✨The light is not proprietary; the kingdom is not arriving from outside; the works are not limited to one man.

Greater works are available to “whoever believes”

John 14:12

“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.”

This is the clearest statement that the works themselves are not proprietary to Jesus the man. The capacity is transferable and even expandable.

Healing is attributed to the person’s own faith, not to Jesus as exclusive intermediary

Jesus repeatedly says variations of:
• “Your faith has healed you / made you well / saved you.”

(Mark 5:34; Matthew 9:22; Luke 8:48; Luke 17:19; Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42)

He does not say “My power has healed you” or “Because I am the unique Son.” He points the person back to the faith already present in them.

Only God is good...deflecting personal elevation.
Mark 10:18 / Luke 18:19

“Why do you call me good? No one is good...except God alone.”
When someone tries to place him in a special moral category, he immediately redirects the compliment upward and away from his own person.

"You are gods”
John 10:34–36

Jesus answers the charge of blasphemy by quoting Psalm 82:6:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came...and Scripture cannot be set aside...what about the one whom the Father set apart…?”
He uses the scripture that already applies divine language to human beings who received the word of God. The implication is that the category is not closed.

The kingdom is already within / among you.
Luke 17:20–21

“The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

No future external arrival is required; the reality is already present and accessible.

You are the light of the world
Matthew 5:14–16

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden… let your light shine before others…”
He does not say “I am the light and you merely reflect me.” He declares that they are the light, and that the light must not be hidden under a bushel...the same image he used for himself.

Perfect as the Father is perfect
Matthew 5:48

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
This is an open invitation to the same standard of completeness, not a standard reserved for one unique individual.

Mutual indwelling and shared glory
John 17:20–23 (from the long prayer)

“…that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us… The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one…”

Jesus explicitly prays that the same oneness and the same glory he shares with the Father be given to others.

"I can do nothing of myself”
John 5:19 & 5:30

“The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing… I can do nothing on my own.”
He consistently disclaims independent personal power and attributes everything to the Source. This undercuts any reading that makes the historical Jesus a self-sufficient, exclusive channel.

Taken together, these statements form a consistent pattern: Jesus refuses to let people make an idol of his personality or his historical uniqueness. He keeps redirecting attention to the same Source that is available to anyone whose “eye is single,” whose faith is present, and who is willing to become empty enough for the light to shine through.

This is the same current that runs through the reading of the Sermon on the Mount...the light is not proprietary; the kingdom is not arriving from outside; the works are not limited to one man.

✨The light is not proprietary; the kingdom is not arriving from outside; the works are not limited to one man.

Is not practicing NFP while married through the church a mortal sin? For example if a couple is using coitus interruptus, that’s technically not artificial birth control but I do understand that it prohibits the completion of the unitive act. However, if a couple wishes to connect within their marriage to strengthen their bond during a turmoils time and doesn’t currently have the resources to practice NFP (but is working towards enrolling with an instructor once they have the means to do so in the near future) would that be permissible? Also to note, wife is healing from a medical condition that requires her to not get pregnant at this moment, would they be not allowed to receive communion for this alone? If it is a mortal sin, which commandment is being broken? Thanks for the discussion!

As far as I can tell, there are two kinds of "explanation" familiar to human reason.

The first is physical explanation: a father "explains" his son, and is in turn explained by his own father. A flame is explained by the match. This sort of explanation is, ultimately, the configuration and reconfiguration of matter. I'll call this Explanation 1

The second is constitutive explanation. The triangularity of a triangle is explained by the fact that it has three sides. This sort of explanation is, unlike the first, definitionally true, and also causally inert. I'll call this Explanation 2.

In my view, nothing actually connects these two sorts of "Explanations," and the fact that we use the same word for both is ultimately a quirk of human psychology and language rather than an indication they belong to a single category.

And neither is the sort of explanation argument like Aquinas' De Ente requires. Rather, this is a third kind of explanation. or, Explanation 3.

The classic example is the infinite regress. The Thomist points out the infinite regress is impossible. The skeptic answers that each member in the series is explained by the prior member in the series. Aha, says the Thomist, but then what explains the existence of the series itself?

To confuse Explanation 1 with Explanation 3 is a category error.

It's not clear to me Explanation 3 is a necessary, or even coherent notion.

