Because they were afraid that without guidance the laity would end up being as the Protestants are, scattered all over with a hunded different doctrines which they all claim we would see if we just read the Scriptures a little longer or more sincerely or if we, lacking the time to do all that study, just paid attention to their professors instead of our own? In other words because what you seem to think is a good outcome we think is a bad outcome?
The confluence in so many matters between the heirarchy-ridden RCs who were dealing with European barbarians and our Eastern Brothers who still had a noble, though decadent, civilization behind them is remarkable.
But, I know. You start out assuming we're wrong and conclude that the evidence shows we're wrong. I just looked around me at the endlessly fissiparating Protestants and took refuge in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, as it seems to me, but clearly not to you.
There's no commonly agreed upon epistemology to settle this dispute. Works won't do it, coherence or sense of doctrine won't do it. You treat Scriptures like cannon, and claim to outgun us, or say we have not studied it long enough and hard enough, as though agreement with you were the standard. And the most amusing style of combat in answer to James' "man is not saved by faith alone," is to line up a bunch of other texts which say, "He is too!", so that "Sola Scriptura seems to become "Sola the majority of texts in Scriptura".
Since today I remember a brace of martyrs, Patrick O'Loughran and Conor O'Devany, drawn and quartered in 1612 by Protestants (the amount of whose time spent in Bible study is unknown, but presumably it wasn't quite enough), we just pray a little harder, knowing that we too have shed blood very wrongly indeed.
It is not clear to me that letting just anyone read the Bible has had a good outcome. I'm not saying it isn't right, I'm just saying the data aren't conclusive to those who haven't made up their minds ahead of time.
Because they were afraid that without guidance the laity would end up being as the Protestants are, scattered all over with a hundred different doctrines which they all claim we would see if we just read the Scriptures a little longer or more sincerely or if we, lacking the time to do all that study, just paid attention to their professors instead of our own? In other words because what you seem to think is a good outcome we think is a bad outcome?
But Calvin and Luther were both Roman Catholic clergy. They had as much guidance as there was to have in the Church, and look what happened. :) We Protestants have no fear at all that if one of our laity just went out and read scripture by himself that he would wind up being as the Roman Catholics are. I think these opposite approaches really mean something as to how both sides REALLY feel about how close their respective systems are to scripture.
You all have a hundred different "doctrines" (layman's sense) on matters which have not been officially ruled upon by the Church. Of course, when men command you to believe as they say (if you want to remain a Roman Catholic), there will be relative unity. :) ......... I don't know what you mean concerning "outcomes".
You treat Scriptures like cannon, and claim to outgun us, or say we have not studied it long enough and hard enough, as though agreement with you were the standard. And the most amusing style of combat in answer to James' "man is not saved by faith alone," is to line up a bunch of other texts which say, "He is too!", so that "Sola Scriptura seems to become "Sola the majority of texts in Scriptura".
What are you talking about? I've never commented about how much any Catholic has studied scripture. If we use scripture as a cannon, then you use Tradition as the same. That's the way it is. We might think our cannon is bigger because it is inspired, and your cannon is not. I'll give you that. :)
What exactly is your argument against our saying we might have 5 texts of scripture against your one, on a given point? Is your position presumptively correct because you have less scriptural support for it? :)
It is not clear to me that letting just anyone read the Bible has had a good outcome. I'm not saying it isn't right, I'm just saying the data aren't conclusive to those who haven't made up their minds ahead of time.
I think there is no question it has had a good outcome, overall. If one starts from nothing, and then reads the Bible by himself, where do you think he will end up in almost every case? I would say: "much closer to Christianity than he was before". Regardless of theology, the Bible points to God always. Where's the downside? I would much rather have someone a follower of a Christian faith with which I disagree, than never being a Christian at all.