The Bible is Catholic -

[JRKH]

This thread is being split off from the OSAS thread because it was off topic there.
I had raised the point in conversation that the Bible is but one small part of the whole of God’s presence and revelation. That the Bible is, in fact, a Catholic book and cannot be properly understood outside of the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church.

To our Protestant Brethren I offer the opportunity to explain how you feel it is possible to accept and use the Bible apart from the Church that wrote, compiled, taught, interpreted, translated, protected and defended the Holy bible 1500 years.

Below are some of the relevant posts from that other thread.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Phil12123
**
You are missing the point by saying anything about “Roman”. The fact remains that the Catholic Church teaches that confession to a priest is the normative, if not only, way for the average person to get sins committed after baptism forgiven. And yet you don’t see a single instance in Acts or any of the epistles where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.

The only teaching we can be sure came from Jesus and the Apostles is that set forth in the Word of God,** which teaches nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office. Besides, the confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”

Phil,
I pulled these sections out of your post to make one simple observation.
You claim that the only way we know what authentically came from Jesus is that which is contained in the “Word of God”; a title you seem to reserve to be exclusively belonging to the Bible. Yet how can this be? Jesus never wrote anything down, nor did any of his diciples write anything while Jesus was walked among us.

Instead He instituted a Church to which He promised a Guiding Spirit, the Paraclete. He also promised that He would be with His Church and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
He gave this Church the mission of spreading the good news of the kingdom. He gave this Church authority, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and to hold sins, and to speak in His name.
He gave this Church a Steward, or Vicar and leaders to establish order and grow the Church.
He also promised that He would write His Law upon our hearts.

In none of the above was a written “manual” ever stated or implied by Jesus other than for those scriptures already written at the time he walked among us.
So how is it that you have this “Word of God” in written form?
How can you know it IS, in fact, the “Word of God”?
How can you know it is the “Complete” Word of God?
By what authority do you accept and use this book?
Why do you accept it?
And most importantly, why do you accept the Bible outside of the early traditions of the Church?

You treat the Bible as though it was intended to be a “How to” manual for church building even though there is precious little actual technical data in it as regards how the Church was set up in various cities. You then ignore the other writings of the early, pre-biblical, Church as set down by the Early Church Fathers. Why?

If the Early Church Fathers, those who are within only a very few generations of the Apostles and Christ Himself, cannot be trusted to have recorded the actual teachings of the apostles, we have a very real problem with regards the Bible.
For if these men were not Spirit filled, inspired leaders of The Only Christian Church at the time, how can we trust them in anything they wrote or did? How can we know that they correctly selected the Books used in the Bible? So the volume we call the Bible then comes into question.
However, if we take on faith, as we must, that these men were indeed Spirit filled Christian Leaders and the Holy Spirit guided and guarded their work, then it follows that their writings, and teachings on the structure of the Church are likewise guarded, though not considered to be appropriate for inclusion in the Bible, since the Bible has a different function.

The Bible’s function was to be the gathering and codifying of only the oldest and most widely regarded of the Church writings. The Bible was intended to only carry the most narrow group of commonly accepted books. It was never intended to be used outside of the Church which compiled it.

So in summary, you say that the only thing you can know for sure is that which you find in “God’s Word”. To you that means, “The Bible”. Yet without the Early Church, without Tradition, you cannot show that the Bible IS the Word of God. So your argument that priestly confession is not biblical is mute since it is practiced in the Early Church during pre-bible times. That is during a time when the Church was governed by OT Scripture, by the Apostles or by those directly apointed and approved by them as Guided by the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Phil Responded:

Whatever. Now, perhaps you might respond, if you like, to my specific points.

1. Nowhere do we see in any of the writings of the Apostles a single instance of where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.
2. The Apostles wrote nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office.
3. The confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Phil12123
Whatever. Now, perhaps you might respond, if you like, to my specific points.

Given this response, why should I bother? I believe in both the Bible and in Christ’s duly intituted Church which compiled and tranmitted said Bible. Therefore I see no discrepency between the teachings of the Bible and the Sacraments of the Church.
You deny the Church instituted by Christ through His Apostles and their successors. You ignore the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Traditions passed down through oral Teachings for at least 350 years before the Bible you hold even existed. Therefore you cut off the Words in the Bible from the Living Church of Christ.
If you wish for me to try and respond to your questions, I’m afraid you’re going to have to first convince me that the Bible (NT) is the property of God apart from the Catholic Church.

