Ralphy's Questions for Catholics

[Always_For_Him]

The NT writers quote from the Septuagint over 90% of the time. The Hebrew canon continued to be debated by Jewish rabbinical schools into the third century. Eventually, however, rabbinic Judaism rejected seven books from the Hebrew canon found in the Septuagint - Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 and 2 Maccabees (as well as portions of Daniel and Esther) - chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the Septuagint supposedly translated into Greek. The rabbinic Jews used four criteria to determine their canon. They accepted only those books which were 1) written in Hebrew; 2) in conformity with the Torah; 3) older than the time of Ezra (c. 400 BC)/ and 4) written in Palestine. The Christian Church had used the Septuagint from the beginning, so it ignored the decisions of later rabbinic Judaism and continued to use the Septuagint.

When the Church officially determined which books comprise the canon of the Bible (Councils of Hippo, AD 393, and Carthage, AD 397), it approved the 46 books of the Septuagint as the canon for the OT. For sixteen centuries the Christian OT was a matter of uncontested faith. Each of the seven rejected books is quoted by early Church Fathers as “Scripture” or as “inspired,” right along with the undisputed books.

In 1529, Martin Luther proposed to adopt the 39-book canon used by rabbinic Judaism as the OT canon. Luther justified his decision to delete seven books from the OT by appealing to St. Jerome who, around AD 400, had expressed concerns that these Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts. However, research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books ((Hebrew versions of Tobit, Sirach, and Psalm 151 (found only in the Septuagint) were discovered at Qumran)) making their rejection unsupportable on those trounds. The principle reason Luther seems to have opposed the additional books of the Christian OT is that they taught doctrines he did not like, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45).

Which OT would you rather use - the OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity?

If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow Jesus and the early Church. If your Bible omits the seven books, you follow non-Christian rabbis and Martin Luther - a man who wanted to throw out even more books (James, Ester, and Revelation), and who deliberately added the word “alone” to Sacred Scripture in his German translation of Romans 3:28.

 

[jmcrae]

I believe that statement “follow the tradition” is refering to written tradition, not oral tradition. Ralph

Very little had been written down, yet.

Remember, they didn’t start to write down the Gospels or any of the other letters and works of the New Testament until after the martyrdom of St. Paul, since it was only then that they realized that Jesus wasn’t coming back during their lifetimes, and that they would need books for the Catechumens to read, and something of Christ’s history to be read out at Mass and in the Liturgy of the Hours.

They weren’t keeping diaries or taking notes as they were following along behind Jesus, you know.

 

[twb1621]

Part of your statement “does not live in sanctuaries made by human hands”, I was told that Jesus is in the Roman catholic church in the Tabernacle and that is why when you enter the church you must bow your knee to Him. Is this true? Ralph

Jesus “resides” in heaven as we all know but as we also know God is considered to be everywhere. What you are referring to is the Eucharist which is the Body of Christ in the Sacrament as Jesus gave us to receive, housed in the tabernacle (as in the first definition of the word, sanctuary - a consecrated place) to be honored to all who choose to come before Him and honor Him. It does not serve to keep Jesus from us as a sanctuary in the second definition of the word but rather to house the Eucharist. does that help…?

 

[cazayoux]

You have ALL the scripture in the bible. Ralph

Exactly … so when you, Ralphy, said ‘well that is the old testament, we have a new testament now’.
Do not ignore the OT … it is THE scripture talked about in the NT which is ‘profitable for teaching and reproof’.

michel

 

[twb1621]

Go a few verses further and you will see that the eunuch got baptised “after” he got saved, by immersion in the water. Ralph

Many people were Baptized without ever reading scripture, that is not the point. Think of it this way. How can a society such as ours hold so much value and recognize the importance of students spending years in college being “taught” subjects that offer libraries full of books yet we feel we can pick up the Bible, the Word of God Himself, and understand it without the very “teachers” who produced the Bible in the first place? Can a person with the equivalent to a high school diploma limited to an education in basic algebra pick up a book on astrological physics and learn it properly? not likely. The Bible was from the teachers, not to be considered a replacement for the teachers themselves. It specifically raises the question; “who can know the mind of God…”, not us, that’s for sure. But the closest we can come in understanding what God expects of us and offers us is with the teachers who presented the book, the Bible to us in the first place and who Jesus taught and sent forward and those who received their education from those to carry it on. that is Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition. We need to be taught just as we need to be taught how to be anything else, including brain surgery. Otherwise the process of trial and error can lead to condemnation of the soul.

