And therein lies the problem for the RC.
There were two views throughout history. The Eastern Orthodox from the beginning looked upon the scriptures (while divine and inspired), to be a living document to be carefully and methodolically changed and altered by the bishops as living circumstances changed. Thus, some of Paul's teachings were not edged in stone but were flexible as the church grew. Teaching could be modified with the approval of bishops but this isn't to be done lightly. While I don't share this view, there is some rational behind it.
This was not true for the western church. The early church fathers (Augustine, Jerome, etc) recognized the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures, and purposely set it apart from Church writings and doctrine. They held a high view of scripture unlike church doctrine that could become corrupted. Scripture could not be wrong. Church views could be. Thus, Church doctrine could and should be changed to conform with scripture when discovered to be wrong.
This worked for quite a while until the Roman Catholic Church started getting challenges to it's doctrine and authority. But at no time was this greater than in the Middle Ages when it tried to set up a king and kingdom on earth, and wanting to tax countries to pay tribute to it and the building of the Vatican. The rebellion of Luther and others was really just a final flash point that had been brewing for over four centuries.
The Council of Trent decided to take the Eastern Orthodox approach in saying that the Church was the authority-not the scriptures. Of course this creates problems for the RCC in that this was never historic position of the western church nor does it make sense with the writings and positions of the early fathers. The RCC no longer truly believes like the fathers in the setting apart of the scriptures. And you'll see this on this board today. While Catholics will tout the scriptures, they'll rely upon the Church positions (usually going no farther back than Anselm). When asked if they believe scripture to be more divinely inspired than church writings, one can hear the sound of crickets in the background.
Unlike the Orthodox who always believed they could change and make modifications to writings and teachings to keep up with the times, Catholics tout that they go back to the very early writings-something that they really ignored. Today it is no wonder that Catholics believe like the Orthodox (we won't even discuss Pelagius' views).
And that is why Roman Catholics don't like to be challenged scripturally. They really no longer recognized the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. It is whatever Rome tells them to believe.
Or historically; either!
Got a source for that?
I would also like a source for this. It is NOT true of the Orthodox.