Writeen word is never the same as spoken word, lacking intonations and visual and autority nuances. It can enver fully transmit the effect of the spoken word. Likewise, the spoken word may be overheard and without being able to check it again, it may lead to a false conclusion. The best way is for the written word to be read correctly, which is why the Gospel readings in the church are done only by priest, as they are trained to read correctly, and comment on them as perconcensus of the Church.
At no time in the Bible was left up tom the untrained and unschooled to read the scrolls.
That widespread corruption has been rampant in the Latin Church throughout history is inarguable. So, this is one explanation that would fit. I recognize their humanity and what could happen to anyone who was taught that he had so much more power than he actually had
And how is this different from others? The difference is that priests have the "keys." How widespread is their corruption, FK? and how does it compare to other professions that are bound by the laws of ethics?
As I think you also said, the spoken word can either help or hinder the correct interpretation that God intended. I agree with that.
The best way is for the written word to be read correctly, which is why the Gospel readings in the church are done only by priest...
That's right, the word must be read correctly which is why we look to the rest of scripture for clues on how to interpret.
At no time in the Bible was left up to the untrained and unschooled to read the scrolls.
I disagree on two counts. First, that requires a very strained reading of the following:
Acts 17:11-12 : 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
For you to be correct, Paul only dealt with priests, and never preached to the people, the way Jesus had. Verse 12 says "many of the Jews", referring to the Bereans. It doesn't say "many of the priests". To presume that the Apostles only preached to priests is illogical. Jesus preached to the masses the same way the Apostles did. The exclusivity and secrecy of the hierarchy had not yet begun. At that time, the open message of God was for everyone to hear firsthand, not just for the elite who would later refine it.
Second, during the time of Jesus, copies of scrolls WERE available for individual purchase by the laity, although they weren't cheap. We can assume they were shared among the people, and that one could go to the Synagogue and read there if he wanted. Here is an excerpt from Reading and Writing In the Time of Jesus. by Alan Millard, Rankin Professor of Hebrew & Ancient Semitic Languages, The University of Liverpool:
"Today the Bible is widely available in a single volume, easy to use and often small enough to slip into a pocket. We do not realize what an advantage we have in comparison with people of the first century. The normal form of the book then was the scroll; a book with pages, the codex, was used at that time mainly for note taking. It developed to become the normal book form over the next two or three centuries. This means that a Jew who owned a Bible in Jesus’s time would have had an armful of scrolls. Since every copy was made by hand, books were not cheap, although we should not exaggerate their cost; a copy of a lengthy book like Isaiah might take a professional scribe three days or so to make, so the price would be his wages and the cost of the materials. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that many individual Jews would own a complete set of the Scriptures, but according to Luke 4, a small town like Nazareth had a copy of Isaiah in its synagogue, so undoubtedly it held rolls of the Torah and, it is likely, the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
Luke reports that in Nazareth Jesus read from Isaiah and his frequent quotations from Scripture show his familiarity with it. ......"
How do you suppose Jesus got His hands on the scriptures as a boy? Magic? No, they WERE available to the public in the Synagogue. It was the same with the Berean people. The priests were not the only ones.
The author then goes on to cite the DSS as evidence that many common people could read and were encouraged to read the scriptures. The sect that likely produced the scrolls had a defined copying room which produced much more than could have been of use for the priests alone.
And how is this different from others? The difference is that priests have the "keys." How widespread is their corruption, FK? and how does it compare to other professions that are bound by the laws of ethics?
In some areas their corruption is as wide spread as it is in any Protestant or Baptist church. In other areas it is much worse. In still others, it may be better. I don't see how the Apostolic priesthood could possibly be comparable to any other profession, because God does NOT zap all members of any other profession with supernatural powers, and supernatural responsibility. One would imagine that God would sort of look after these folks to make sure they are doing His work.
OTOH, perhaps I am applying Reformed standards to Apostolic priests, which would be my error. If God really does just leave them alone, and whatever happens, happens, then I shouldn't have any greater expectations of them. It is just inconceivable to me that Apostolic succession is real if God really does that. It would relieve the claimers of Apostolic succession of any showing of evidence whatsoever that they are really chosen by God, other than their good word for it. By their fruits they shall be known, etc.
Ultimately of course it is a matter of trust. The hierarchy points to a couple of verses, and says that they mean that only the hierarchy can determine what ALL verses mean, in case anyone disagrees with them. They need not demonstrate or prove anything against other scripture, they simply define THAT other scripture.
If those couple of verses are as they say, then whatever they say goes. That is, in the Latin Church. In yours, I know that the people have to accept it for it be in effect. But even in your Church, I would imagine there is a very high level of presumed trust, such that unless something crazy was proposed, that it would be accepted by the laity. So, when we boil it all down, those couple of verses really seem to be the root of most of the disagreement.