1. We want to understand Christ’s teachings. ACCEPTED AS AN AXIOM WITHOUT PROOF, AGREED.
2. The most authoritative source is the Bible.ACCEPTED AS AN AXIOM WITHOUT PROOF, AGREED.
3. Catholic writings are of infinite value in understanding the Bible. OFFERED AS AN AXIOM WITHOUT PROOF.
4. Therefore ... No need to go on, the logic is already broken at step 3.
If the Bible is the most authoritative source (primary), does that not imply that any other source is OF NECESSITY secondary? If the Bible is the most authoritative, should it not be used to judge the worthiness of any other secondary source?
I would think all rational Catholics would have no problem with this statement, yet for all practical purposes, the RCC applies this exactly backwards!
When the RCC or an individual Catholic uses a secondary source to judge the meaning of the most authoritative source, it/he/she has de facto reduced the authority of the primary source (which in your view was the most authoritative source) and made it less authoritative. It has, in practice, taken the most authoritative source and reduced it to a secondary source. At the same time, it takes the secondary source of the catholic writings, and elevates it to the primary source for understanding what used to be the most authoritative source.
The RCC merely pays lip service to the authority of the Bible. You may claim that the Bible is the most authoritative source, but the catholic writings are the interpretive filter by which you understand the Bible; instead of understanding the Bible from the text of the Bible itself.
Whenever one of those extra-Biblical Catholic doctrines is discussed on FR, the Biblical evidence presented always comes down to one of two things, either an allegorical interpretation of some obscure passage that has nothing to do with the original topic; but whose words, when assigned mystical meanings, can be shoehorned into meaning whatever is required ... or, second, an appeal to what some church father thought the text meant.
You begin with a faulty premise. The Bible Neever says it is a Primary source. as a maater of fact it says that the Church is THE primary source.
1 Tim 3:15
so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Ping to excellent post #334.
I have other things waiting but the Scriptures were not accepted by blind faith but upon evidence, which is confirmed by believing, and the Divinely inspired writings were essentially established as being Divinely like men of God were, based upon their Divine qualities, effects and attestation, with truth being preserved before there was a pope in Rome and without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men.
The authority of the latter rests not on Scripture, as RCs cannot allow assurance of doctrine by that, but while Rome may invoke Scripture, what her claim to assured infallibility effectively rests upon her own infallible declaration that she is infallible, when speaking according to her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria (thus assuring her own decree on infallibility is infallible). Thus her interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and history have certitude (if she indeed does interpret actual verses, which is rare), and disallows any one else from being right if in conflict with her.
While RCs attack Prots based on their lack of assured infallibility (while at the same time accusing them of being popes), RCs themselves make a fallible decision to trust in an self-asserted infallible magisterium, and engage in fallible human reasoning in deciding which decrees are infallible, and to some degree what they mean, as well as non-infallble teachings (the bulk according to some).
In the end truth is established by Divine power, in conformity with Scripture in text and testimony, not on the basis of formal decent of office (which does not assure spiritual authority or perpetuity). Thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, and who thus challenged the authority of the Lord and apostles, and who appealed to Scripture and the attestive means of establishing truth.
In contrast, the Catholic model of sola ecclesia based on assured infallibility and formal decent is akin to those who presumed as much and rejected Christ, and thus it nukes the church before it began.
See recent exchange in this area: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2834651/posts?page=1111#1111
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2834651/posts?page=1167#1167
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2834651/posts?page=1120#1120
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2834915/posts?page=131#131
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2834915/posts?page=157#157