And that is the problem. Without a living Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit a Protestant cannot have an objective faith but only a private opinion. Nor will a simple appeal to Scripture work. The various Protestant denominations testify to the numerous conflicting opinions among them as to the meaning of Scripture. Likewise, the constant charge made against Catholics that our teachings go against Scripture will not stand since what we are arguing about are different interpretations of Scripture, as this thread highlights.
An honest Protestant must acknowledge that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture and sincerely believe that Catholicism offers a better interpretation of it. A Protestant is free to say that this interpretation is false and that he does not share it, but he can only say that this is a matter of his opinion, not that it is a rejection of Scripture itself. It always amazes me that Protestants will rail against Catholic claims of infallibility for the Church while expressing their own private opinions as if they were the infallible interpretation of Scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church even having a "living Magesterium" has certainly not protected it from various schisms, factions, disagreements and battles over its history. The Franciscans disagreed with the Dominicans, they didn't agree with the Augustinians and none of them liked the Jesuits. You have liberal, conservative, traditionalist and sedevacanist factions even more so today. Look at any number of polls to see that you are far from having a majority of Catholics that agree on or accept everything your magesterium HAS decreed.
Like always, Christians MUST appeal to Scripture - and so did the early fathers of the church - as it stands alone as the OBJECTIVE and inerrant, divinely-inspired word of God. If THAT isn't authoritative, what else is better? On the major tenets of the Christian faith - those doctrines clearly taught in Scripture and spelled out in the earliest creeds - ARE what makes a person a Christian. It is far from a mere label. I know it is a common theme of FRoman Catholics to assert that they represent the church that is the same as the one begun by Christ, but an honest Catholic must acknowledge that their church cannot be shown to teach today what was used as a measuring rod for the rule of faith way back then - it's called:
"Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus" literally means, "what always, what everywhere, what by everyone." This is the standard test for authentic catholic (i.e. universal) Christian doctrine, as proposed by the Church Father, St. Vincent of Lerins (died c. 445). It means that a Christian teaching is to be accepted as authentic and universal doctrine if it passes the test as what has been held by believers "always, everywhere, and by everyone."http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_translation_of_quod_semper_quod_ubique_quod_abomnibus
You cannot be honest and insist this remains true in the RCC today. God's word is clear on the main doctrines that determine authentic Christianity. The early creeds were based upon it because they recognized no higher authority. It means what it says and hiding behind a "that's your own private interpretation of Scripture" is a ruse. The Apostles knew that, the Early Church Fathers knew that and faithful Christians today STILL know that.
An honest Catholic would ADD...
... must acknowledge that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture and a whole lot of OTHER writings.
Nonsense If the magisterium were led by the Holy Spirit, it would not need a majority vote. Matter of fact, it would be unanimous ALL THE TIME.
The Holy Spirit indwells believers.
Additionally, that does not exclude Catholics from having their own personal interpretation of Scripture. Their choice, however, is to adopt the one of the Catholic church, so in the end, EVERYONE makes an individual decision of what to believe, which interpretation they have, whether they arrive at it themselves, of just take the whole prepackaged deal.
Then please show where in scripture the teaching of the assumption of Mary is.
Without a living Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit a Protestant cannot have an objective faith but only a private opinion.
So it seems to me that the RC argument is that the use of fallible human reasoning cannot obtain valid assurance of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, and or that an infallible magisterium is necessary for this and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18) And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent your argument?
Moving to a related statement further on,
A Protestant is free to say that this interpretation is false and that he does not share it, but he can only say that this is a matter of his opinion, not that it is a rejection of Scripture itself.
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.
The various Protestant denominations testify to the numerous conflicting opinions among them as to the meaning of Scripture.
So conflicting opinions about what one's infallible authority means disallows reliance upon that authority? Moreover, comparing one church with many under to a loosely defined definition of "Protestant" is not a valid comparison, unless you want Santeria to be classified as Roman Catholic. 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. And as manifested by what they do and effect, not simply profess.
And you use "Catholics" too loosely, as the EOs substantially disagree with Rome on what Tradition, Scripture and history teaches.
An honest Protestant must acknowledge that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture and sincerely believe that Catholicism offers a better interpretation of it.
Rather, Scripture can only assuredly authoritatively be and mean what the magisterium says it means, or can only support it, thus the RC can erroneously believe Rome derives their teaching from Scripture and sincerely believe that Catholicism offers a better interpretation of it.
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.
Thus Keating,
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]
..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Cardinal Newman affirms, “Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines until there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy ...” — Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II, Dignity of Mary; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp
Thus an honest RC must acknowledge that RCs have assurance of Truth based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus Scripture must support her as her servant, and be made to as they use their great interpretive liberty to do so.
It always amazes me that Protestants will rail against Catholic claims of infallibility for the Church while expressing their own private opinions as if they were the infallible interpretation of Scripture.
So only Rome can make an infallible statement, versus possessing the gift of assured (conditional) infallibility? 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.
Please consider carefully the above and respond.
And a dishonest Protestant doesn't agree with you?
Agreement with or disagreement with, the Catholic church on opinions is not a matter of honesty or integrity.
And while I do think that most Catholics BELIEVE that the Church derives its teachings from Scripture because that's what the church tells them and they've been raised believing it since before they could walk or talk.
However, I would not be honest if I agree with your statement because I don't believe it. So if I state outright what I believe which is disagreeing with you, then I am being honest. If I agreed with your statement, then I would be dishonest because I'd be lying about what I believe.