FooManChoo

I feel sorry for these people. They are messed up in many ways, including spiritually. They need to find their identity in Jesus Christ rather than in their appearance or how they feel about their biology.

I agree with his statement. All war is due to sin, but sometimes conflict is necessary and moral for restraining evil.

quote:

---

I’m beginning to think we Catholics smacking around you prots again is way overdue.

---

That seems to go against Vatican II, even though Vatican II seems to go against prior church history. :dunno:

quote:

---

You’re saying “we have one standard,” but then admitting every individual and even each denomination decides what that standard actually teaches. That is multiple functional standards, whether you call it that or not.

---

You keep looking at this like Protestantism is monolithic, however Protestants having a shared agreement about the Scriptures being their ultimate and only infallible standard is no different than what Rome does with having it's own standard. You claim to have your Magisterium that decides what to teach.

The EOC also claims to have a standard, which is similar to the RCC but doesn't claim an infallible Magisterium. They use Councils and the consensus of the Church over time.

Likewise, each Protestant denomination has their own teaching authority (the Bible) and application of that standard.

Again, you keep looking at Protestants as one organization with multiple standards. I'm saying Protestants have a shared standard in the Scriptures like how Rome and the EOC share standards (though not entirely), even though both are treated as distinct and different organizations. Each Protestant denomination is a different branch of the one tree of Christ's church.

quote:

---

If two sincere, Bible-affirming Christians read the same passage and come to opposite conclusions, who decides which one is correct in a binding way? Your elders? Another denomination’s elders? You personally? That’s the issue.

---

If the EOC comes to an opposite conclusion from Rome on an issue, who decides which one is correct in a binding way?

You keep talking like Protestants are monolithic, and we aren't. You also act as if we all need to have a binding authority between denominations, while you don't have a binding authority over the Eastern churches and they don't have one over you. I would imagine that you claim that your church is more pure than the EOC and that God will judge between you two, right? Well that's basically what happens between Protestant denominations. What we aren't doing, though, is saying that if you don't belong to our particular denomination, that you aren't really a Christian. At least, that's the historical Protestant position.

quote:

---

Your Westminster standards prove the point, not solve it. They’re an interpretation of Scripture. Other Protestants have different confessions that contradict them. So which one is right, and who settles it definitively?

---

God does. Same as what He does between Rome and the EOC, or Rome and the Coptics, or Rome and the various Protestant denominations.

quote:

---

And on the “you’d need an infallible receiver” argument, that doesn’t follow. The question isn’t whether people can misunderstand, of course they can. The question is whether Christ provided a living authority to definitively settle disputes. In Acts 15, the Church doesn’t say “go read Scripture better.” It issues a binding decision.

---

Yes, Christ gave apostles and the apostles gave elders and the mechanism for choosing them for ruling the church. However, the "binding" and "loosing" of those elders are not infallible and always correct. Their decisions are only binding if they are in accordance with God's revealed will, meaning that their decisions should be affirming what is objectively true in Heaven, not creating decisions that Heaven has to listen to. It's why we Presbyterians teach that the elders are judicial rather than magisterial: we are ruling and governing in accordance with God's word, not creating new standards for truth that bind the consciences of Christians in addition to God's word. That's why Protestant churches can be reformed, because we don't claim infallibility that sets decisions in stone.

With that said, the "infallible receiver" argument does follow. You claim that the Scriptures aren't sufficient because there are disagreements about what it teaches by fallible Christians. You try to solve for that by inserting an infallible interpreter between the Bible and the Christian. However, the Christian is not infallible, so if they lack understanding, don't they need another infallible interpreter between the interpreter and the Christian? On and on it goes. The receiver (the Christian) is not infallible in their understanding and may always have some confusion about some doctrine, no matter how clear the standard (whether it bet the Scriptures or the interpreters) are.

quote:

---

So no, it’s not “the same result.” In one system, disagreement produces competing doctrines with no final arbiter. In the other, disagreement is measured against a defined teaching that can actually be pointed to and authoritatively clarified.

---

You are saying that because the mechanisms are different, that the result isn't the same. We are talking past each other.

When I say the results are the same, I'm saying that no matter how clear the standards are, sin blinds people, and people can draw different conclusions regardless of what the standards teach. This is true for both my particular denomination as well as for the RCC.