1. Nowhere do we see in any of the writings of the Apostles a single instance of where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.

1. The Apostles wrote nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office.

1. The confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”

I think it is safe to say that you cannot prove that the Apostles ever wrote anything with the possible exception of some of the epistles. In most cases of the early Church, the oldest scriptural texts available were copies of even earlier texts.
These texts have been held as Scriptural due to the Tradition by which they were transmitted to the next generation.

Personally I have no problem conceding that the Bible contains only sketchy references to the items you list above. However, since I do not limit God to the one tiny slice of His revelation that happened to be written down, I don’t have a problem with this.
You see I trust Jesus and I take Him at His Word. That His Church has been built on Peter. I trust that hell has not prevailed and that the succesors to the Apostles have successfully protected the faith. I trust that God writes his Law in my heart, and that word cannot be corrupted.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Po18guy posted:

Phil, my brother in Christ, you have to take your Protestant glasses off to see what we are trying to teach about Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy). Remember that scripture came as the Apostles realized that Jesus would not return in their lifetimes. OK so far? So, since the church was fairly well established, those practices that were commonly occurring were not written of in detail, specifically because they were the exact “traditions” that Paul exhorted the Thessalonians to keep. Since your faith “tradition” does not include the early church traditions of Paul, the limitations of scripture will not allow these arguments to make sense to you.

You must take a fresh, untinted look at the early church to see that it continues in the Orthodox and Catholic. Scripture is the Catholic’s right hand, but Tradition remains the left. The early celebration of the Eucharist is one of the Traditions that have been kept at a high price in blood. The many who suffered and died (sound familiar?) to preserve the faith had excellent reasons for defending what they recognized as God’s revealed truth. To see the others, you must examine the continuing, unbroken Traditions practiced by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches.

But, it will remain a foreign language until you take your glasses off.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Ronald E
James, I was just reading your response to Phil and it hit me that, in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus tells us how to pray. One line reads, “…Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven…”
From Jesus’ Words He tells us that the structure of the Kingdom of God on earth is to be like the structure in Heaven.
There is to be one leader on earth who as God is in Heaven. We are to be united under that one leader, etc.

As well we are united under one leader - Christ our Lord. Christ the King of His Kingdom.
The thing that most NC’s miss is that Kings would often apoint Stewards to govern their kingdoms. These stewards were given great power and leeway to act in the King’s name while the King Himself was not physically present.
The King’s steward would be given the 'Keys" to the kingdom and what he opened was opened and what he shut remained shut until the king’s return.
Look at Joseph in Egypt as an example.
This is all that Jesus did when He appointed Peter to head the Church. He appointed a Steward. We call it a Vicar. When the origional Steward died, and the King had not returned yet, a new Steward was selected. The method of selection may have changed, and not all selections have been good ones, but the office of Steward to the King has always been occupied.

I had an addtional thought last night as well. The three foundational sources of the Church act very much like the three branches of our government in the US. In the Church it is Scripture, Magesterium, Seat of Peter, in the Government it is the Law, The Congress and the Executive. The purpose of each is to counterbalance the others. Remove any of these three and the balance is lost.

The great thing about our republic is that we have recognized and respected the authority of the Constitution and the law. Just as the Church has always respected and upheld the vital importance of scripture. However our republic is not a slave to the law. Great volumes of information, opinions, case studies, historical treatises etc. give us insight into what and how and why the laws exist the way they do, and how they were intended to be implemented. The Church also has this great treasure of historical documents and evidence to help her govern and interpret and properly apply the great truths of scripture. Unfortunately those who believe in Scripture alone do not have this and spiritual anarchy is the result.

Catholics would be the last ones to say that the Church is perfect. But it is precisely that imperfection that has made it so valuable and remarkable. The Church has stood the test of time, not by her perfection, but by her remarkable, self correcting structure. By the fact that systems within the Church are constantly working to corrrect imbalances, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

1. Nowhere do we see in any of the writings of the Apostles a single instance of where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.

