into a very common error with your statement of unanimous consent. Go back and look at my post and you will see I rejected that notion out of hand. It has never been Catholic. It is a straw man. The Church has held and taught the apostolic faith handed down through the Spirit, and at times it was largely a minority one. Consider the period of the Arian heresy for example. However, it was never doubted what the orthodox faith was because it could be found attested to by the Church as a whole throughout even the early period. Yes, many individuals dissented, but that didn't change the witness of the Church through which the wheat could be sifted from the chaff. Your unanimous consent is not, and has never been relevant.
Thus if you hang around here much, you will see RCs basically invoking the argument you thought was a bit of a loaded statement, and that i then refuted.
This is a very strange assertion which causes me to wonder if you actually read my above post, or the previous one to which you replied.
Are you SSPX or something?
No, I am a layman. I have never been to any traditionalist services because I have spent my 40 years in the desert. But, I do believe that the Church didn't fall out of the sky in 1964, or 1864 for that matter. Anyone hoping to understand the faith must look beyond their own culture and their own contemporary time and seek the truth which is always held. No, again, not unanimous consent, but consistent 2000 year witness, which is not the same thing at all, but much more meaningful. In a revealed religion, such as Christianity, tradition is not an option, but requisite. If you sever yourself from the faith of history you cannot know the historic Christ. That is true for people who call themselves Catholic as much as it is for all believers.