We even see this in practice: homosexuality is clearly taught as sinful in the Scriptures. As much as some people try to fight against it, it's very clear, both in the Old and New Testaments. Both Rome and my denomination agree on this and prove in their own ways, by either appealing to Scripture or the Magisterium (or both for the Catholic). My denomination teaches that while we believe we are right on the topic of homosexuality being sinful, we could theoretically be wrong about that, and therefore we would need to be convinced by the Scriptures that we are wrong and must confirm. So far, that's been a very easy rejection, because it is so clear and has been clear for the entirety of church history.

However, just as there may be some members of our denomination who are either unclear or who even reject the teaching of our church on this topic (they would be disciplined if they taught this openly, though), there are some in Catholicism that are either ignorant of, misunderstand, or outright reject the teachings of the RCC. Just as their rejection or ignorance doesn't change Rome's standard being the standard, that same rejection or ignorance doesn't change either my denomination's standard, or the biblical teaching on it (as we see it).

What is different is that our denomination authoritatively declares what the Scriptures teach, but we do not claim an infallible authority, while Rome does.

What is the same is that we have people who reject or are ignorant of the standards that we hold up for the faithful to adhere to. Having a claimed infallible authority in Rome doesn't change that; the result is the same.

quote:

---

If your system ultimately lands on “we all just do our best and can be wrong,” then practically speaking, final authority is still the individual judgment. That’s the difference you keep sidestepping.

---

You are still not understanding what I'm saying. The ability to interpret the Scriptures doesn't mean each individual is the final authority, any more than Nancy Pelosi vocalizing her personal beliefs about abortion doesn't make her the final authority on that issue for her as a Catholic. For the Protestant, the final authority is still the Bible, and the individual needs to continually refine their beliefs to fall in line with the Scriptures.

You want the infallible judge to be on earth, while Protestants believe God will ultimately judge our understanding of His word. We can all interpret the speed limit however we want, but we are still held accountable for how we interpret it. If we know that 55 means 55 and we try to convince ourselves that it is 85, or we just ignore it, the judge won't take that an an excuse for breaking the law. Likewise, God will hold each person to account for what they did with His word.

quote:

---

You believe Jesus is the king of the state.

---

Correct, or sort of. He is Head of the Church and Head over all things (including the state) for the sake of the Church (Eph. 1:22). Jesus, Himself, said that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18), and He is "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" (Rev. 17:14).

quote:

---

You are in the wrong country my friend.

---

I couldn't escape Jesus' lordship no matter country I moved to :cheers:

quote:

---

And you shouldn't be voting either.

---

I believe that voting is good. Voting for non-Christians (who are public in their faith and consistent with their profession) is bad.

quote:

---

Yes, Jesus says in v.35 “whoever comes… whoever believes,” but He doesn’t stop there. He intensifies the claim, not repeats it.

In the Greek, there’s a clear shift:

Early on, He uses phagein (fa?e??) which can be taken more generally as “eat.”

But when the crowd pushes back, He doesn’t clarify it away as a metaphor. He doubles down and switches verbs to trogo (t????), which is far more graphic, closer to “gnaw” or “chew.”

John 6:54
“Whoever trogon (chews/eats) my flesh (sarx, s???) and drinks my blood has eternal life.”

That’s not how you clean up a misunderstanding. That’s how you intensify a literal claim.

---

I don't disagree that Jesus is intensifying the claim He's making. The dispute is about the nature of the claim: is what is being intensified the literal eating and drinking of His body and blood, or is He doubling down on the need for His disciples to look to Him for their everlasting food and drink? I believe the context of John (and the rest of the Scriptures) points to the latter instead of the former.

Regarding the Greek, both words are used in non-literal or relational ways, so combining them doesn't add more literalism necessarily. Phago is used in John 4:32 to describe Jesus doing the will of the Father rather than eating literal food. In John 13:18, Jesus is speaking of literal eating (trogo), but in a relational sense rather than emphasizing the literal eating of bread. He was speaking of a close friend betraying Him. So again, Jesus' use of those words doesn't necessarily double down on literalism of His statement.

Going back to John 4 and the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus tells her twice that He provides living water to quench (spiritual) thirst. She thought He was talking literally the first time, so He repeated it with an expansion. She still thought He was speaking literally, and it wasn't until He told her about her relationships that she realized He was a prophet. Even so, Jesus never fully explained that what He meant by quenching her thirst was spiritual, through He repeated Himself. The same thing happened regarding His body, that must be received by faith.

quote:

---

And the word used is sarx not “symbol,” not “spirit,” but flesh. The same word used in John 1:14 “the Word became flesh.” If that’s real there, it’s real here.

---

Protestants aren't claiming that "flesh" is symbolic in the sense that Jesus isn't talking about Himself. He really does say "flesh", but the question is what He means by using that word. Protestants have historically interpreted His words in light of verse 35, which is consistent with His other "I am" statements in John. Jesus is talking about Himself, but He's using a food analogy to talk about the necessity of faith. Food is used for two reasons: first, because the context is that Jesus just performed a miracle to feed 5,000+ people and many were following Him because they were hungry for more physical bread (Jesus calls this out in verse 26). Second, Jesus was asked what sign or miracle He would perform to prove that they should believe in Him for life, and then was given the example of Moses and the mana from Heaven. Jesus responds by saying that He is the true mana from Heaven. Jesus wasn't saying He was made of literal bread, but that He gives life to God's people the same way that the mana fed and nourished God's people in the wilderness. Jesus continued the food analogy just like He continued the water analogy when the woman at the well went to draw water.

quote:

---

If this were just metaphor, this is the exact moment you’d expect Jesus to clarify. Instead:
• The Jews say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
• Jesus responds by doubling down five times in stronger language
• Many disciples leave
• And He lets them walk

Compare that to actual symbolic moments. When the disciples misunderstand a metaphor elsewhere, He explains it. Here, He doesn’t walk it back.

---

Jesus doesn't always explain, or at least not fully. Like the example of the woman at the well, Jesus expanded the metaphor about living water but didn't directly explain it to her.

The rich young ruler, Jesus let walk away.

The disciples you mentioned in John 6 were the ones Jesus already criticized as not wanting Him, but the miracle food He provided earlier when He fed the 5,000. In verse 64, we get insight that Jesus already knew those who would leave, so of course He wasn't going to further clarify for their sake, and this fits the pattern of what Jesus did in other places where the person(s) Jesus was talking to was not one of His sheep.

Several times, Jesus called out false faith or false claims of discipleship, even going as far as to say that one the day of judgement, many will call Him "Lord" but He will say "I never knew you".

quote:

---

Also, your appeal to v.63 “the flesh profits nothing” doesn’t work in context. Jesus isn’t negating His own flesh. That would contradict the Incarnation and the entire Gospel. He’s contrasting flesh understood merely in human terms versus the Spirit’s revelation. Otherwise you’d have Him saying “my flesh gives life” (v.51) and “my flesh profits nothing” in the same breath.

---

Again, you keep focusing on the word instead of how the word is used. Words are used differently in the Scriptures.

When Jesus speaks to the flesh not profiting anything, He's not saying that His flesh--or Himself--doesn't profit anything, but that what is physical is not what grants life, but the Spirit. This part of the passage has been interpreted by Protestants as referring to the Spirit's work in regeneration and justification by faith (in Christ), apart from merely doing something to earn or increase justifying grace (like eating Jesus' literal body as a physical act). The prior exhortation in this chapter to come to Christ and to believe in Him for eternal life supports this view, along with the rest of the Scriptures which teach that faith justifies while works justify (prove) that justification.

quote:

---

And notice the parallel structure:
• “Believe” ? necessary for salvation
• “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” ? also necessary for life

He’s not replacing one with the other. He’s deepening it.

---

You use the word "parallel" but then say there are two different things (believing and eating). I believe these are truly parallel in the sense that "eating" and "drinking" are done spiritually by faith, and therefore when He says to eat and drink, He's talking about believing in Him.

quote:

---

Finally, at the Last Supper, He doesn’t say “this represents my body.” He says “this is my body,” and the earliest Christians took it literally, not symbolically.

---

He also says He is a door/gate and that He is a vine, and that He is a shepherd, and so on. Saying that something "is" something else doesn't mean it is literal.

quote:

---

So the issue isn’t that John 6 can be read symbolically. It’s that the text itself escalates into language that resists being reduced to a symbol, especially with the shift to trogo and the repeated use of sarx.

If anything, John goes out of his way to make it harder, not easier, to spiritualize it away.

