"Joel Durrwachter, the RCs (especially Reformed converts) like to say that the Bible requires an interpreter (infallible), otherwise it's hermeneutical anarchy in which everyone believes what is right in their own eyes (as in garden variety American evangelicalism). They respond that the "Church" (i.e., their branch of the Church) is the infallible interpreter. Fine and good, but who interprets the interpretation? You ask who are the good Catholics, and the response is, "those who agree with the Church's teaching." Duh. But how do we know who agrees with the Church's teaching? By interpreting the Church's teaching and deciding *with our own judgement* (except in cases in which the "Church" has officially and specifically acted or spoken) whether or not person X agrees with the teaching of the Church. So when RCs point to the disagreements among Protestants and suggest that this makes a mockery of our doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture (it doesn't--they simply attack a caricature or misunderstanding), we can simply point to the disagreements among RCs and note that it makes a mockery of their beloved Magisterium and their "infallible interpreter." Everything needs to be interpreted, and at the end of the day that interpretation is done by individuals. Thus, RCs are really just (bad) Protestants with a canon that includes the Magisterium and is open (i.e., continually being added to and modified--sorry, clarified)."--Peter Green
Er, I didn't know the canon of Scripture was open. Nor did I know that the Catholic Church had accepted an invisible Church while I was asleep. Not to be rude, by the way, but if that hermeneutical anarchy doesn't make a mockery of perpiscuity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura, I don't know what does. Actually, the whole thing in hermeneutics under that system was a Tyranny of the Plausible. It's not that I couldn't consent to living under one of these ecclesiologies/interpretations if I had to, it's just that no one could give me an answer as to why one in particular was correct. For one thing, your humble author has never liked Choose Your Own Dogma books. We don't do theology by preference here.
I'm no philosopher, but isn't this the Tu Quoque again? Boring. It fails because there is in fact a stable body of truth from which the theologian makes insights and speculations. Or did you think, Mr. Green, that only you could call people heretics with legitimacy? I digress. Investigating the claims of the Church does take reason, yes, but submitting to her is quite a different matter. There really is no legitimate picking and choosing under the Catholic paradigm. Thanks for hijacking my thread. We must be stealing a lot of your sheep. I'd be mad, too.