The RCC finds itself needing a myth of a Magisterium to be able to defend these doctrines and heresies. So what do they cite as proof of the magisterium? The very heresies that require the magisterium!
If this is not circular logic, I don’t know what is.
Last time, we conclusively proved:
- one needs only the written Bible.
- If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible.
- If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
- The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
- The RCc has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
- The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
This now places the RCC in an untenable position. They now have no defense against charges that their doctrines are unBiblical.
THe RCc tries to cite several Scriptures in support of the Magisterium. Here’s the premise – any place that they find the word “Heard” in reference to the Bible, they instantly claim is a proof of the Magisterium.
Again, I refer to yesterday’s answer about the Talmud. I’m going to use a slightly modified version of the same, as the RCC presents a modified version of the argument.
Yesterday, I proved that the commandments in the NT were so simple, they did not require a Magisterium to explain them. Today, I’m going to say…
Okay, now wait. you’re trying to tell me that Paul was giving the teachings invented by a Pope that lived 1,800 years later??? That makes about as much sense as saying that the teachings of Rabbi Akiva (AD 70) were given to Moses 1,500 years prior.
Pope Leo the whatever lived in the 1800’s. I believe his compilations were released in 1890. How can the work of Pope Leo be retroactively the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter, John, Jude, James?
The Magisterium concept was not invented until 1546, at the Council of Trent. This was AFTER the Protestant Reformation, and about 1,517 years AFTER the Baptists had begun (AD 29). If it had existed prior to that time, it was not elevated to the level of Scripture until that time.
If there truly is a magisterium, it should be the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, James, John, and Jude – taking down the very words of the Lord, or communicating those words.
And if there was a Magisterium, why was it not written down, as part of the Canon of the New Testament? Pope Leo wrote down his. The other Popes wrote their notes on Scripture – if these were all Oral Teachings as the Catholics claim, why do we not see one Pope bringing in another, and teaching him all of the oral teachings by rote over several years…
Instead, we usually see one pope die, and another chosen, similar to the Dalai Lama. So – when and how were these oral teachings passed on?
Answer – they weren’t. There’s no oral teachings. It’s the lame excuse of a boy found with his hand in the cookie jar. “I knew you’d want one, so I was getting you one!”
Here’s the real situation. The Church kept the laity illiterate, so that they could not read the Bible themselves. When that failed, they kept it in Latin, so that the people could not understand it. (Which may also be why the Mass used to be done in Latin, so that if a Catholic managed to get a Bible, they wouldn’t be able to spot the unScriptural nature of it!)
When the Baptists began giving away copies of the Bible in the Vernacular, the RCC:
- banned reading the Bible in the Vernacular language
- Passed a decree of damnation on anyone translating the Bible into the vernacular
- passed a decree of legal punishment (read: torture, imprisonment, and usually death) for anyone possessing a copy of the Bible in the vernacular.
- instituted the concept of Imprimatur (“may be printed”) that continues to this day.
- and confiscated any Bible found not in Latin and burned it.
Realizing they were fighting against the tide at Trent, they instituted the concept of the Magisterium, claiming equal status as Scripture.
sixteen years after Trent, the Mass was declared to be propitiatory. Prior to that time, it was only a “sacrament”, the same as the other six “sacraments”. At Trent, only Baptism was declared to save. Now, the Mass was supposed to do the same.
Here’s the death knell of the Magisterium: If these TRULY are the teachings of the Lord, why was the Mass not declared in Trent’s writings (1,246 years AFTER the ressurection and ascenscion of the Lord) to be propitiary at that time???
Why did it take another 3 centuries for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility to be ruled Canon? Why was the Assumption of Mary not entered into the record at Trent? Don’t tell me they had a teakettle on the fire and had to get back! If The Magisterium is truly the Magisterium, why was it not all written down in AD 38 when Matthew first completed his Gospel? Or AD 60 when Acts, Luke, and Mark all written? Or AD 69 when Hebrews and the Gospel of John was written? Or AD 95 when Revelation was compiled? Again, it reminds me of the lame excuse of the Rabbi’s – “Well, the Oral Torah should never have been written down. And it wasn’t written until the Romans began murdering dozens of great Rabbis, and we were afraid some of it would be lost.”
It’s like a bucket full of holes – it doesn’t hold water. There’s nothing in the Bible about the Oral Torah. There’s nothing in the Bible about a Magisterium. And if there was – it would have been written along with the rest of the New Testament.
