co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Monday, May 12, 2025
Catholics Do Not Base "Infallible Magisterium" on "Opacity of Scripture"
@GospelSimplicity
You don’t need a magisterium to interpret a text
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g4O28Qr2mEY
1) Now, this is a pretty good example of a text being very clear.
Next question: did Jesus Christ believe He gave His Church an infallible magisterium?
2) On a more pragmatic level.
I'd agree with Scholastic Answers aka Militant Thomist aka as Christian Wagner.
For each specific necessary doctrine, you probably on average would interpret the Bible right even without the infallible magisterium and your adherence to it.
The more doctrines you compound, the closer you come to having a zero chance of getting all of them right.
So, in a sense, the question has a flip question: how many doctrines are essential doctrines?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment