To continue the analogy the Constitution is only half of the story. There is no Constitution without the Declaration of Independence. As Americans, we do not bifurcate both documents but understand them together, in harmony with what we describe as the American project.
I suppose for a protestant that isn't necessarily an issue if they consider America to be nothing more than the sum total of its parts. But I don't think they subscribe to that. Enlightenment thought is strewn not only throughout American philosophy but protestant theology to such an extent that one can't help but link the two.
Which is why its difficult to understand how a protestant can apply the same thought process to America and totally disregard the same when applied to understanding the Deposit of the Faith and its two components: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Protestants do not reject either the Declaration or the Constitution as authoritative.
This same issue applies to their hermeneutics. A protestant does not consider Sacred Scripture in harmony with Sacred Tradition, or with itself for that matter. But rather cherry picks that which they deem desirable. You'll get no argument from me that it is God's word alone. But the Word is more than the text. The Word is everything. Which includes not only what was written, but what was done. The protestant should ask themselves, "was the crucifixion an actual event and all of the implications it entails because it was written? Would the Redemption of mankind be in effect if it hasn't been recorded in scripture?"
Unfortunately, we've seen too many instances in modern (and not so modern) times of Sacred Scripture being used to support all manner of unholy acts that it cannot be used in and of itself to authoritatively determine that which is holy and moral. Of course the protestant would say, "But it's right there in [book], [chapter], and [verse]. However, when the Protestants eschewed Sacred Tradition and the Church to make such determinations they no longer have any ground on which to stand.
YOPIOS is an apt phrase precisely because it encapsulates everything that is wrong with individual interpretation without an authoritative body. The protestants are good about, "taking one or two others along" but then they stop when Sacred Scripture commands them to, "take it to the Church." The protestant opts for the democratic rule that verse implies and then just stops when determining that to be insufficient. Further complicating the issue is the protestant notion of autonomy from authority. The protestant can't comply with the full implications of that verse because to do so would be to destroy their entire theology. Therefore protestants do their fellow man an injustice by selectively adhering to that in Scripture which confirms only their preconceived notion.
Some Roman Catholics are so in love with and subservient to the Roman Catholic church hierarchy that they relinquish all calls to reason WITH God BY God, himself. Just like the "canned" prayers repeated by rote, their faith requires no real effort to study to show ourselves approved by God as workmen that do not need to be ashamed, rightly handling, and comprehending, the word of truth as God commanded us. God gave it to us for a reason. We don't give it up just because we have a leader. He must also be held to the standard.
We love the Church because it is a sign of God's love and mercy. Holy Mother Church will lead us to all Truth as was promised in Sacred Scripture. We know that God did not abandon us to our own devices. The Church is the epitome of reason. Despite the objections of protestants it was The Church which authoritatively defined the Canon of Scripture upon which they rely. And I would certainly beg to differ on the characterization of the Catholic faith as requiring no real effort. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. I don't see too many protestants doing that with the ease with which they proclaim OSAS.
Your following statements demonstrate the ignorance of the protestant position. You proclaim that we have a responsibility of testing our Church leaders for adherence to the Truth and in the same breath you use the depravity of previous church leaders as an example. As if the impeccability of an individual is the guarantor of Truth. It is not. Our guarantor is the Holy Spirit. Too many times here on the RF Catholics have explained with great patience how the Pope cannot err in teaching of the Faith and of Morals. But protestants skim over that. Which is why a Catholic cannot help but think that it is the default protestant position of testing the veracity of a Church leader's claim based on their moral character. In effect placing their faith in men all the while exclaiming that we are the ones who do so.
The two previous Popes and the current one have both made statements that I do not agree with. Whether it be in political or economic matters. I'm under no obligation to give assent to their views. Faith and Morals is what I give my assent to. And just as the Declaration of Independence states we should not rebel for, "light and transient causes" neither should be uproot ourselves from the Truth of Catholic Church because of a lack of personal impeccability on the part of our leaders or their secular viewpoints. And that's the true Faith. It is quite the opposite with the protestant contingent.
Catholic tradition has been changed over the years. The truth in the Bible has not. When I was in school in the good ole days, we had fish on Fridays for the 3 Catholic families in school. Then, lo and behold, they said that was no longer necessary. Then, a Kennedy wanted an annulment. He could not get one without “paying” a fee even though children were involved. I just never understood that.
I'm usually pretty careful when I make a statement about Roman Catholics. You'll see me using words like "some" or "many", rarely do I mean ALL Roman Catholics do such and such or believe such and such. You ought to try to remember that when you want to criticize everyone who isn't a Roman Catholic, yet still a Christian, by calling them Protestants and concluding whatever you want about their beliefs. You cannot speak for what all Protestants think or believe much less those who reject being called Protestants in the first place. You, no doubt, don't like it when people make prejudicial statements about Catholicism. Well, neither do I when a global label is used to place everyone under one umbrella when you should, I would think, know it doesn't apply.
Glad you liked the analogy, but, can we agree that our judicial, legislative and executive branches of government are all supposed to be bound by our Constitution? I don't discount the role of Tradition in the Christian faith and I look to the results of the early church councils and their endeavors to clarify and encapsulate the rule of faith for a Christian. Those councils fulfilled an essential role in establishing truth and battling ancient heresies. But...you won't find even one issue of faith that came up then where the defenders of orthodoxy didn't use the Scriptures to define, defend and support their conclusions. That rule worked well until men took it upon themselves to declare truth OUTSIDE of sacred Scripture as well as the traditions of the Apostles. That really IS what the Reformation was all about and is why, even today, you will find believers who STILL hold to the same tenets that Jesus, the Apostles and the early universal church did. I don't believe anything different than what the first Christians did and I can prove it. Can you?
'We love the Church because it is a sign of God's love and mercy. Holy Mother Church will lead us to all Truth as was promised in Sacred Scripture. We know that God did not abandon us to our own devices. The Church is the epitome of reason. Despite the objections of protestants it was The Church which authoritatively defined the Canon of Scripture upon which they rely. And I would certainly beg to differ on the characterization of the Catholic faith as requiring no real effort. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. I don't see too many protestants doing that with the ease with which they proclaim OSAS.
Except that sacred Scripture says it will be the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth, not the church. It's the church, the assembly of believers, that must obey the truth as taught in God's word. Sure, the Christian church is supposed to be the upholder of the truth, but it is NOT the authority over God's word. That error is what Roman Catholicism allowed to creep into it and it was the abuses of doctrine as well as authority which caused the splits with the Eastern Orthodox in the eleventh century and the Reformers five hundred years later. Instead of being the support and foundation of the truth, the Roman Catholic church deemed she was not bound by the testimony of what was believed always, everywhere and by all. Presuming themselves to be the sole arbiter of truth, they actually perverted the truth. Not all of it, granted, but more than a few MAJOR ones.
Your following statements demonstrate the ignorance of the protestant position. You proclaim that we have a responsibility of testing our Church leaders for adherence to the Truth and in the same breath you use the depravity of previous church leaders as an example. As if the impeccability of an individual is the guarantor of Truth. It is not. Our guarantor is the Holy Spirit. Too many times here on the RF Catholics have explained with great patience how the Pope cannot err in teaching of the Faith and of Morals. But protestants skim over that. Which is why a Catholic cannot help but think that it is the default protestant position of testing the veracity of a Church leader's claim based on their moral character. In effect placing their faith in men all the while exclaiming that we are the ones who do so.
If your church claims it alone is the one, true church Jesus established, that its Popes are divinely-anointed successors to the Apostles, and all Christians must be subject to the Pope of Rome, then you're darn tootin' its leaders will be held to higher standards than anyone else. Seeing as many can't, and couldn't, even pass the qualifications Paul set up for elders, much less members, then it should be no surprise that it calls into question what else is the RCC wrong about? Examining Scripture - in its plain and clear sense - shows the Roman Catholic church preaches an accursed Gospel based upon works instead of grace through faith. It places burdens upon people that God never required and usurps the word of God by traditions of men. It is disqualified from claiming the sole ownership of the title "Bride of Christ". That's why we can know that the church is NOT your organization - nor mine - but is a spiritual house of which all genuine Christians are living stones - some Roman Catholics, even. We enter through Christ, who is the door to the sheepfold. That is the "true" faith. Our faith is in HIM and not a church.