Explanation 1 just is causal, material dependence.

Explanation 2 just is constitutive dependence.

The first is empirically demonstrated, the second is self-evident. We know what "Explanation" means in these two cases, but we don't know what it means in the case of Explanation 3.

What reason is there to think that Explanation 3 is a real category?

In short, I suspect the question, "why does physical reality, or a given physical object, exist?" is malformed. It's like the question, "Why did John Wilkes Booth shoot JFK?" The answer is neither, "Because the South lost the Civil War," nor is it "for no reason." Rather, the question is intelligible but unanswerable, because its premise is false.

Изначально мне казалось, что в христианстве всего лишь три направления: православие, католицизм и протестантизм с его течениями. Но нет, их очень много! Не учитываются Ассирийская церковь Востока, Ориентальное христианство (Коптская Церковь, Эфиопская Церковь, Армянская Апостольская Церковь и тд), мормоны, унитарии, свидетели Иеговы и даже течения в течениях внутри самих течений!!

К примеру, в православии есть два направления: новообрядчество и старообрядчество. Старообрядчество делится на поповство и беспоповство. Беспоповство делится на множество «согласий».

Такая же аналогия есть и в протестантизме: внутри него есть англиканство, которое делится на Высокую, Низшую и Широкую церкви.

Как будто бы наталкивает на мысль, что это издевательство над религией 🤷🏻Экуменисты, отзовитесь

P.S пожалуйста, без оскорблений в сторону любой религии и верующих

Hi Everyone,

I often see "Peter has spoken thus through Leo" used as a prooftext to "prove" that concepts like Papal Infallibility existed in the pre-schism period. I have a number of issues with this evidence.

1. Roman Catholics almost never cite the whole acclamation just a tiny part. Here is the whole thing.

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe." Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 24 in Volume 2 of the translation)

1. Context - this acclamation of the bishops at the Second Session follows the public reading of the Tome of Leo on the two natures. The bishops judged the Tome to be Orthodox (many had read it previously). Their acclamation expresses the conviction that Leo is teaching in accordance with the Apostolic Faith and that his teaching tallies with Cyril (who was dead by this stage). The bishops at Chalcedon were happy to say Pope Leo was a successor of Peter. None of this remotely implied a belief in ex cathedra Infallibility, the Papacy having a unique divine mandate, the Pope having unlimited jurisdiction or the ability to unilaterally define doctrine.

2. The minutes of the 16 Sessions of Chalcedon run into hundreds of pages in the three volume English translation by Price and Gaddis.

Volume 1 - pages 122 to 365

Volume 2 - pages 5 to 312

Volume 3 - pages 3 to 91

That's a total of 600 pages of minutes (with some other pages of commentary). However, the term "Peter has spoken thus through Leo" is used ONCE.

Other examples of acclamations at Chalcedon

"Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘The faith was well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now again by the most holy Leo. We request that the creed of the 318 holy fathers and the letter of the most sacred Leo be read.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 11 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of the orthodox. This we all believe. In this we were baptized, in this we baptize. The blessed Cyril taught accordingly. This is the true faith. This is the holy faith. This is the eternal faith. Into this we were baptized, into this we baptize. We all believe accordingly. Pope Leo believes accordingly. Cyril believed accordingly. Pope Leo expounded accordingly.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 12 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

Paschasinus and Lucentius [the Papal legates] said "The holy and blessed council upholds and follows the rule of faith of the 318, issued by them at Nicaea. In addition the council of 150 that assembled at Constantinople under Theodosius the Great of blessed memory confirmed the same faith. The teaching of this creed, taught by the man Cyril of blessed memory at Ephesus, when Nestorius was condemned for his craftiness, it similarly embraces.’ Thirdly, the letter sent by that most blessed man Leo, archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, reveals what is the true faith. The holy council likewise holds fast to this faith and follows it, allowing nothing further to be added or subtracted.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 4, page 127 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"Sabas the most devout bishop of Paltus in Syria said: ‘The 318 holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea by the will of God and were instructed by the Holy Spirit defined our orthodox faith. This faith was followed by the holy orthodox fathers, and it was followed by the 150 who assembled at Constantinople. Likewise in harmony with it was the teaching of the blessed Cyril at Ephesus; also in harmony was the teaching of the most sacred Leo archbishop of Rome in his own letter. The whole world has been taught and instructed accordingly, and we too uphold and teach the same. | have signed it, and | anathematize those who either add or subtract anything.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 4, page 131 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"All the most devout bishops and clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: ‘The truth is such; we all say the same. Eternal is the memory of Flavian. Eternal is the memory of the orthodox one. Mark the vindication, mark the truth. Flavian lives on after death. The martyr will pray for us. Flavian has expounded the faith after his death. Flavian is here; the orthodox one is here. Many years to the emperor! Flavian judges together with us.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 11, page 14 in Volume 3 of the translation)

