I agree however, there are (as I've said many times) 100,000 different denominations based on 100,000 differing interpretations of God's word. How are we to know which is the correct interpretation?
Acts 17:11 even NON-Christians have been given the power by God to actually read the Bible and "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken - were SO"
And some of them claim to be Catholic.
Do you believe the words of Jesus?
We see Catholicism has split and splintered many times -- demonstrating the point that "just get other people to believe whatever my magisterium says" did not work for the Jews of Christ's day in Mark 7:7-13 and does not work to this very day.
Nope - I accept the same 27 that the NT saints were already reading long before the Catholic church came along a number of centuries later.
It failed that test in Mark 7:7-13 which you seem to refuse to Christ though it is stated outright.
Apparently non-Christians in Acts 17:11 had it. Is it your claim that you do not have the ability of those non-Christians??
An Old testament teaching also used by those Acts 17:11 non-Christians to test the teaching of Paul and ignore their own magisterium's condemnation of Paul's doctrine.
They were reading those and reading and writing many more books and letters. The original Church voted on which books and letters are the most important. If you believe they were divinely inspired enough to choose which writings would be included, why not also believe their interpretation of those scriptures that they chose?
This passage does not dispute that tradition has been tested by scripture.
This passage does still not say that we are to lean on our own understanding. It simply confirms the law is available for anyone to read for themselves what the law says. It still does not indicate that the Church's tradition is not tested by scripture.
Still, you add your own interpretation of what that passage is saying. It does not say that there is no need for a teacher, it simply says, (in a nutshell) if you don't believe it you can read it for yourselves.
Tradition is just that something that man made of their own and then claim that its valid as law..
The OT text that they had says to trust in the LORD and lean not on your own understanding. It does not say "trust your magisterium even when they condemn the teaching of Paul".
Not only read - but as the details show - apply and then conclude in direct opposition to the traditions/teaching of their magisterium that had condemned Paul's doctrine.
Testing tradition by scripture is exactly what Christ did in Mark 7:7-13 when he condemned it as well as "many such things that you do " according to the details in that text you are not quoting.
If you skim over enough details in the text we are reading you can eventually blame those details on me - but anyone actually reading the text can see that that solution does not work.
I am happy with one.
And many Catholic groups in opposition to each other
In Acts 17:11 it is how they reached the correct conclusion even though their magisterium was on record as condemning the doctrine of Paul.
So say we all.
I agree 100%. That is the way to test whether the Catechism is presenting sound doctrine in every case or if in some cases it is in error.
I never denied scripture testing, but relying on one’s own wits and constructing doctrine from scripture while ignoring history of those that have gone before us is the most concerning.
Like I have said before, tradition is always tempered by scripture. IMO, man-made tradition has its roots in all of the 100,000 individual interpretations of scripture in the 100,000 different Protestant churches. One God, one Church, one interpretation coming from the Church founded by the Apostles, not the Church founded by Calvin, or Zwilingi, King Henry VIII or whoever didn't like something already established and changed the things they didn't like and kept the things they did like.
100,000 different churches are leaning on their own understanding not the understanding the Apostles had but the understanding the they personally had. Trusting the Lord means trusting his Church to disseminate the text properly. It doesn't mean to study the Bible yourself and draw your own conclusions that are different than the church next door and them drawing different conclusions from the church up the street.
That was the magisterium of the Jewish religion. Not the magisterium of the newly founded universal church.
Yes, there are conservative Catholics and Liberal Catholics. Most of that is people's politics affecting their religion. It doesn't mean they differ on basic doctrine, how salvation works, who is a Christian, or the Liturgy and Mass, The real body of Christ in the Eucharist. Som believe more rigidly in the need to be obedient than others.
Peter actually changed his mind about obedience to Levitical law when he was convinced by Paul that they had no need for physical circumcision as long as they has spiritual circumcision. The division was mended and The Church was united and still is.
I'm not confused. What scripture were they referring to? The Book of Acts or the Old Testament? Did Peter change his mind and include the Gentiles and their unclean ways? How could they test scripture that wasn't even written yet? What you seem to be confused about is the number of different interpretations by Protestant church are as varied as the opinions of the people in those Churches. They say they can figure it out for themselves but did you not have a teacher?
And Protestantism and Anglicanism was imopsed on practicing Catholis. So they weren't doing anything different than The Church. The thing is, it was different version of Christianity that was imposed on people depending on what country they came from whereas the One True and Apostoplic Church's rules were the same everywhere in the Western world with Church Law being enforced by the Kings who submitted to the one true and Apostolic Church.
Likely every single one of them would say that same thing about the Catholic church.
We all believe our church is His Church and that it presents His doctrine properly.
Not true. The Jews believed in a magesterium that was headed up by Pharisees and tended to be very opened to what Paul said as a Pharisee coming from Jerusalem. They had not value at all for "we don't care about the Jewish nation church , just our own local congregation" and you see that in the way they condemn Paul.
Where do you see the non-Christians of Acts 17:11 standing in your model above - as they totally rejected the one-true nation-church's condemnation of Paul's doctrine and then by studying the scriptures daily - to SEE IF - Paul was correct - sided with Paul against their own magesterium
The non-Christians of Acts 17:11 listened to Paul and modeled their worship after his teaching. They consulted scripture to make sure he was not deceiving them, but when verified they followed his teaching.
The Catholic CHurch leans on the understanding of the Apostles and their students. Not the writings of Calvin for example who was a lawyer. Others go with the interpretation they like the most and we go with the interpretation of the original Church founded by Christ and his disciples.
So there are 100,000 different "proper" ways to interpret scripture? I don't think that is accurate.
Could it be because the CHurch of Jerusalem was made up of Jewish Christians? At that point there were no Gentile believers or they were few and far between. Are you forgetting how St Peter ended up agreeing with Paul that the Gentiles should not be bound by Jewish Law? Did you forget that part or does that fact make it inconvenient to believe whatever you want to glean from the text?
The infallible tradition actually WAS handed down from the early Church. The Mass hasn't changed in a couple thousand years but every other church came up with its own order of service that suited the own understanding. By the way, checking the scripture does not mean that you do it with no guidance. If that were so the church would be unified but instead it s splintered into 100,000 peices.
Not true.
Indeed if you were to read scripture to non-Christians and perhaps even make stuff up, for a people whose own magisterium was on record as condemning your doctrine as heresy - it would be very illogical to tell them they must first accept your doctrine as true - before they tested it no matter that their established magesterium had condemned you.
According to Christ in Mark 7:7-13 they most certainly did that very thing
