More or less. The only corrections that I would make is that the claims of the Catholic Church are not based on historical usage but on divine institution. Furthermore, this authority is not exercise solely by the see of Rome but by the entire Catholic Church. I think the disputes between Catholics and Protestants as well as those between Protestants themselves bear out the limits of human reasoning as a sure guide of the truth.
The latter is a given, while the claims of the Catholic Church as being based on divine institution are based on historical descent. As you see the history of Protestantism as testifying against Sola Scriptura, so Rome invokes her claimed unbroken succession and stewardship of Divine revelation as testifying to her being that Divinely instituted assuredly infallible magisterium.
Thus it remains that according to this premise assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium.
Yes. Again I think the divisions in the church created after the introduction of sola Scriptura and the concept of private interpretation bear this out.
Thanks for making it clear what your argument is by your affirmations, which is what I see your church herself arguing, but by so doing you have effectively invalidated the NT church itself.
For, as per the Roman premise, if assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium, then it simply would have been impossible for anyone to have had assurance that Moses for instance, and his writings were of God, and that John the Baptist was as well, and ultimately the Lord Jesus. For there simply was no perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium to tell them that, and instead the church actually began in principled dissent from those who had historical descent, and sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4)
And who rejected a holy man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant Preacher, demanding “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these thing?” (Mk. 11:27-33) But whom the people, using human reasoning, came to realize were of God, and followed the rejected Messiah who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and established His truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the apostles and early church (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) - not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.
For Scripture alone is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme infallible transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the assured Word of God. Lacking that, it is necessary to have a man such as Moses, whose Abrahamic faith and authority was unmistakably supernaturally attested to by God, and penned the Laws which would be the standard for faith.
In addition, rather than an infallible magisterium being necessary to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, the fact is that both writings and men of God were recognized and established as being so without an infallible magisterium, and the Lord often preserved Truth by raising up “prophets, and wise men and scribes,” (cf. Mt. 23:34) from without the magisterium to reprove it. And thus the church began under rebels, the Lord and apostles and prophets, and thus it has continued, if not perfectly.
The limited unity of the NT church was under manifest apostles of God, who established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation, both in word and in power and virtue:
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
Every true evangelical would submit to such, but Rome is not even the running for with her “priests” (which distinctive word the Holy Spirit never calls them) and critical or significant and irreconcilable distinctions between the NT church and that of Rome.
As for your unity argument, this criteria for authenticity also impugns Catholicism, since it exists in schism and sects, while what a church does and effects is what constitutes those what one believes, and those who hold most strongly to SS as Scripture literally being the authoritative Word of God testify to a far greater basic unity on core beliefs than the fruit of Rome.
A valid comparison would be between sola ecclesia churches and those who most strongly hold to the most distinctive Prot doctrine, that of Scripture only being the infallible rule of faith as is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.
I should have stipulated that this is what I mean when I use the term Protestant, those who hold to one of the classic Protestant schools of theology. These are the only ones who have the intellectual honesty with which to enter into a debate.
That is a rare but welcome reasonable statement by an RC, due to it weakening the unity polemic.
That being said, I do think that the skepticism of these liberal "Protestants" can be traced to the introduction of the concept of private interpretation of Scripture. The idea of "nobody is going to tell me what Scripture means" has lead to "nobody is going to tell me what the truth is."
Yet any basis for determination and assurance of Truth can be misused, while the problem of sola ecclesia is that it takes the problem of SS to an institutional level, wherein a church says, "nobody is going to tell me what the truth is.” as she autocratically does so. Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And RCs argue they are right because they follow a church which is right. But which is not the means of Scriptural unity, which in whatever degree it is realized, is much harder as it must be supernatural. “Broad is the way and wide is the path that leadeth to destruction.”
However, RC position is not that the their teachings require actual Scriptural support, but only that they do not contradict it, nor is the veracity of RC teaching based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Yes, there are some teachings that go beyond Scripture. This is clearly acknowledged but the vast majority of what Catholics believe is derived from Scripture.
It was not at all acknowledged in your unqualified statement “that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture,” yet while Arians also claim to derive their teaching from Scripture, and while even without a single centralized magisterium, fundamental evangelicals have historically strongly contended for the many manifestly Scripturally established Truths we hold in common with Rome against cults who deny them, as well as against those Catholic teachings which are contrary to Scripture, and or are really channeled out of nebulous oral tradition.
We do not find Scripture teaching such things as formal justification being due to one's personal holiness by the act of sprinkling even a morally incognizant soul who cannot full the stated requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38) versus “purifying their hearts through faith,” the kind of faith that is normally expressed in baptism. (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9)
Or showing NT pastors distinctively being titled “priests,” which distinctive word the Holy Spirit never calls them by, while presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer) denote the same office (Titus 1:5-7);
Or as interpretive of the last supper accounts and Jn. 6, showing NT pastors turning bread turned into human flesh and dispensing it in order that the recipients gain spiritual and eternal life, or physically eating ever being the means for gain spiritual and eternal life. Nor the Lord's supper being manifest as being the center, source and summit of faith in the NT church, nor the elements being the body of Christ , versus the church, in the only manifestly description of the Lord's supper. (1Cor. 13-34)
Nor any record of praying to angels or departed saints in Heaven, etc. among the approx. 200 prayers to Heaven the Holy Spirit records in Scripture, or in instruction on who to pray to in Heaven.
Nor a formal separate status between those called "brethren" versus brethren called "saints," with "non-saints" being in a mythical place called "purgatory" (of Rome), suffering to atone for sins and to become good enough to enter glory.
Yet it is really not even Tradition nor Scripture that is the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. For while RCs make a show of invoking Scripture to support Catholic traditions, they must compel them to support her (or steadfastly denied any contradictions), for as said, the only interpretation of Scripture tradition and history that is assuredly true and authoritative is that which the magisterium decrees. Thus the exhortations,
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...— (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)
who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”
“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-----questions of religion-----to an authority located in Rome.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“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.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?" —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
To harp on those instances in which Catholics turn to Sacred Tradition and then imply that Catholics do not accept the authority of Scripture at all is dishonest.
Rather, this misses the point, as while Catholics can say they “accept the authority of Scripture” they does not mean they accept Scripture as the supreme infallible authority and thus Scriptural substantiation as being determinative of truth, as instead Scripture is a servant to support Rome, as it can only be and mean what she says, and never contradict her official teaching. To argue as if Catholics look to the weight of Scriptural substantiation as determinative of truth is dishonest. What Keating asserted regarding the Assumption applies to all teaching.
So only Rome can make an infallible statement, versus possessing the gift of assured (conditional) infallibility?
If it is conditional then it is not infallible.
I assumed you would understand i am referring to the scope and subject-based criteria for infallible statements. But
And who possess this gift? What assurance do you have that, as a Catholic, I do not have this gift rather than you?
No one possess the assured infallibility Rome presumes. Even a donkey or a pagan prophet can speak an infallible truth, as seen in Scripture, and as Caiaphas, but no person save for the Lord, or office has assured infallibility whenever they will speak universally defining a matter of faith and morals. That has not and is not necessary for the fulfillment of Divine promises of providence and preservation of Truth.
It is amazing that Catholics will rail against Protestants as if they were presuming the gift of personal infallibility, versus basing the veracity of their assertions on the weight of infallible Scripture, while RCs expresses their own understanding of Scripture and of their church if they were infallible interpretations.
The difference is that Catholics look at the Church as being established by Jesus Christ and charged by him to be the teaching authority guarded by the Holy Spirit. All that a Protestant can assert is his own private judgment.
That is a distinction without a difference. A SS believer looks to Scripture as wholly inspired and established by the Lord Jesus Christ to be the supreme infallible standard for Truth, and the veracity of its truth claims rest upon that premise of Scripture being that assured infallible word of God, and thus his interpretive claims must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. “By manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2)
Catholics look at the Church as being established by Jesus Christ and charged by him to be the teaching authority guarded by the Holy Spirit, and the veracity of its truth claims rest upon the premise of assured infallibility. Thus their interpretive claims (and RCs can and do engage in such to varying degrees) must rest upon the weight of conformity with what is taught (i.e. whether Lumen Gentium means only invincibly ignorant Prots can be saved without repentance to believe in the Real Presence, etc.)
Both hold to an infallible teachers, but neither can claim to have or be an infallible interpreter. And while Scripture does not change though interpretations can, yet obedience to Rome can also, based upon (often erroneous) interpret of both Scripture and tradition, from having to exterminate “heretics” (us) by the use of the sword of men as fitting, and avoiding debates with them on matters of faith, to holding the torture is wrong and Prots are born again.
And it also remains that the EOs substantially disagree with Rome on what Tradition, Scripture and history teaches.
