Second, for your argument to have solid import, you must demonstrate that official/infallible decrees/dogmas on faith and morals (my list, not yours) are somehow “unclear”.I replied:
So, on the one hand Scripture is unclear, but on the other (your list) is somehow "clear." How, David, is this NOT a case of you acting like a typical Catholic?DW:
Because Scripture IS cyrstal clear when one is armed with the proper ‘filter’.
By way of reply:
How does anybody know that Rome provides the proper filter? In order to know which filter is the right one, we must have some idea of what the right one must look like before you find it, or is it just one of those things you know when you see it, sort of like the right color of blue shoe that will match your purse? Where's the supporting argument?
Remember, Waltz says he is a seeker of the truth.
I have no culteral, monetary, family, or an other ‘externals’ one might postulate, to keep me a committed Papist—if I became convinced later today that the RCC was indeed a false Church, I leave it…David is waltzing his way through a search for "truth." Yesterday it was Mormonism (Edit: David informs us he was once an Arian), today it's Romanism. Apparently Mormonism (Edit Arianism) did provide the correct filter for Scripture for a time, but now Rome does, and not Protestantism broadly or a particular Protestant tradition more narrowly. He says he's committed to "truth," yet he is still seeking for the truth. How does he know what truth will look like if he needs to find the right filter for Scripture itself - God's own words, no less?
And he's still not answered us as to how exactly God's Word is clear but Magisterial statements are more clear. On the one hand, he attacks the perspicuity of Scripture but he doesn't seem to apply the same standard to Magisterial statements. How, exactly does this make him a atypical Catholic? So far, all he has done is demonstrate that his position cashes out no differently in substance than his fellow Roman Catholics on the internet.
Indeed, if we're going to start talking about the need for filters, then how does one filter Magisterial statements? What is the appropriate filter for them? Do we take the Magisterium's own standards to do that for granted? If so, then that's obviously circular. We are to filter the Magisterium with the Magisterium - one self appointed authority with the same authority. That invites a vicious regress. How do we confirm that is the right "filter?" If it takes Scripture to do that - yet Scripture's proper "filter" is the Magisterium, we've done nothing to change the argument.
Another possible solution is to try and parse out what is "infallible" and what isn't within a single Magiseterial statement, but that seems arbitrary. How exactly does one do that?
Whatever hermeneutic the Apostles used, it most certainly did not yield for them The Papacy, purgatory, indulgences, a mediatorial priesthood, Marian dogmas like the Assumption, Infallability, and other such Roman religious innovations.
That's an excellent observation. As a committed Papist who believes that Scripture requires the "proper filter" in order to be clear, then are we to conclude that the hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles is reflected in Magisterial teachings? If so, where is that supporting argument? How exactly do the dogmas listed above reflect the hermeneutic of the Apostles if any of them are to deduced from Scripture? If these can't be deduced from Scripture, isn't it reasonable to conclude, in that case, that Rome's "filter" does not reflect that hermeneutic, and if not, then which "filter" does?