---

I disagree, as I have explained. Jesus followed the same format that He did multiple times in John, where He was referring to Himself as the Messiah who grants life, and that you must believe in Him by faith to receive that eternal life. Instead of being engrafted into the true vine (John 15), entering through the gate (John 10), drinking of the living water (John 4), or walking in the light of the world (John 8), here Jesus is telling us to eat of the bread He provides (Himself).

Why don't you take His other "I am" statements literally? Do you think He is literally made of bread (John 6:35)?

quote:

---

In Protestantism, the disagreement is over what the standard means, and there’s no mechanism to settle it definitively. That’s why sincere, Bible affirming Christians end up with mutually exclusive doctrines and new denominations.

---

Again, you're talking about Protestantism, generally. In Presbyterianism, for example, there are mechanisms for settling issues. We have elders that meet together to make decisions. The difference is that we accept that we could be wrong, and therefore remain open to correction and reformation. We can't settle anything "definitively" because we all are fallible, and there may be correction or clarification that is needed. That's why the Scriptures are our standard, not ourselves. We teach that we are to seek reform in the church before separating, precisely because we have a mechanism for change.

quote:

---

In Catholicism, the content of the teaching is actually defined. Yes, people can misunderstand or reject it, but that’s dissent from a known position, not competing definitions of the standard itself.

---

Again, Protestant churches also know the content that they teach; it's clearly defined. People likewise misunderstand it and reject it, and that rejection often times does lead to separation and a new denomination springing up. The disunity is not typically due to lack of clarity or definition, though.

Going back to my denomination again: we adhere to the Westminster standards, which, like your own catechism, lays out in greater detail what is taught as truth according to the Christian faith, at least on core doctrines. It's "definitive" in the sense that it defines what we believe, and it is clear.

quote:

---

That’s not the same outcome.

---

Yes, it is. The outcome is that there is disagreement over what the standards are teaching. The difference is that it's more common in Protestantism to leave that congregation or denomination over a disagreement. While that does happen in Catholicism, typically Catholics remain Catholics and are allowed to simply disagree or remain in their ignorant or false belief.

The end result is still a bunch of people who do not align with the teachings of the church, including many who reject those teachings without consequence, creating disunity of mind.

quote:

---

Saying “both have disagreement” skips the key question, which is where interpretation is finally resolved. If every dispute ultimately lands on the individual’s judgment, then that individual is the functional authority, even if they say otherwise.

---

I'm not skipping the question but addressing the logical outcomes of the issue. Saying your standard is perfect and unchanging doesn't say anything different than what Protestants say when we hold the Scriptures as infallible and unchanging, so we both have disagreements about doctrine even through we both hold to an infallible and unchanging standard.

In addition, I keep pointing out that resolution of interpretation doesn't actually solve the problem if it isn't enforced. If everyone is allowed to judge for themselves and reject the teachings of the church, then having an authority to define and clarify doesn't actually produce to results of unity that you want to have. Paul and Peter encouraged the people of God to be of "one mind", not one organization. Nominal adherence to a group doesn't mean anything if you aren't actually in agreement with that organization. People would look at me funny if I said I supported PETA but ate meat, because my association to others doesn't align with what unifies us.

If the RCC doesn't discipline members for causing division and confusion through false teachings, then what good is it to say you have a final interpretation?

quote:

---

On ex cathedra, the fact that people debate edge cases doesn’t mean the doctrine is unclear. It means most people haven’t studied what the Church actually teaches about when it applies. The boundaries are defined, not guessed at.

---

The issue isn't merely what the doctrine is (that is clear), but how it is applied to resolve controversies. That's the point of the clarification in the first place.

quote:

---

And on your main point, the Magisterium doesn’t “push the problem back one step.” It answers it. Christ didn’t leave us with a book and no interpreter. He left a Church with authority to teach in His name.

---

Catholics keep saying this, but Jesus left us His teaching, which was codified and preserved in the Scriptures. He gave us teachers to help us understand it, but He never claimed those teachers would be infallible.

But you aren't addressing my point: all messages need to be interpreted. You are claiming that the Bible needs an infallible interpreter, but the final receiver of any teaching is the common Christian, and that receiver would need to be infallible to interpret the infallible interpreter, if infallibility was needed in order to receive the infallible message in the first place.

Since Catholics need to understand and interpret the teaching they receive, there will necessarily be misunderstandings and misinterpretations on the part of the person being taught these things. So as I said, you're merely pushing it back one step. Instead of those receiving the Scriptures misunderstanding its teachings, you have Catholics misunderstanding the Magisterium, but the result is the same.

quote:

---

Without that, you don’t just get people failing to understand the standard. You get multiple incompatible “standards” in practice. That’s the difference.

---

You keep saying "multiple standards", because you keep treating Protestantism as one organization. It isn't. I keep trying to tell you that.

I don't lump Catholics in with the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic church and say that you non-Protestants have "multiple incompatible standards in practice", even though that would be a true statement, because you all are not part of the same organizational structure, and yet you do that with Protestants. Most Protestants also agree with one standard: the Scriptures. Difference in understanding of that standard doesn't invalidate the standard, itself, just as you are claiming for the Magisterium.

I believe most Protestant churches are part of the one true Church of Jesus Christ, because I don't believe that belonging to a particular organizational structure determines whether or not someone is engrafted into Christ, though I do believe we are obligated to join with a faithful branch. However, I belong to the denomination that I do because I believe it is the most pure and faithful to the Scriptures, even through I don't believe that less faithful or less pure denominations are not part of Christ's church.

So with that, I don't have multiple "standards", but one: the Scriptures.

quote:

---

on top of everything squirrel said you can’t forget the fact that disciples straight up left after Jesus proclaimed this.

---

Jesus was rejected frequently for His teachings. He even straight up told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and follow him to be saved, not because selling possessions did anything towards salvation, but because Jesus knew that this man's possessions were his god. That man walked way. Jesus didn't clarify what He meant further, but let him go.

Jesus had "hard sayings" in His ministry. One that seems to be extremely hard is Jesus' saying to hate your own family for His sake: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26).

quote:

---

And trying to draw parallels to him speaking symbolically fall short because he explains those after questioned. After he was questioned on eating his flesh, he kept
doubling down.

---

He actually did explain what He meant earlier.

In verse 35, He says, "whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."

In verse 47, He says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life."

To come to Him (by faith) and believe in Him is to eat and drink of Christ. That is consistent with the rest of Jesus' teachings, as well as the rest of the teachings of the New Testament.

quote:

---

This isn’t coming from Catholics. It’s coming from non-Catholic Christians and “grew up Catholics”.

---

Here is a post from this thread that comes from someone claiming to be Catholic with a local parish that is speaking critically/disrespectfully of the Pope (saying he doesn’t care what he says).

There have been many comments like this or much worse from people who claim to be Catholic.

You can say that those people are not really Catholics because true Catholics won’t speak that way if the Pope but will give him honor and respect, but that just isn’t happening with a lot of people who think themselves members of the Catholic Church.

quote:

---

I like you and would if you attempted to make a good-faith argument.

---

Thank you, but I am most certainly arguing in good faith, or at least believe I am. I go out of my way to represent the true teaching of the RCC, to the best of my knowledge, based on much study of it.

quote:

---

You have a huge blind spot when it comes to the Catholic Church and are too stubborn to listen to what Catholics actually believe. Even in your rebuttal to me, you continue to not want to grasp that Catholics don’t think the Pope is infallible in every opinion he has.

---

I fully understand the RCC's teaching on papal infallibility, and that he is only truly infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, or from the chair of St. Peter, when he is making a definitive, authoritative statement on faith and morals. I also know that the RCC claims that Popes have only spoken infallibly in a few different instances, though others are debated.

I've been careful in my statements to ensure I am representing the Catholic beliefs accurately. If I misstate something, feel free to correct me. I've actually learned a lot about Catholic teaching over the years by being corrected by posters on this board, so I'm certainly open to correction about that.

quote:

---

That doesn’t mean we don’t respect him or think he’s special. Catholics should never think the Pope isn’t to be respected.

---

I agree with you that, according to the official teaching of the RCC, that Catholics shouldn't ever think the Pope isn't to be respected. My commentary is really focusing on the common practice these days of disrespecting the Pope, calling him an anti-Pope, and other derogatory names due to disagreements about his statements.

quote:

---

I don’t know why I’m engaging with you again considering all you do is talk in circles and platitudes…

---

I beg to differ. I provide my reasoning for my conclusions; they aren't platitudes, and the "circles" you are referring to are logical.

quote:

---

maybe it’s because you’re at least cordial unlike many on here.