Thus your assertion that “all that a Protestant can assert is his own private judgment” is also true of RCs, who engage in judgment of what Rome teaches. But while both engage in judgment on what their respective supreme authority preaches, like a RC, the SS practitioner has much help by way of those who have the gift of teaching, and an even greater wealth in comprehensive analysis of Scripture due to classic commentaries. Certainly they will find some disparity of learned opinions, but so will the RC in understanding what she teaches, especially by the acts of the interpreters. From which we hear things such as that atheists could be in Heaven, but we cannot know if any particular person (as Judas) is in Hell, and that canon 915 does not mean the Ted Kennedy RCs are excommunicated, and cannot have ecclesiastical funerals, etc.
In the end, since the church began with souls engaging in what you disparage as “private interpretation,” which “noble” souls searching Scriptures to determine the veracity of truth claims example, and knew such things as that what David said was true, and that John was a prophet indeed, and “are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God,” (John 6:69) without an infallible magisterium and contrary to the one to whom general obedience was enjoined, then we see how Truth can be provided and preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and assurance of Truth obtained, and thus the assuredly infallible magisterium is not needed, nor is it provided.
Division exists under both SS and SE, the difference being a matter of degrees, but unity by implicit assent based upon the premise of assured veracity is not Scriptural unity, nor is the organization church the One True Church.
The Bible testifies to the establishment by Jesus Christ of a visible and hierarchical church vested with the authority to teach. If this church is not in the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church, where is it? One thing is clear is that is not any any of the Protestant churches which date from only the 16th century.
Thanks for making it clear what your argument is by your affirmations, which is what I see your church herself arguing, but by so doing you have effectively invalidated the NT church itself.
For, as per the Roman premise, if assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium, then it simply would have been impossible for anyone to have had assurance that Moses for instance, and his writings were of God, and that John the Baptist was as well, and ultimately the Lord Jesus.
Not at all. The authority of Moses is based firstly on the historical witness of the events of the Exodus. It is because of this witness that we can accept that what he wrote is divinely inspired. The same is true of Jesus Christ. We do not, at first, believe in the Resurrection because we find an account of it in divinely inspired Scripture but because of the reliable witness of the Apostles which was first preached orally. It is only because the Church first accepted this oral preaching that we can accept that the written accounts of this (by both apostles and non-apostles) can be credited as being divinely inspired. Otherwise we would have to accept the Scriptures as divinely inspired on no other basis than they seem so to me.
You are also confusing two things, what the Scriptures proclaim and what they mean. What they proclaim is only their ipsissima verb, their actual words. The meaning and significance of these words have been open to many interpretations, as the countless debates through history clearly show. In the Old Testament there was indeed no divinely established authority for their interpretation. Thus arose the role of the Scribes and Pharisees. But their attempts, like those of Protestant commentators, was only private. Then their came Pentecost in which the Holy Spirit guides and protects the visible and hierarchical church established by Jesus Christ. Thus the situation between the Old and New Testaments is radically different.
In addition, rather than an infallible magisterium being necessary to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, the fact is that both writings and men of God were recognized and established as being so without an infallible magisterium, and the Lord often preserved Truth by raising up “prophets, and wise men and scribes,” (cf. Mt. 23:34) from without the magisterium to reprove it. And thus the church began under rebels, the Lord and apostles and prophets, and thus it has continued, if not perfectly.
Not so. Since there was no Magisterium in the Old Testament--Pentecost not yet having occurred--there was nothing to reprove. The teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees was purely private, like that of the Protestants.
Every true evangelical would submit to such, but Rome is not even the running for with her “priests” (which distinctive word the Holy Spirit never calls them)…
Or showing NT pastors distinctively being titled “priests,” which distinctive word the Holy Spirit never calls them by, while presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer) denote the same office (Titus 1:5-7);
The English word "priest" is a corruption and translations of the Greek "presbyters".
priest (n.)The use of the word "priest" to also translate the Greek hiereus and Latin sacerdos results from a deficiency in vocabulary and the fact that the only priesthood that was known to the English in the Middle Ages was that of the Catholic Church. This is in contrast to the Romance languages which have maintained two distinctive terms from the Latin.
Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.
In the end, the Protestant claim that they teach the true Word of God fails because, without a divinely established Magisterium, the only thing that we can have assurance of is the ipsissima verbra of Scripture. Anything else to to add to Scripture.