Well, we read it differently! Second, the Church does not teach that a person cannot be saved or go to heaven without confessing to a priest. Third, this is not a RCC phenomenon. All the Churches founded by the Apostles and their successors have this practice from the first century until today, so it clearly has nothing to do with Rome. It is Apostolic.

2. The Apostles wrote nothing about "priests" in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that "priests" and "presbyters" have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about "priests" in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed "priests" when He fullfilled that function or office.

The duties of presbyters an priests are identical. Priest is the English formation of the word Presbyter. Jesus is our great High Priests, and has made us a kingdom of priests. Some people devote their whole lives to that service.

3. The confession of sins "to one another" is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, "that you may be healed."

Yes, and there have been many changes in the practice of confession over the years, but these elements have stayed the same. The sacrament is one of healing, and is administered by the presbyter.

 

[teancum79]

The RCC is due credit (or blame depending on your particular view) for assembling the Bible into its current state. That however does not make the writings their property. Those words where written by God’s prophets and others from days of old. They don’t belong to any one church.

 

[mercygate]

The RCC is due credit (or blame depending on your particular view) for assembling the Bible into its current state. That however does not make the writings their property. Those words where written by God’s prophets and others from days of old. They don’t belong to any one church.

I see what you are trying to say. But if somebody takes those writings and interprets them in a way that is contrary to the Church that identified them as Scripture, contrary to the practice of the Church out of which they arose, and outside of the Church whose Apostolic forefathers were given the promise by Christ Himself that He would be “with you always” and to whom Christ similarly promised to send “another paraclete to guide you into all the truth” – well, where does the credibility lie? With the Church whose bishops today descend in direct physical, spiritual, and doctrinal succession from those apostles? or with some guy who grabs the book, reads it outside of the matrix that produced it, and decides the Church is wrong?

Pick one.

 

[JRKH]

The RCC is due credit (or blame depending on your particular view) for assembling the Bible into its current state. That however does not make the writings their property. Those words where written by God’s prophets and others from days of old. They don’t belong to any one church.

The idea that the Bible doesn’t belong, “to any one Church” is a complete fallacy. The fallacy is that there is more than one “Christian” Church, when in reality there is only the Catholic Church and those who either 1) stand in opposition to her, or 2) respect her but are in an imperfect communion with her.

The “prophets and others from days of old” that you refer to are the very persons who were charged with the spreading of the Gospel and building up of the Church that Christ Himself instituted. Every one of the NT books was written within the context of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. A great many other books were written accepted and widely used within the Church before the organization of the NT canon. Letters, histories, even a catachism all make up the large deposit of writings from the Pre-NT canon days of the Church.

The NT of the Bible was compiled to contain only those books found to be the most authentic available from the very first days of the Church. They needed to be written either by an Apostle, or someone who personally knew an Apostle. They needed to be consistant with one another and they had to not contradict what the Church recieved through the oral tradition of the Apostles. Never was the Bible intended to be used apart and seperate from the Church,the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the Sacred Traditions recieved from the Apostles.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I see what you are trying to say. But if somebody takes those writings and interprets them in a way that is contrary to the Church that identified them as Scripture, contrary to the practice of the Church out of which they arose, and outside of the Church whose Apostolic forefathers were given the promise by Christ Himself that He would be “with you always” and to whom Christ similarly promised to send “another paraclete to guide you into all the truth” – well, where does the credibility lie? With the Church whose bishops today descend in direct physical, spiritual, and doctrinal succession from those apostles? or with some guy who grabs the book, reads it outside of the matrix that produced it, and decides the Church is wrong?

Pick one.

Well said mercygate. I particularly like the “matrix that produced it”.
I hope you won’t be offended if you see me using that phrase in the future.

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Well said mercygate. I particularly like the “matrix that produced it”.
I hope you won’t be offended if you see me using that phrase in the future.

Peace
James

Not at all. Is the left jab offended by the right upper cut?

 

[guanophore]

The RCC is due credit (or blame depending on your particular view) for assembling the Bible into its current state. That however does not make the writings their property. Those words where written by God’s prophets and others from days of old. They don’t belong to any one church.

Just a couple of clarifying points. The Roman Rite of the Catholic Church did not exist at the time the canon was formed.

