Skip to comments.Is the Church Over the Bible, or the Bible Over the Church?
Posted on 04/20/2014 12:50:38 PM PDT by Gamecock
The perennial question in the debate over sola Scriptura is whether the church is over the Bible or the Bible is over the church. If you take the latter position, then you are (generally speaking) a Protestant who believes the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the only infallible rule and therefore the supreme authority over the church. But, here is the irony: Roman Catholics also claim to be under the authority of the Bible.
The Roman Catholic church insists that the Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium. Dei Verbum declares, This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it (2.10), and the Catholic Catechism declares: Yet, this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant (86). However, despite these qualifications, one still wonders how Scripture can be deemed the ultimate authority if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place. Moreover, the Magisterium seems to discover doctrines that are not consistent with the original meaning of Scripture itselfe.g,, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and the like. Thus, despite these declarations from Rome, residual concerns remain about whether the Magisterium functionally has authority over the Scriptures.
My friend and colleague James Anderson has written a helpful blog post that brings even further clarity to this issue. He begins by observing the judicial activism that happens all too often in the American political system. Judges go well beyond the original intent of the constitution and actually create new laws from the bench. He then argues:
What has happened in the US system of government almost exactly parallels what happened in the government of the Christian church over the course of many centuries, a development that finds its fullest expression in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible serves as the constitution of the Christian faith. It is the covenant documentation. It defines the Christian church: what constitutes the church, what is its mission, who runs the church and how it should be run, what are the responsibilities of the church, what is the scope of its authority, what laws govern the church and its members, and so forth. Once the constitution has been written, the task of the judges (the elders/overseers of the church) is to interpret and apply it according to its original intent. Their task is not to create new laws or to come up with interpretations that cannot be found in the text of the constitution itself (interpreted according to original intent) and would never have crossed the minds of the founding fathers (Eph. 2:20).
Yet thats just what happened over the course of time with the development of episcopacy, the rise of the papacy, and the increasing weight given to church tradition. To borrow Grudems phrasing: If the Bible didnt say something something that the bishops wanted it to say, or thought it should say, they could claim to discover new doctrines in the Bible purgatory, indulgences, apostolic succession, papal infallibility, etc. and no one would have power to overrule them.
Adapting the candid statement of Chief Justice Hughes, todays Roman Catholic might well put it thus: We are under the Bible, but the Bible is what the Pope says it is. In fact, thats exactly how things stand in practice. Functionally the Pope has become the highest governing authority in his church: higher even than the Bible. The church has been derailed by ecclesial activism.
Thus, even though Rome claims that the Bible is its ultimate authority, practically speaking it is the church that is the ultimate authority. Rome is committed to sola ecclesia. And this clarifies the real difference between Protestants and Catholics. Something has to be the ultimate authority. It is either Scripture or the church.
“over” is NOT the proper question.
There was no Christian canon until the 4th century, so what was the authority prior to that point?
Not exactly correct.
Everyone had a pretty good idea of what the proper canon was. Only heresies inside the Roman Catholic faith group resulted in the confirmation of what was already accepted.
God has much to say about shepherd-less churches whose traditions make His WORD null and void.
It's similar, but the greatest difference may be that the US Constitution explicitly tells how to amend it, which makes backdoor changes to it even more egregious.
The Church was here before the Bible.
That’s right. Paul started the church and there was no Bible. His letters to the different early churches was part of the Bible.
I could not sleep several nights ago so I turned the tv on. I was changing channels when I came across EWTN. A couple was on explaining the Stations of the Cross. I was amazed when the lady said Mary was our Co-Redeemer. I have no idea why people actually believe that but I had never heard it before.
In the beginng was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Bible, being the written Word of God, existed before the Church. Christ himself quoted Holy Scripture - the written Word of God at the time.
But not before the Torah.
Luke 8:11 and parable of the sower addresses this.
The seed is the Word of God.
No church without the crop that comes from the seed.
And some heresies, such as Arius, were proclaimed as such during early church disputes in the 300s. Where one camp won over the other with the Roman Emperor’s backing.
Thus this interesting piece of research and analysis I found in my studies:
State Church Of The Roman Empire, A Summary Chronology
PREFACE (only printed here)
For many years, I wondered what happened to Christianity between the Sermon on the Mount and the Spanish Inquisition. How did the teachings of Jesus become so completely reversed in Christian practice? For the first 300 years, Christianity spread without violence, permeating the world like yeast in bread, by preaching a better God and a Master worth following, and by demonstrating a better way to live both here and hereafter. Then, sometime between AD 300 and 400, everything changed. Suddenly, Christians were the persecutors, instead of the persecuted, and remained so until modern times.