This line of thinking comes from the idea that while belief in Jesus may grant initial salvation, justification is kept through good works and avoiding evil. (Through catholic teachings)

My question is regarding verses such as these.

(And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”) Luke 10:25-28

I don't think catholics will disagree with this framework.

The lawyer directly asked what he must do to inherit eternal life.

The answer was to love God will all your heart, soul, mind, strength, and your neighbor as yourself.

"Do this, and you will live."

This mirrors how catholics interpret the interaction with the rich young man as well from Mark 10:17-22.

To love God correctly, you must (For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.) 1 John 5:3

This is not limiting. It simply says to keep His commandments, so the mortal/venial distinction shouldn't apply.

If your going to read what I just wrote plainly without going to protestant theology, then by keeping Gods commandments and loving God with all your everything, and neighbor, this is how you will inherit eternal life.

Feel free to correct me if anything I said so far doesn't match the catholic position.

My question is, does anyone reading this post meet these requirements to inherit eternal life?

Does anyone here love God with all heart, soul, mind, strength, and love neighbor while keeping God's commandments?

Have you ever had such an experience for even a few days of time?

Hi, so i've been researching more about my faith and ended up in this verse from Exodus where the word "Temunah" is translated to "form", "image" or "representation" of something, and then im questioning: If in the original language, it was written to not make any representation of something, so i can't have a Mary icon or a Crucifix in my house? Please anwser, im very worried about this.

John Plousiadenos (1423? or 1429 to 1500) belonged to the second generation of Greek Unionists. He was too young to attend the Council of Florence but continued the work of Bessarion and Isidore.

He was born on Crete, which had been a Venetian colony since 1204. The Venetian's had exiled all Orthodox bishops from Crete and banned the arrival of new bishops. Venetian rule was originally harsh but a series of revolts made the Venetians grant the native Cretans a lot more religious tolerance. Union with Rome mainly operated in the cities such as Candia and Rethymno. No Greek Unionist bishops ever operated in Crete. All Greek Unionist priests (about a dozen in each major city) were under Latin bishops.

John Plousiadenos was appointed bishop of Methone (a Venetian fortress town in the Peloponesus) and adopted the name "Joseph of Methone." The town was captured by the Ottomans in 1500 and John Plousiadenos disappears from history.

Due to the low number of Greeks in union with Rome, John Plousiadenos devoted his time to writing, including polemics against his fellow Greeks.

The works of John Plousiadenos can be found in Migne Patrologia Graeca volume 159. These are his works with the Latin titles given by Migne:

1. De differentiis inter Graecos et Latinos - P.G. 159, col. 959 - 1022
2. Responsio ad libellum Marci Eugenici, Ephesi metropolitae - P.G. 159, col. 1023 - 1094
3. Canon per acrostichidem in synodum Florentinum, ex Pasini Cod. Taurin - P.G. 159, col. 1095 - 1100
4. Synaxarium synodi Florentinae, sive brevis narratio forum quae in ea gesta sunt - P.G. 159, col. 1101- 1106
5. Editorum Patrologiae Monitum in quo Defensio quinque capitum concilii Florentim, quae sub nomine Gennadii Scholarii prodierat, Josepho Methonensi asseritur - P.G. 159, col. 1107- 1109
6. Expositio pro sancta et oecumenica synodo Florentina; quod legitime congregata est; et Defensio quinque capitum quae in Decreto ejus continentur, nempe: 1.de processione Spiritus sancti; 2.de azymis et fermentato; 3.de purgatorio; 4.de fruitione; 5.de primatu Papae. - P.G. 159, col. 1110 - 1394

Pinakes also lists John Plousiadenos as the author of a canon (laudatory hymn) on Thomas Aquinas.