 

[cazayoux]

I will do some research on the extra books found in the Roman catholic bible to see why they are not contained in my bible and by whose authority they were removed. Ralph

Click here to read about those 7 books.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

I believe that statement “follow the tradition” is refering to written tradition, not oral tradition. Ralph

you claim to be a reader and lover of scripture … and scripture alone …
well … let’s see if what you ‘believe’ is scriptural.

2 Thes 2:15
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Oops … it’s not just written tradition … but BOTH written and oral.

michel

 

[twb1621]

Fair enough!

this might give you a starting point;

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make “His paths straight.” Hebrew - make “level in the desert a highway.”
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).
Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.” Hebrew - thou has “established strength.”
Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.
John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them “bread” out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them “food” or “grain” from heaven.
John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our “report?” Hebrew - who has believed our “message?”
John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes…turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes…and be healed.
Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and “vapor” of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and “pillars” or “columns” of smoke.
Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw…tongue rejoiced…dwell in hope… Hebrew - I have set…glory rejoiced…dwell in safety.
Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers “were gathered together.” Hebrew - rulers “take counsel together.”
Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says “seventy-five” souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - “seventy” people went.
Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses “ruler” and judge; killed the Egyptian “yesterday.” Hebrew - uses “prince” and there is no reference to “yesterday.”
Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of “Moloch” and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - “your king,” shrine, and star of your god.
Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression…he was taken away.
Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you “scoffers” and wonder and “perish.” Hebrew - you “among the nations,” and “be astounded.”
Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of “men.” Hebrew - the remnant of “Edom.”
Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Hebrew - blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).
Rom. 3:4 / Psalm 51:4 - thou mayest “prevail” (or overcome) when thou art judged. Hebrew - thou might “be clear” when thou judges.
Rom. 3:12 / Psalm 14:1,3 - they “have gone wrong.” Hebrew - they are “corrupt” or “filthy.”
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9 - they use their tongues to deceive. Hebrew - they flatter with their tongues. There is no “deceit” language.
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 140:3 - the venom of “asps” is under their lips. Hebrew - “Adder’s” poison is under their lips.
Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 - whose mouth is full of curses and “bitterness.” Hebrew - cursing and “deceit and oppression.”
Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 - my power “in you”; my name may be “proclaimed.” Hebrew - show “thee”; may name might be “declared.”

continued at;
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

---

 

[cazayoux]

Matt 15:1-9 talks about the traditions of men. Ralph

Yes, Ralphy … you are correct … let’s look at it in and see what it’s about.

Matt 15:1-9
1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
3 He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’
5 But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’
6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.
7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

So Ralphy … we see scripture in one place saying to follow tradition and in another place (above) not to follow tradition, right? How do we reconcile these, because you and I both know that scripture does not contradict itself. It’s the context we need.

The tradition (written or oral) we are to follow is the teachings handed down by the apostles.
The tradition that is bad, is ‘traditions of men that negate the Word of God’. This is what was happening in the passage above (verse 3). He was talking about Jews that would tithe their money to the priests who would hold it and give back what they need. Those doing this did so to keep from having to take care of their elderly parents. They were trying to create a loophole where they could still have access to their money, but were, in the process, NOT honoring their parents (breaking the commandment). It was ‘a tradition of men that negated the Word of God’.

You don’t think that all tradition is bad, either.
Wednesday night bible study is a tradition … a tradition of men even, but does not negate the Word of God.

Since you brought up the verse, I figured we should discuss it.

michel

 

[twb1621]

Ralphy, this might help;

this might give you a starting point;