I read everything I could find on this period, but my question was not answered. By searching the Internet, I found and bought a book entitled “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: The Seven Ecumenical Councils” — and wrestled with ancient theological doctrines until I could hardly see.
Then I remembered that theological doctrines serve political purposes, and went looking to see what the Roman Emperors did. Little by little, the picture of what happened to Christianity became clearer to me, but something was still missing, so I started building my own chronology and inserting into it everything I could find. This paper is the result of that process.
What the author fails to realize is that by saying This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, Rome is not saying Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium, as "the Word of God" for RCs is not restricted to Scripture, but includes whatever Rome says it is with her nebulous tradition.
And as Rome presumes to alone to assuredly define what true Scripture, tradition and history consists of and means, thus she alone is the supreme authority on it.
The Roman reasoning is that are you saying that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means they are the infallible interpreters of it (the we gave you the Bible" polemic), so that dissent from them is rebellion against God.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it effectively nukes the church, since it began in dissent from those who had historical descent, and sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4).
Unto whom were committed the oracles of God. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5)
But whom, like Rome, they likewise presumed of themselves a veracity above Scripture,* and thus rejected Christ and His apostles, asking, like Rome, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28)
But the church began in dissent, following a holy man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and who established His truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As did the apostles and early church (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) - not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.
For Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced.
Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19
“Thus, even though Rome claims that the Bible is its ultimate authority, practically speaking it is the church that is the ultimate authority.”
Are Protestant anti-Catholic just plain stupid? That is the only way I can see so many of them having such poor reading comprehension. “Rome” does not claim the Bible is “its ultimate authority”. The Catholic Church claims that the “Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant” and that the “word” is not restricted to what is scripture. Thus, not only is the premise of the above article wrong, but clearly the author of the article - who may be stupid don’t forget - doesn’t even understand the doctrines he is attacking.
Which means what? Why do you continually post this assertion but refuse to answer questions as to its polemic?
Are you saying that the Divine promises of His presence and preservation, (Jn. 14:16; 16:13) necessitate an infallible church, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God?
So i will also ask you the same question as to the polemic behind this assertion:
Are you saying that the Divine promises of His presence and preservation, (Jn. 14:16; 16:13) necessitate an infallible church, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means they are the infallible interpreters of it ["we gave you the Bible so.."], so that dissent from them is rebellion against God?
That is rather well know but explained in such a way as to make Eve Co-Redeemer by extension. There is much much more said of the Mary of Catholicism that is beyond what it written, or its careful use of language.
Even Ratzinger said that
"the formula Co-redemptrix departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word Co-redemptrix would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language Source
When the Bible is not your supreme authority, do not be surprised at the scope of imaginary fables taught as doctrine. The Mormons are not alone.
That is not true that the Church had no apostolic writings, no books of the New Testament prior to the 4th century.
Thats right. Paul started the church and there was no Bible.
There was the Church before the bible.
PS: stop misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches.
The Catholic Church claims that the Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant and that the word is not restricted to what is scripture.
It is the Word that is infallible, not the mortal men who God has used to preserve His Word. Peter himself made gross errors, Jesus said he was directed by Satan, Paul rebuked him to his face. (No, I do not subscibe to the belief that Peter was the first pope).
I will not be drawn into the sophistry that the Word being infallible necessitates the (sometimes self appointed) guardians of the Word themselves be infallible. God is infallible, His Word is infallible - and He is fully able to keep His Word.
He used Balaam’s ass to accomplish His will; He is certainly able to use fallible men to preserve His Word.
It is God who is preserving the scriptures and His church.
While I understand your frustration (as one who also rejects the Qaraite/Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura), I must nonetheless ask why you find it necessary to resort to the old liberal charge of the "ignorant" (and, I assume, inbred) "Protestant" in order to make your point. Considering the place of this trope in liberal culture, I really think it should be banned from this site (though that isn't my decision to make).
Really, Vlad, to FReeper Protestants ever insult Catholics as ignorant and stupid? And considering the fact that the bulk of the Catholic Church's membership over the centuries has been simple illiterate peasants, they could certainly make this charge if they chose to, couldn't they? Then of course Catholic FReepers would whine about the attack on simple people by highfalutin' Protestant intellectuals.
Catholics really need to make up their minds if they are a church of geniuses and intellectuals or of people of every shade of mental giftedness. If the latter, the attacks on Protestants for being "stupid" or of low intelligence should really stop.
You're not winning any friends doing this, Vlad. I know that were I still Catholic I would feel terribly embarrassed (as well as unwelcome and a traitor to my people) by such behavior.