Why does the Magisterium contradict written Scripture? If they are equal, then which takes precedence over the other? We see the practice of the RCC is that – when Magisterium contradicts written Scripture, they rely upon the Magisterium.
Why was the Immaculate Conception of Mary not expressed prior to 1854? Or the Assumption of Mary until 1950? We’re talking over 1,845 years AFTER the Canon of Scripture was completed. Don’t tell me it slipped their mind!
The RCC insists that the Magisterium is to be taken as Gospel, that it too is Holy Scripture, and that Baptists are Anathema (damned) because they don’t accept the Magisterium. Catholic apologists (amateur and professional) all insist on it.
In doing so, they literally take away any chance of credibility the RCC could have had.
If Pope Francis really is the “Pope of Hope” (What idiot coined that phrase???), then he should address the Magistierum. He should announce they are NOT Scripture. He should announce that the RCC is going to accept the Bible, sola Scriptura. That indeed would be the death knell of the Roman Catholic Church – but it would result in the eventual salvation of hundreds of millions of devout Catholics. I’d be glad to point the Pope to many good Bible teachers who could help teach correct Bible Doctrine.
There is no Biblical evidence for the Magisterium. The Baptists have been able to prove historical succession from the Apostles until now. If there had been a Magisterium, we’d have known about it – and yea, it would have been written down as “Thus sayeth the Lord” prior to AD 95. Baptists would be doing the mass, the other sacraments, the priesthood,Mary worship, all of that. Because it would have been in the Bible.
But it’s not. And you’re deliberately lying to yourself if you really think that contradictory writings of various Popes are Holy Writ, originally taught by Paul to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, and passed down word of mouth from the previous deceased Pope to the Current Pope, before finally being written down! One at a time. Over centuries.
Were the Cardinals and Bishops who opposed Papal Infallibility in the 19th Century opposing God? Were they opposing Holy Writ? Were they taking a stand against oral teachings of the Apostles, passed down word of mouth orally from Pope to Pope as Catholic Apologists maintain? Didn’t they know this was Holy Writ? Or (as the case really is…) it was the action of a manipulating, possibly deranged Pope trying to make himself to be God, and forcing a vote through cronyism and intimidation, with threats of excommunication to any Cardinal who opposed him? History records that massive amounts of intimidation and corruption accompanied that vote – and some Bishops and Cardinals were forced to flee for their lives. This wasn’t the Middle ages – this was the 19th century. You know, just over a century ago!
The Magisterium case falls apart upon a cursory application of logic, and falls apart rapidly and conclusively.
So, what about those proof texts of the Catholic Apologists?
And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. Acts 13:15 (KJV)
It is the habit of the Jewish people to read the Scriptures aloud when 10 or more Jews assemble. The Early Church out of habit carried this on for at least 3 centuries. One of the most common form of ancient Greek New Testament Manuscripts is in the form of Lectionaries, books of Bible readings arranged throughout the year. You know, like Catholics and Episcopals still do.
Since the time of Ezra up until the end of the first century, it was also the habit of the Jews to give a discourse on the application of doctrine. It’s continued to this day among Baptists, except we call it a sermon, and it’s no longer tied to the public reading of the Word. (Indeed, the public reading of the word began to dissipate in the 19th century, due to the availability of Bibles for the common man. It was no longer needed to read large sections of Scripture.)
THIS is what Paul was talking about in 1 and 2 Thess.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (KJV)
Because we now set up a logical impossibility. If this is referring to the Magisterium, why was not the perpetual virginity of Mary taught in the Epistles? Paul greets her at least once in the Epistles. She was still alive until around the time of Paul’s martyrdom. Why was the office of the Pope never specifically mentioned, let alone Papal infallibility? Celibacy of the priesthood? Indeed, in 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically states that the Apostles had the right to have their wives to accompany them! Why not the Mass, transubstantiation, liturgy, the wafer, etc? Why didn’t John the Beloved write about Mary’s Assumption?
The evidence speaks so far AGAINST there being a Magisterium, we can come to no other conclusion – it was an invention of the RCC, when it became apparent as the Waldenses and Albigenses gave away free Bibles that the doctrines of the RCC could not be found in the Bible.
Next, let’s look at the terminology of the Catholics. Why does it seem to so many well meaning but uninformed and innocent Christians that Catholics are saved?