I’m still hoping to get a break from the craziness of today, to get a fuller reply to you... but for now, let me summarize my thoughts on these points:
1) You appeal repeatedly to a “plain sense of Scripture”, but you don’t seem to realize how subjective a standard that can be, and how question-begging it is. If one faithful, well-informed Christian says (after much prayer and study) that “the plain sense of Scripture is [x]” and another faithful, well-informed Christian says (after much prayer and study) that “the plain sense of Scripture is [not x]”, that creates a bit of a problem which cannot be settled by mere appeals to emotion, to personal preference, or the like (and certainly not by puerile, spiritualized playground taunts of “hard-heartedness” on the part of those who disagree with you).
2) Your appeals to Scripture completely beg the question of the CONTENTS of Scripture. You, as a Protestant, presumably follow the Protestant 66-book canon of Scripture, yes? Why? How do you know that the Letter of James is inspired Scripture (Luther didn’t think it was), and that the Second Book of Maccabees isn’t? “Scripture alone” is helpless to determine the contents of Scripture; surely you can see that?
3) You presume to criticize Catholic teaching, but every attempt you’ve made has proven to be a straw man; you simply don’t have a clear grasp of what you’re trying to refute. E.g. your portrayal of Sacred Tradition as (essentially) a “blank check” which the Vatican can use to “invent” whatever it likes is simply an ad hominem canard, with no proof behind it at all. (To illustrate: since you presume to set yourself up as your own “final authority” for interpreting Scripture, how would that prevent you from interpreting any part of the Bible to mean whatever pleases you—e.g. your denial of the Eucharist, despite overwhelming Biblical proof, the moral unanimity of the Early Church, and 2000 years of Church teaching against your opinion?)
As an example: for me, when Jesus says of the Eucharist, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”, and the Bible repeats it—clearly, unambiguously, and without qualifiers—(cf. Matthew 26:26ff, Mark 14:22ff, Luke 22:19ff, 1 Corinthians 11:24ff, etc.), I take the “plain sense of Scripture” to mean that the Eucharist (i.e. what used to be bread and wine) is exactly what He says it says: His Body. You don’t, and you proceed to tie yourself into a pretzel trying to explain away what any child could easily see. Jesus took the bread, blessed and broke it, and said, “This is My Body” of the bread of that last Passover Seder; and He said “the Bread that I will give is My Flesh, for the life of the world” (cf John 6:51); and that true teaching is passed on, and on, for 2000 unbroken years, to us who do not find it “too hard of a saying” and refuse to believe (cf. John 6). If Jesus had meant merely to “come to Him and believe”, then He would hardly have allowed most of His disciples to leave Him on the basis of a simple misunderstanding, nor would He have failed to explain the “true meaning” to the Twelve, as in other cases of misunderstood “parables”.
So... you appeal to your own fallible interpretation of a book for whose contents you cannot account (i.e. how did the books of the Bible get chosen, and by whom, and on what authority?), you restrict yourself to that book alone (even when that book does not require such, and you flatly contradict yourself by following that “sola Scriptura” requirement), and you reject the very Church, founded upon St. Peter, Whom Jesus established specifically for the purpose of protecting and carrying on His Revelation (both written and oral), Who has existed in unbroken succession since the time of Christ. Given the above, I hope you’ll understand why I won’t simply take your word for what this-or-that bit of Scripture means.
The Church claims to be infallible in its transmission of the Faith (and has an unbroken continuity of teachings whose core content, while clarified for different ages, has NEVER changed in essence, nor has it ever contradicted itself within); while you claim to be fallible. Can you see why I’d trust the Church, rather than (no offense intended) your own views, or the views of anyone else who presumes to set themselves up as their own “private magisterium”?
1 - I don’t worry much about where scripture is disputed in interpretation. I think it is silly to say that Mary remained a virgin, but if someone wants to ignore the obvious meaning of brother and sister for cousin...well, it denies no central doctrine of Christianity, so I guess it is between God and them.
I assume some of my interpretations are wrong, but I’ll let God handle my correction. I suspect many of our disputes will seem silly when we see God.
2 - Canon. Luther did NOT reject James as scripture, but the reality is that every man will have to determine what they accept as scripture. I cannot prevent the Mormons from adding books. I can only tell them I do not agree and won’t accept those books as having any authority.
The Old Testament was accepted at the time of Jesus, and early Christians accepted the gospels, the writings of Paul, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John as scripture almost as soon as the ink was dry. I would be hard pressed to know what critical doctrine can only be found in the remaining NT books.
The Apocrypha has long been in dispute. Up until the Council of Trent, many considered it good enough for reading, but not good enough for determining doctrine. Jerome didn’t think much of it, either. Until the Council of Trent, it was acceptable for Catholics to question it, and some argue that the Council of Trent left open the possibility of two levels of ‘scripture’ (although scripture says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
3 “E.g. your portrayal of Sacred Tradition as (essentially) a “blank check” which the Vatican can use to “invent” whatever it likes is simply an ad hominem canard, with no proof behind it at all.”
That is not what I said. I did provide quotes from Mark Shea & the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that it ‘reveals truths previously hidden’, and that the process is one of evolution.
Of course, if you suggest Sacred Tradition is fixed, then I’m sure you can provide an authoritative listing of true sacred tradition. But the problem is that everyone KNOWS that transubstantiation wasn’t passed down from Peter to his successors in whispers, waiting for someone to reveal it at a later date. And if it didn’t come down from the Apostles, then how could John say to abide in the teaching already given?
4 “If Jesus had meant merely to “come to Him and believe”, then He would hardly have allowed most of His disciples to leave Him on the basis of a simple misunderstanding...”
Already answered. Jesus said the people following him were NOT believers all, but that many were unbelievers following because of the feeding of the 5000.
“Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.
25When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you.”
They then make it clear they have no interest in following God. When they bring up manna in the wilderness, Jesus responds,””Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world...I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.”
As it says in verse 64, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe...”
However, the plain meaning of scripture can be discussed. You say it refers to the Eucharist, although no one present knew anything about the Lord’s Supper. I say it was a response to the Jews bringing up manna, with Jesus telling them HE was the sign of God, and they needed to believe.
I’ll let anyone else reading this thread decide which is more likely. Neither of us is likely to convince the other, so we need to leave that correction, to either or both of us, to God. We will both give account of our actions to God.
5 - “So... you appeal to your own fallible interpretation of a book for whose contents you cannot account (i.e. how did the books of the Bible get chosen, and by whom, and on what authority?)”
Actually, see this thread I posted a while back:
How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2320483/posts
It gives you the Protestant and Orthodox answers to those questions.
6 - “Can you see why I’d trust the Church, rather than (no offense intended) your own views, or the views of anyone else who presumes to set themselves up as their own “private magisterium”?”
Peter wasn’t the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit is. You can appeal to a church that killed Wycliffe & Tyndale for spreading the scriptures to the common man, and that has changed its doctrine, to include the primacy of the Pope, transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc. I’ll appeal to the Holy Spirit and scripture, which is where the Apostles seemed content to leave authority.