There’s really no such thing in reality as ‘Bible alone.’
>>We are under the Bible, but the Bible is what ______ says it is.”
Look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses ... church over bible ..rewrite!
Look at the mormons (whatchamacallem) ... church over bible ... REWRITE!
What year after The Council at Nicea, did the Roman Catholics decide to stick those pages in the bible, that the evangelicals, don’t have? Ergo, church over bible ... REWRITE!
Isn’t it that ol’ crazy hermit named John, that wrote the last lines, including no one shall change to more of less of what was written, under some kind of divine smiting?
I know, I know:
Geneva bible, the one that The Pilgrims brought with them; King James bible; Revised Standard Version; New International Version; Today’s English Version, (Ezeliel - “Everything is dung!”); not to mention the slight rewrite from The Messianic Jews, too.
I have been witness of “wrong church, wrong version in use”, and the correction from the pastor, directly.
[A side note on that .... why cannot the churchgoer use the version that THEY are comfortable with? This is AMERICA, not the Church of England.]
That lie has been around for a long time...Here's the answer:
Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
“already accepted” by WHO???
The “heresies” were overcome by the Catholic Church, NOT “caused” by the Catholic Church!
“So where does the word come from if not scripture?”
Where did it come from before there was scripture?
“Really, Vlad, to FReeper Protestants ever insult Catholics as ignorant and stupid?”
Yes, and much worse. We’ve been called everything in the book - including servants of Satan, idolaters, perverts, child molesters, ignorant, stupid, morons, etc.
“You’re not winning any friends doing this, Vlad.”
That isn’t my goal.
“I know that were I still Catholic I would feel terribly embarrassed (as well as unwelcome and a traitor to my people) by such behavior.”
Your feelings do not concern me.
You supplied a correct response, while only silence from those who support what is denied by Scripture.
You nailed it.
Imaginary fables is exactly it.
Today at easter service the pastor was talking about the price Jesus paid on the cross, and the significance of the splitting of the veil.
Needless to say, we have a direct line to God now, and only Jesus Christ himself is the intercessor. His sacrifice was perfect on the cross and he took on the world’s sins. Mine, yours, everyone’s. It’s actually a deep insult to imply it wasn’t a perfect sacrifice or that we need a co-redeemer or other such nonsense.
You can use whatever version you wish. Theres nothin in the Bible that says you can't pick whatever you want for yourself.
The Catholic Church came before the NT. The Catholic Church, whether you want to admit it or not, determined what would be put in the Bible and left out of the Bible.
It should be quite plainly understood that the "church" (the called-out ones, assembly of believers) has been gifted by God with His Divinely-inspired words so that we may have an objective and authoritative resource to know the truth from error of our faith. I like the example given of the role our supreme court judges are given to determine the Constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress. When those in power - whether secular or religious - presume to be ABOVE the authority established as the benchmark of truth, all manner of abuses can and will happen.
Without the truths established by God and passed down to us through sacred Scripture, all we could have is a subjective, human-level understanding without any assurance that they are right or true. We can look at all manner of past history in the field of science or medicine, for example, to see that "truth" was found out by trial and error - with human lives in the balance. God spoke and he ensured that His eternal truth was recorded in a way that even thousands of years later we can STILL be assured in what we believe. The "church" MUST always be in subjection to Scripture, because it IS the word of God - His speaking to us and communicating His will to all who would hear and obey. It is foolishness to think the "church" is an authority over the Bible.
Who is 'we'? You wish a democratic vote?
It's just playing semantic word games to assert that. The "called -out ones", the "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven" (Heb. 12:23) began with the very first believer in Christ whoever he or she was. The teachings of God through the prophets before Christ's incarnation, as well as His written down words and the revelation of the Holy Spirit to those who added to the books that make up the collection of sacred, GOD-breathed Scripture are what we today call "The Holy Bible". Today, the Roman Catholic church likes to take credit for determining what "got" into the Bible, but we know that those early believers accepted and received the writings as from God and they recognized its power and authority because they heard the voice of the Great Shepherd.
We had ALL the books that comprised what is called the Old Testament HUNDREDS of years before Jesus came here and He quoted them frequently, acknowledging their authority. He didn't need the Catholic church to tell Him what was and was not God's word. The first century believers received from the Apostles those letters and writings that were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were remanded to obey them and to mark those who refused to. The Holy Spirit finished the books that make up the New Testament prior to the start of the second century and no new books were added after the Apostle John's Revelation. There really was no disputing over what "belonged" in the single collection we call the Bible because the church had received from the Apostles what was the authority for the Christian faith.
