One objection that I've raised to Catholicism is the absence of an OT magisterium. Why is that necessary under the new covenant but unnecessary under the old covenant?
I've seen some Catholic apologists counter that there was an OT magisterium in the person of the high priest. They quote Jn 11:51 as a prooftext. A few basic problems with that appeal:
i) I don't think the point of the verse is to claim that the high priest was a prophet by virtue of his office. Rather, the point is to underline the divine irony. In God's overruling providence, he made the highest-ranking religious official unwittingly endorse the mission of Jesus. It's ironic because it comes from someone who's both an arch-enemy of Jesus and the top religious figure in Judaism.
ii) If that's supposed to be precedent for the Roman magisterial, then by analogy, the Roman Magisterium persecutes the faithful.
iii) In addition, the high priesthood was in the hands of the Sadducees for generations. They were heretics. They denied the existence of angels, an immortal soul, and the resurrection of the body. By analogy, the Roman magisterium can teach heresy!
Treating the high priesthood as a proto-papacy or proto-magisterium is a parallel that backfires.
I don't think that it is wise for Romish apologists to isolate that text from John in light of the overwhelming absence of a Papacy in both the Old and New Testaments. Such an effort is laughable.
ReplyDeleteIf there was a magisterium (like the Catholic) in the OT there would be no NT unless this magisterium taught the NT. As the Jews refused Jesus, those who defends the existence of a magisterium in the OT to be consistent must be a non-Christian Jew.
ReplyDelete