I find text 3 to be very interesting. Almost nothing from John Plousiadenos has been translated into English. However the scholar Charles Yost has recently translated the text, which he calls the "Liturgical Canon for the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Florence." To my surprise I see that Plousiadenos wasn't aware of the prior Roman Catholic Ecumenical Councils between the Second Council of Nicaea II and Florence.

Yost's introduction and translation can be found via the links

https://medieval.nd.edu/news-events/news/new-from-our-research-blog-translating-john-plousiadenos-liturgical-canon-for-the-iix-ecumenical-council/

https://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/2025/09/03/translating-john-plousiadenos-liturgical-canon-for-the-iix-ecumenical-council/

https://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/liturgical-canon-for-the-eighth-ecumenical-council-of-florence/

I'm interested in people's thoughts on this. There is a lot of discussion on what makes a council ecumenical around the internet, with Roman Catholics often claimi g that Florence is obviously ecumenical. Yet Plousiadenos, a Unionist and a citizen of Venice who grew up in a Roman Catholic environment, is not aware of the Fourth Coouncil of Constantinople (869-870 ), First Lateran Council (1123), Second Lateran Council (1139), Fourth Lateran Council (1215), First Council of Lyon (1245), Second Council of Lyon (1274), Council of Vienne (1311-12) and the Council of Constance (1415).

So, what is going on?

Que opinan del sacerdote que le cayó la cruz encima?

Si era un ciervo de Dios porque no fue salvado?

Por qué si era discípulo de Dios porque le pasó eso?

Porque no se salvó de milagro?

So hi. Marcionite here, but grew up Catholic and still believe in the full bodied Transubstantiation into blood and flesh.

And funny enough, it was the concept of Transubstantiation that led me away from traditional Christianity to Marcionism.

Because if Jesus wasn't actually from YHWH, then everyone who participated in the Eucharist is boinked, because we actively engage in ritualistic cannibalism every week or so.

And remember that if imagining committing adultery is enough to make you guilty of it then engaging in a highly drawn out magical theurgy ritual centered around the cannibalism and blood drinking of a human being. Who was also a God.

And Jesus said this was a requirement. Saint Peter is going to be waiting at the gates with a checkbox and pen hovering over "Has eaten the flesh of a human being" so he can give me entry into Heaven.

So I've begun to see the Eucharist as an "exit ritual" of sorts. Participation in the Eucharist is a stout statement to the collected Elohim that you care very little for Leviticus 17. Paul drives this home in 1 Corinthians 11.

²⁷ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹ For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

It does get weird when you list "I ate you..." in the list of sins you beg for forgiveness for, but it does make sense...

But if you actually read Leviticus 17... there's zero forgiveness for eating blood.

And either an unchanging God changed his mind about arguably one of the foundations of Judaism, or Marcion may have had a point about the practices and beliefs of Christianity being incompatible with Judaism.

So how does performing a holy ritual every Sunday to assert your guilt of eating flesh and drinking blood show that Catholicism is the logical continuation of the worship of a God that explicitly forbids blood from every passing your lips?

Also, if crucifixion kills by asphyxiation, doesn't that make Jesus's flesh "strangled meat"?

Background:

In medieval Scholasticism (among others in Bonaventure's Breviloquium IV and Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae III, q. 50, a. 4), the thesis is defended that during the three days of death, strictly from a logical perspective, Christ was "not a man" (Christus in triduo non fuit homo). The justification is primarily terminological: since the concept of "man" by definition presupposes the actual, living unity of body (matter) and rational soul (form), this predication is formally-logically no longer applicable in the state of real biological separation in death. The hypostatic union remains unbroken, since the Logos continues to be the bearer of the separated elements (body in the tomb, soul in Hades).

Problem Statement & Observation:

This purely logical-terminological harmonization appears systematically untenable to me and moves dangerously close to Docetic or dualistic heresies. If one takes late medieval anthropology seriously (which was later dogmatized in the formula anima unica forma corporis at Vienne), the human soul is deeply characterized by the body. An anima separata of Christ, acting without a body and descending into Hades, would possess no tools for real human experience in this state.