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make “His paths straight.” Hebrew - make “level in the desert a highway.”
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).
Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.” Hebrew - thou has “established strength.”
Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.
John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them “bread” out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them “food” or “grain” from heaven.
John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our “report?” Hebrew - who has believed our “message?”
John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes…turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes…and be healed.
Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and “vapor” of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and “pillars” or “columns” of smoke.
Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw…tongue rejoiced…dwell in hope… Hebrew - I have set…glory rejoiced…dwell in safety.
Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers “were gathered together.” Hebrew - rulers “take counsel together.”
Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says “seventy-five” souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - “seventy” people went.
Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses “ruler” and judge; killed the Egyptian “yesterday.” Hebrew - uses “prince” and there is no reference to “yesterday.”
Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of “Moloch” and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - “your king,” shrine, and star of your god.
Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression…he was taken away.
Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you “scoffers” and wonder and “perish.” Hebrew - you “among the nations,” and “be astounded.”
Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of “men.” Hebrew - the remnant of “Edom.”
Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Hebrew - blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).
Rom. 3:4 / Psalm 51:4 - thou mayest “prevail” (or overcome) when thou art judged. Hebrew - thou might “be clear” when thou judges.
Rom. 3:12 / Psalm 14:1,3 - they “have gone wrong.” Hebrew - they are “corrupt” or “filthy.”
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9 - they use their tongues to deceive. Hebrew - they flatter with their tongues. There is no “deceit” language.
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 140:3 - the venom of “asps” is under their lips. Hebrew - “Adder’s” poison is under their lips.
Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 - whose mouth is full of curses and “bitterness.” Hebrew - cursing and “deceit and oppression.”
Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 - my power “in you”; my name may be “proclaimed.” Hebrew - show “thee”; may name might be “declared.”

continued at;
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

---

 

[twb1621]

also;
Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 “extra” books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average. 3 ).

The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: “deuterocanonical,” or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called “secondary rank,” as opposed to the other books which are called “protocanonical”). But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as “appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.” Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

**So what happened? **

Refer to;
fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

 

[CentralFLJames]

Many people were Baptized without ever reading scripture, that is not the point. Think of it this way. How can a society such as ours hold so much value and recognize the importance of students spending years in college being “taught” subjects that offer libraries full of books yet we feel we can pick up the Bible, the Word of God Himself, and understand it without the very “teachers” who produced the Bible in the first place? Can a person with the equivalent to a high school diploma limited to an education in basic algebra pick up a book on astrological physics and learn it properly? not likely. The Bible was from the teachers, not to be considered a replacement for the teachers themselves. It specifically raises the question; “who can know the mind of God…”, not us, that’s for sure. But the closest we can come in understanding what God expects of us and offers us is with the teachers who presented the book, the Bible to us in the first place and who Jesus taught and sent forward and those who received their education from those to carry it on. that is Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition. We need to be taught just as we need to be taught how to be anything else, including brain surgery. Otherwise the process of trial and error can lead to condemnation of the soul.

I often bring this up too. I use the analogy of a do-it-yourself home mechanic.

Would a person go buy a do-it-yourself book on how to perform open heart surgery, read it, and the follow along step-by-step to operate in his own family member? If not then why on earth would anyone imagine they could to the same thing with their own or a family member’s salvation on their eternal souls???! Only a person who was arrogant or irresponsible or very desperate or a control freak who does not trust anyone but himself would even think to do such a thing.

James

 

[Always_For_Him]

I often bring this up too. I use the analogy of a do-it-yourself home mechanic.

Would a person go buy a do-it-yourself book on how to perform open heart surgery, read it, and the follow along step-by-step to operate in his own family member? If not then why on earth would anyone imagine they could to the same thing with their own or a family member’s salvation on their eternal souls???! Only a person who was arrogant or irresponsible or very desperate or a control freak who does not trust anyone but himself would even think to do such a thing.

James

This brings up something that maybe we should further discuss - hopefully in a way that the person that self-interprets Scripture because he/she is arrogant, irresponsible, desperate, a control freak, or untrusting can come to see that they ARE in fact, self-interpreting.

It seems so simple, just reading black print on white paper. From the time we learn how to read, we are supposed to comprehend what we read. That IS interpreting. To go through school, college, we have to interpret to comprehend everything we read. On a daily basis, we have to interpret to comprehend everything to perform that certain function or learn that particular thing.

It seems that people don’t realize that reading the Bible is different. Just like we wouldn’t pick up a book on open heart surgery, read it, then go perform open heart surgery, we shouldn’t read the Bible and think that because we “comprehend” what the words are saying, that we understand the correct interpretation of it.

When I read the Bible, sometimes I think, “It seems so easy to understand.” I think this is part of the problem. It “seems” so comprehendable as compared to say reading the open heart surgery book. “This is just writing about Christianity, history, anyone can understand it.” The problem with me, you, anyone reading it for themselves to discover Truth is that we are not guaranteed to read it in the authoritative context in which it was meant to convey when it was written. Only the Church can authoritatively teach/interpret Scripture because the Truth was revealed to Her - She taught it, wrote it and STILL teaches it. Not just any church, any individual in any church, but, the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. We don’t have to figure out that Truth anymore, it was already revealed. All we have to do is follow the teachings and traditions that we have been taught by the Apostles. Instead of doing that, some people have decided to follow men that left the Christ’s Church to teach their own ideology. 500 years later, look at the mess that humans have created by being their own authority on what Scripture “says.”