What your comment, as well as those of others here, demonstrates very well the danger that comes from presuming the "church" is an authority over the word of God. Just like activist judges in our country, activist churches recognize only their own authority and subjugate the very word of God to their own whims and desires. Nothing good can come from it no matter what religion does it. Your own catechism states the church is a "servant" of the Bible, do you reject that?
What does "democracy" have to do with it? "We" as in believers in Jesus Christ, Christians, the assembly of the firstborn. Believers today have the same authoritative resource (the word of God) that our brothers and sisters in Christ from the start had. Does that help?
It was and is GOD working through mankind from the time of Adam throughout The Old Testament and The Holy Spirit from Christ - present which created The Bible. The Holy Spirit has kept The Bible from Genesis through The Revelation intact and thus is The Word Of GOD. The church doesn't reveal GOD's Truth to man. The Holy Spirit does. John The Baptistr foretold it in Matthew Chapter 3.
The letters and accounts of witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, have existed since the Disciples and Apostles began recording accounts after Christ ascended into heaven. The last one who witnessed the events was likely the Disciple John. As well The Apostle Paul wrote almost half of the New Testament and sent letters to persons and early churches.
Those writings just as the writings in The Old Testament survived intact not because of man but despite man. GOD's WORD To Mankind is His alone given to man. GOD most certainly can educated a person without them so much as ever reading a word of man written text. Just as He can make descendants of Abraham from rocks so could He also write The Bible and decide it's content.
The Bible is no mans works or no churches work to brag about having written it. It is not the churches place to even say what goes in it. What if the early Church had done a Thomas Jefferson edit?
This is why there must be The Holy Spirit teaching mankind one on one. Thus the work of The Holy Spirit who teaches all truth by revelation to man. The church which the gates of hell will not prevail. The Holy Spirit was sent first to The Disciples and Apostles and as well to the believers even today.
We can go into a room in our home by ourselves and confess our sins and pray to GOD. Our access to Him through Jesus Christ is just as valid and heard as any preacher, priest, or Pope. This order was put into place because man had corrupted The Temple and the Temple Priest were placing burdens on people to do that they themselves could not abide by.
Our one on one with GOD is accomplished not by mans rituals and church dogma but by intercession by The Holy Spirit. The choke hold the Priest and High Priest had on the church is broken. The new church was not built based on Peter's leadership. It was built on what GOD had revealed to Peter and what Peter stated to Christ.
According to whom? You? Are you JW? Mormon? Who votes?
You think there weren’t other heretics claiming to be true Christians “from the start”?
Is your claiming it make it so?
No, you get to do that. You and whatever spirit you claim.
It's all you.
I detect some animosity in your comments. Why?
I used the word "we" to include ALL those who claim to follow Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord - but ONLY God sees their heart. Those who sincerely do that recognize the authority of the Word of God, given to us so that we might ALL have an objective and authoritative source to know what is or is not the truth of our faith. The OP talks about early Christian leaders and how they had the Scriptures with which to dispute heresies. Without that, we would only have opinions, ideas, theories and word-of-mouth "traditions" with no sure way to know who is right.
If we didn't have the Constitution to guide our nation, we would not have made it as far as we have and it is the veering away from these founding documents and the intent of the founders that has brought us to this point in our history. Clearly, a group of powerful people, asserting their own way, is not how those who started this American experiment wanted it to be.
God gave us His divinely-revealed word for a reason. We should be servants of it and not make it a servant to us. Doesn't your Catechism say that?
You speak the truth.
Amen and amen....
There is only one Holy Spirit. It isn't wise to mock Him or His authority. The Holy Spirit should guide us into truth and be our intercessor for when words or our own strength fail us.
Christ wrath in is time living among men was aimed far more at the Priest of the day he dealt with than the sinners he met. He knew the hearts of each person he met. He knew who would receive Him and who would reject and betray Him. The Temple Priest were worried more about keeping The Temple even at compromising principle to Rome, Maintaining their positions and places of honor before men, and their control over the people, than teaching scriptures.
Christ established the church for believers to come to GOD directly, pray to Him directly, confess to Him directly, and left us with a teacher that dwelt within us just as Christ dwelt among men and taught them.
When Rome claims to have given us the Bible and thereby claims the right to properly *interpret* it, it puts itself above Scripture.
What they say about the authority of Scripture is meaningless, when what they do in practice is different.
There is no reading comprehension issues amongst non- Catholics but there is the issue of brainwashing and cultic indoctrination amongst Catholics so that they cannot see logical fallacies when they are hit over the head with them.
What is stupid is not to see that claiming to be the author of Scripture does not mean the magisterium is over the Bible.
preach it, brother.