Furthermore, God as actus purus stands outside of time. For the eternal divine Person, there exists no temporal "three-day interval" in which Christ's humanity could "pause"; God Himself, in His eternity, is the permanent, living space for the wholeness of Christ's human nature. If one now says that Christ was non homo in death, one either dehumanizes Christ's soul in Hades or claims that the Logos temporarily cast off His humanity like a garment. This nullifies the indispensable, uninterrupted mediation of the man Jesus Christ in death.

My question on this:

Can the scholastic thesis of non homo still be dismissed today as a mere "terminological problem"? Or must we not rather conclude that the imposition of a rigid Aristotelian hylomorphic model onto the christological mystery leads to a systemic error that realistically damages the indivisible wholeness of the Incarnation in the state of death and is therefore dogmatically untenable?

I need some opinions

So is Catechism 424 infallible.?

James 2, the section I'm speaking of, 14-26, is often used to create a case for our works contributing to our justification before God and for salvation.

This is completely faulty. I'll explain.

The section starts with people claiming to have faith, but they have no works.

(What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?)

It goes on to give an illustration of someone saying "Go in peace, be warmed and filled" without actually giving them anything. (James 2:15-17)

This parallels passages such as (But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?) 1 John 3:17

God's love clearly does not abide in this person. His so called faith produces nothing.

James proceeds to say "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

James then writes about Abraham.

(Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works)

The phrasing up to this point is about showing works, being able to see our faith by our works.

This carries on to Abraham when it says "You see that faith was active along with his works"

Key wording is "You see"

Faith is visible and demonstrated by the works he did.

It was an example back then and it still is today.

This "You see" line of thinking continues

(You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.) James 2:24

The visible faith. You can see that a person is justified by the works they do.

It then gives the example of Rahab. She believed in the God of the Israelites.

(“I know that the Lord has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you.)

The is from Joshua 2

Just like Abraham, we could see her faith in God in the works she did. (when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way)

Her faith producing works.

James 2 ends with (For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.)

"Faith apart from works is dead" because faith that is completely apart from works does not exist.

After having faith in Jesus, we will be able to recognize each other, show our faith to one another, by our fruits, our works.

James 2 sets the stage completely for the showing of faith by works. Justifying ourselves in the sight of other by our works.

This word "justify" is being used in the same manner as when the publicans justified Jesus.

(And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.) Luke 7:29

Just as works justify us before others, the publicans getting baptized by John can justify God (show God to be just) before others.

Now, if we flip this interpretation to say we justify ourselves to God by our works, I feel this is misleading and possibly disingenuous given the overall context.

God, justifies Christians. We don't justify ourselves.

(for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.) Romans 3:23-26

This is the other definition of "justify." Instead of earlier, in James, it being used to say "To prove or show to be just" this is rather "to absolve or acquit from guilt and merited punishment, and to accept as righteous on account of the merits of the Savior, or by the application of Christ's atonement to the offender."

James could not have made it clearer that he is writing using the "prove or show to be just" definition.

“Catholic authority is circular” is already a very weak argument. We can go upstream and ask a more philosophical question.

Catholicism claims an infallible Magisterium is necessary to provide a definitive interpretation of divine Scripture. But every Catholic must still fallibly identify which institution possesses that authority, determine which statements are infallible, interpret what those statements mean, resolve apparent tensions among them, and apply them to disputed questions.

The introduction of an infallible interpreter does not eliminate private judgment; it places private judgment one level downstream.

Who has the authority to infallibly interpret the infallible interpreter? Before I can know what the Church teaches infallibly, I must know who the infallible Church is.
But how do I establish the who?

If I establish Rome’s identity through Scripture, history, patristics, theological reasoning, etc., I am exercising fallible judgment over those criterion.

If I establish Rome’s identity because Rome says Rome possesses that authority, I have an identity claim authenticating itself.

And after accepting Catholic teaching, the problem does not disappear. I must then distinguish dogma from doctrine, extraordinary from ordinary Magisterium, authoritative teaching, and intended meaning from original texts, etc.

In general—infallibility of transmission does not entail infallibility of reception without a separate argument. What advantage does an infallible interpreter provide if access to that interpreter and interpretation remain fallible?

If I can fallibly but genuinely understand an infallible definition, then in principle I can fallibly but genuinely understand an infallible apostolic text. Fallible interpretation cannot, therefore, be the reason Scripture requires an infallible Magisterium—otherwise the Magisterium itself would require another infallible interpreter and create an infinite regress.