If scripture teaches us how to think, as well as what to think, then it should shape our minds to better judge its own place in the hierarchy of knowing — and the place of imposters.
Something I’ve been thinking about as of late with regards to the Protestant refutation of the magisterial claim of Rome is that of inevitable private judgment. I can’t speak for all Roman Catholics, but what I have heard from at least Trent Horn is that they don’t deny private judgement and the need to make a case, which I believe actually makes a compelling case for the magisterium, and long and confusing through history as it is. Why?
Because we do the same thing with seeking to prove the veracity of scripture to atheists, and other proofs such as the resurrection of Christ etc.
One has needed their private judgment to discern an authority that they have always needed to submit to. This could just as well be true about the magisterium as it could be for scripture.
Especially in connection with scripture, that being the argument of the canon, and it never having a complete collection idea until the 4th century, as being part of Gods’ word through history church.
I need prayer for this, as I’ve heard things before that I’ve found convincing, and then been unconvinced again, so I need to look into these cases probably for a good 10 years or so before making any shifts again. But now, the idea of becoming Roman Catholic I must admit, is not off the table for me now. God bless.
as a catholic youve either been talking to the wrong ppl or refuse to comprehend the catholic claim. catholicism isnt opposed to private thinking or reasoning at all, vis a vis the reformers we are far more positive on the use and scope of post fall reasoning to be able to find the truth. we are opposed to private judgment, i.e. you cannot legislate with your reason, you are not qualified to issue binding judgment. one must submit to a proper public judge, and the bible cant be that bc its a book, it cannot speak or issue judgment publically either. happy to debate more if you want.
submit to the judge with apostolic authority given by Jesus Christ to bind and to loose. i.e. use your reason! seek the truth! try to conform your life to scripture and the church fathers. think!
popes have been judged to be anti-popes, both within their lifetimes by faithful catholics. why? how? they were either heretics or invalidly elected. the people who knew or thought this, also had no right to judge them, unless they were a bishop, let me quess, you think these instances are some fluke becasuse if they were really catholics they would just be morons doing whatever the apparent pope says and not be able to reason or think or correct him or accuse him of heresy. ok, think that if it pleases you but if you actually can think and reason then maybe try to comprehend what the catholic church actually teaches. only bishops can judge the matter. but anyone can know the truth.
Bnonn! Great job here laying out the conundrums of Catholicism. There are no shortage of its proponents who fail to either see through the veil of circular reasoning purveyed by the Magisterial class, nor can escape the temptations of the short cuts they peddle. The advent of the Marian dogmas and especially the timing of these marked by the supportive associated apparitions is sufficient evidence of the progressive nature of the deception. To be unmoored from the Scriptures and subject to the Magisterium’s missives is to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. The fact that there existed popes and anti-popes in Catholic history is corroborating evidence of the waywardness. The only sure foundation is the Holy Scriptures; Vatican ravens swoop in to steal the seed cast on the Catholic soils.
This objection rebounds on your own head, since my formulation of the premise is based on how Catholics themselves argue.
We can easily reformulate this to evade your sophistic distinctions by saying, instead, "Who is responsible to determine true doctrine from false?" If individuals do not have the responsibility to judge doctrine, then Catholics contradict themselves to judge that the doctrine of the Magisterium is true. And if individuals do have the responsibility to judge doctrine, then how do you justify judging that the doctrine of the Magisterium is true?
Either way, the question is simple: do you judge doctrine against what scripture says, or do you judge what scripture says against your prior doctrine? That is where Protestants and Catholics differ, and without resolving that question, no further progress can be made.
Btw, do you speak for the Magisterium? Are you clergy? If not, why should I listen to you?
Something I’ve been thinking about as of late with regards to the Protestant refutation of the magisterial claim of Rome is that of inevitable private judgment. I can’t speak for all Roman Catholics, but what I have heard from at least Trent Horn is that they don’t deny private judgement and the need to make a case, which I believe actually makes a compelling case for the magisterium, and long and confusing through history as it is. Why?
Because we do the same thing with seeking to prove the veracity of scripture to atheists, and other proofs such as the resurrection of Christ etc.
One has needed their private judgment to discern an authority that they have always needed to submit to. This could just as well be true about the magisterium as it could be for scripture.
Especially in connection with scripture, that being the argument of the canon, and it never having a complete collection idea until the 4th century, as being part of Gods’ word through history church.
I need prayer for this, as I’ve heard things before that I’ve found convincing, and then been unconvinced again, so I need to look into these cases probably for a good 10 years or so before making any shifts again. But now, the idea of becoming Roman Catholic I must admit, is not off the table for me now. God bless.
as a catholic youve either been talking to the wrong ppl or refuse to comprehend the catholic claim. catholicism isnt opposed to private thinking or reasoning at all, vis a vis the reformers we are far more positive on the use and scope of post fall reasoning to be able to find the truth. we are opposed to private judgment, i.e. you cannot legislate with your reason, you are not qualified to issue binding judgment. one must submit to a proper public judge, and the bible cant be that bc its a book, it cannot speak or issue judgment publically either. happy to debate more if you want.
And how am I to judge which judge to submit to, Stephen? You don't seem to have really understood the problem yet.
submit to the judge with apostolic authority given by Jesus Christ to bind and to loose. i.e. use your reason! seek the truth! try to conform your life to scripture and the church fathers. think!
popes have been judged to be anti-popes, both within their lifetimes by faithful catholics. why? how? they were either heretics or invalidly elected. the people who knew or thought this, also had no right to judge them, unless they were a bishop, let me quess, you think these instances are some fluke becasuse if they were really catholics they would just be morons doing whatever the apparent pope says and not be able to reason or think or correct him or accuse him of heresy. ok, think that if it pleases you but if you actually can think and reason then maybe try to comprehend what the catholic church actually teaches. only bishops can judge the matter. but anyone can know the truth.
Bnonn! Great job here laying out the conundrums of Catholicism. There are no shortage of its proponents who fail to either see through the veil of circular reasoning purveyed by the Magisterial class, nor can escape the temptations of the short cuts they peddle. The advent of the Marian dogmas and especially the timing of these marked by the supportive associated apparitions is sufficient evidence of the progressive nature of the deception. To be unmoored from the Scriptures and subject to the Magisterium’s missives is to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. The fact that there existed popes and anti-popes in Catholic history is corroborating evidence of the waywardness. The only sure foundation is the Holy Scriptures; Vatican ravens swoop in to steal the seed cast on the Catholic soils.
Simply incredible.
This objection rebounds on your own head, since my formulation of the premise is based on how Catholics themselves argue.
We can easily reformulate this to evade your sophistic distinctions by saying, instead, "Who is responsible to determine true doctrine from false?" If individuals do not have the responsibility to judge doctrine, then Catholics contradict themselves to judge that the doctrine of the Magisterium is true. And if individuals do have the responsibility to judge doctrine, then how do you justify judging that the doctrine of the Magisterium is true?
Either way, the question is simple: do you judge doctrine against what scripture says, or do you judge what scripture says against your prior doctrine? That is where Protestants and Catholics differ, and without resolving that question, no further progress can be made.
Btw, do you speak for the Magisterium? Are you clergy? If not, why should I listen to you?