---

I appreciate that. I do try to be respectful of the one I'm debating. The 9th commandment requires it, I beliee.

quote:

---

You’re still measuring the wrong thing. The Magisterium isn’t meant to guarantee that every individual agrees or obeys, it guarantees that there is a fixed, authoritative teaching that doesn’t change. Disagreement doesn’t erase that, it just shows people can reject it. That’s very different from a system where the standard itself is debated.

---

Protestants are not debating the standard (Scripture), but what the standard is saying or teaching. The same occurs with the Catholic Magisterium.

Most Protestants aren't arguing about the infallibility of Scripture, or that it is the highest authority, (which is what sola scriptura is all about). They are arguing over what they believe that standard is teaching.

The same thing is happening with the Catholic Magisterium, at least to a degree. The teaching on papal infallibility, for instance, is dogmatic, and defined by the Church, and yet there is still debate and disagreement on exactly what that looks like in practice, and when the Pope is actually speaking ex cathedra.

quote:

---

Saying “the end result looks the same” ignores that distinction.

---

No, it's calling attention to the false claim of unity. The standard and the arbiter of truth are the Scriptures, not fallible human beings. It's our job to rightly understand and believe what the Scriptures teach, and when we reject it or justify a false understanding, the problem is with the person, not the standard and arbiter.

It's the same thing you claim: you say that the standard and arbiter is ultimately the Magisterium, and if someone disagrees with it, believes something different, or rejects it entirely, it's not the fault of the standard, but the person. It's the same result.

quote:

---

In Protestantism, disagreement produces new doctrines because there’s no final arbiter. In Catholicism, disagreement happens against a defined teaching that you can actually point to. One system fragments the standard, the other preserves it even when people dissent from it…

---

Again, in Protestantism (at least historically; there are some liberals that exist today that have rejected the Bible and don't really have a standard to adhere to other than personal feelings) holds to a single standard (the Bible) and isn't fragmenting because the standard is fragmented, or because there isn't an arbiter, but because people's understanding of the standard is clouded by sin and ignorance, same as with Catholics who disagree with the Magisterium.

The functional end result of Catholics who reject or misunderstand the teachings of the Magisterium is that new doctrines are created, too. The difference is that Rome, as an organization, isn't the one creating or holding to those doctrines. But, at the end of the day, the ay people are allowed to believe what is false, which is the same thing Protestants do. Same result. Whether or not the leadership of a particular denomination adds those errors to their doctrine or not is beside the point, because Rome also has added false doctrines to her teaching, as I see it. That's where we differ, obviously, but my point is still that the end result is the same.

quote:

---

And comparing one denomination to Catholicism doesn’t really solve the issue, it just shrinks the scale.

---

What the comparison does is highlight that the RCC is doing the exact same thing it's condemning Protestants for doing, and it highlights that the end result is exactly the same: that there are standards and interpretations that are called out as true and that there may be disagreement about those standards by the members.

The biggest difference, then, is that Rome claims that the infallible standard and arbiter is in the collective voice of the Church rather than in the Scriptures, themselves, as Protestants by and large believe.

quote:

---

The question is still where final authority rests.

---

Yes, this is always the biggest differentiator between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Stated sola scriptura vs. functional sola ecclesia.

quote:

---

If your denomination can be wrong, then you’re back to the individual deciding when it is.

---

Yes and no. The individual makes a decision for themselves as to what they are believing, but they are not the final arbiter of truth. That would be subjectivism, and we do not believe that each person can make up their own beliefs. We believe that each individual Christian is obligated to be conformed to the true teaching of the Scriptures.

Catholics have this same problem, though. When the lay Catholic rejects the Magisterial teaching on abortion, he or she is saying that they are really the final decider of the truth, and they have rejected the teaching of the Magisterium just like Protestants may reject the teaching of the Scriptures, even if they attempt to justify it in various ways in their own minds.

quote:

---

That’s exactly the shift to private judgment that the Magisterium is meant to prevent, even if people don’t always submit to it.

---

I said it a few times previously, but the Magisterium doesn't solve this problem. It just pushes the interpretative problem out by one step.

Instead of misunderstanding or disagreeing with the Bible as many Protestants do, Catholics misunderstand or disagree with the Magisterium.