 

[ralphy]

I know you probably feel like we’re coming at you from all angles here, ralph. Again, I commend you for atleast “trying” to keep up with all of us as we engage you in dialogue. But allhers was not addressing baptism here…but rather the need for authentic human teaching regarding Scripture. What do you make of this biblical event of the Eunich who could read, but not understand?

The Eunich was trying to figure out who was being talked about in the book of Isaiah. Philip explained to him who that was refering to. Ralph

 

[jmcrae]

The Eunich was trying to figure out who was being talked about in the book of Isaiah. Philip explained to him who that was refering to. Ralph

But if the Bible is all we need, why would the Eunuch need an ordained man with Apostolic authority like Philip to explain it to him?

 

[ralphy]

This brings up something that maybe we should further discuss - hopefully in a way that the person that self-interprets Scripture because he/she is arrogant, irresponsible, desperate, a control freak, or untrusting can come to see that they ARE in fact, self-interpreting.

It seems so simple, just reading black print on white paper. From the time we learn how to read, we are supposed to comprehend what we read. That IS interpreting. To go through school, college, we have to interpret to comprehend everything we read. On a daily basis, we have to interpret to comprehend everything to perform that certain function or learn that particular thing.

It seems that people don’t realize that reading the Bible is different. Just like we wouldn’t pick up a book on open heart surgery, read it, then go perform open heart surgery, we shouldn’t read the Bible and think that because we “comprehend” what the words are saying, that we understand the correct interpretation of it.

When I read the Bible, sometimes I think, “It seems so easy to understand.” I think this is part of the problem. It “seems” so comprehendable as compared to say reading the open heart surgery book. “This is just writing about Christianity, history, anyone can understand it.” The problem with me, you, anyone reading it for themselves to discover Truth is that we are not guaranteed to read it in the authoritative context in which it was meant to convey when it was written. Only the Church can authoritatively teach/interpret Scripture because the Truth was revealed to Her - She taught it, wrote it and STILL teaches it. Not just any church, any individual in any church, but, the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. We don’t have to figure out that Truth anymore, it was already revealed. All we have to do is follow the teachings and traditions that we have been taught by the Apostles. Instead of doing that, some people have decided to follow men that left the Christ’s Church to teach their own ideology. 500 years later, look at the mess that humans have created by being their own authority on what Scripture “says.”

You talk about the church as if it was a single person, “go ask the church”. Of course you really mean go ask a priest, bishop, etc. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us, but we are also to study the word to understand what it is teaching. There are certainly some “priests” that I would not ask about scripture, as per their conduct, I may have to visit them in jail. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

But if the Bible is all we need, why would the Eunuch need an ordained man with Apostolic authority like Philip to explain it to him?

Any one that knew that this scripture was about Christ could have explained it to the Eunuch. Ralph

 

[jmcrae]

Any one that knew that this scripture was about Christ could have explained it to the Eunuch. Ralph

And how would they know this, without the Holy Tradition of the Apostles to guide them?

 

[Shannon9791]

You talk about the church as if it was a single person, “go ask the church”. Of course you really mean go ask a priest, bishop, etc. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us, but we are also to study the word to understand what it is teaching. There are certainly some “priests” that I would not ask about scripture, as per their conduct, I may have to visit them in jail. Ralph

The Church is a single entity, made up of all the faithful, guided by the Holy Spirit since day 1. There are also many portestant ministers who are just as guilty as some bad priests. You do realize that visiting the imprisoned is one of the corporal works of mercy, something you DO that God looks favorably upon.

 

[jmcrae]

You talk about the church as if it was a single person, “go ask the church”.

The deposit of the faith is easily accessible, through Church documents, books, letters, hymns, prayers, litanies, rituals, and oral teaching.

Of course you really mean go ask a priest, bishop, etc. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us, but we are also to study the word to understand what it is teaching. There are certainly some “priests” that I would not ask about scripture, as per their conduct, I may have to visit them in jail.

This is all very true - we discern the teaching of the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit and by the use of our God-given intelligence. With regard to individual priests, there are some who freely admit that they are not as well educated on certain subjects as they would have liked to be - and it has nothing to do with whether or not they would go to jail.

There are lots of people in jail who know their Bible and Catechism quite well, after having so much time on their hands.