Secondly, there is only ONE CHURCH. The Bible as we have it was assembled by, for, and about the Catholic Church. It was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. Once it is separated by those who reject the ONE CHURCH founded by Christ, errors abound.

 

[teancum79]

The idea that the Bible can’t be used or understood outside the Catholic church argument could be used by Jews to forbid Christians access to the OT. Whole Luther is not all that well liked in the church he had some points that many would see as valid (letting people read the entire Bible being high on the list). I’ve yet to see anything aside from catholic tradition that says the catholic have a monopoly on the words of Gods prophets from ancient times.

 

[brkn1]

As well we are united under one leader - Christ our Lord. Christ the King of His Kingdom.
The thing that most NC’s miss is that Kings would often apoint Stewards to govern their kingdoms. These stewards were given great power and leeway to act in the King’s name while the King Himself was not physically present.
The King’s steward would be given the 'Keys" to the kingdom and what he opened was opened and what he shut remained shut until the king’s return.
Look at Joseph in Egypt as an example.
This is all that Jesus did when He appointed Peter to head the Church. He appointed a Steward. We call it a Vicar. When the origional Steward died, and the King had not returned yet, a new Steward was selected. The method of selection may have changed, and not all selections have been good ones, but the office of Steward to the King has always been occupied.

I had an addtional thought last night as well. The three foundational sources of the Church act very much like the three branches of our government in the US. In the Church it is Scripture, Magesterium, Seat of Peter, in the Government it is the Law, The Congress and the Executive. The purpose of each is to counterbalance the others. Remove any of these three and the balance is lost.

The great thing about our republic is that we have recognized and respected the authority of the Constitution and the law. Just as the Church has always respected and upheld the vital importance of scripture. However our republic is not a slave to the law. Great volumes of information, opinions, case studies, historical treatises etc. give us insight into what and how and why the laws exist the way they do, and how they were intended to be implemented. The Church also has this great treasure of historical documents and evidence to help her govern and interpret and properly apply the great truths of scripture. Unfortunately those who believe in Scripture alone do not have this and spiritual anarchy is the result.

Catholics would be the last ones to say that the Church is perfect. But it is precisely that imperfection that has made it so valuable and remarkable. The Church has stood the test of time, not by her perfection, but by her remarkable, self correcting structure. By the fact that systems within the Church are constantly working to corrrect imbalances, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

According to the RCC required understanding, there is no such thing as by “Grace alone” through “Faith alone” in “Jesus alone” according to the “Bible alone”.
There does however, seem to be such a thing as “Keys alone”, which gives the “RCC alone” “all rights and powers of the Holy Spirit alone” to dispense with God’s grace.
Whatever happened to the sovereign Will of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus spoke of when talking to Nicodemas?
Have those claiming to possess “keys alone” now “dispensed” with the Holy Spirit’s previous “rights and powers alone” of being the sole dispenser alone of His sovereign Will?
The RCC would have us believe that the Holy Spirit must now do His sovereign work only through their own RCC timing and will.
They are not feeding the sheep the simple gospel of Jesus Christ anymore, as Peter was commanded. They are preaching themselves as being a necessary part of that saving gospel.
This makes them a lord, rather than the servant they falsely claim to be, of the gospel.

The RCC does not follow what Paul preached in (2 Corinthians 4:5):

“For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.”

We all are given those same keys of understanding the Truth once the Holy Spirit permanently indwells us, after we are born from above. Only God does the dispensing of those keys, not any man or group of men. We have no business preaching ourselves as a necessary ingredient of the simple gospel. We are told to preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ alone.

 

[Jimmy_B]

This thread is being split off from the OSAS thread because it was off topic there.
I had raised the point in conversation that the Bible is but one small part of the whole of God’s presence and revelation. That the Bible is, in fact, a Catholic book and cannot be properly understood outside of the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church.

To our Protestant Brethren I offer the opportunity to explain how you feel it is possible to accept and use the Bible apart from the Church that wrote, compiled, taught, interpreted, translated, protected and defended the Holy bible 1500 years.

Below are some of the relevant posts from that other thread.

Yep…I agree…the Bible is a “Catholic Book”.
Peace

 

[mercygate]

The idea that the Bible can’t be used or understood outside the Catholic church argument could be used by Jews to forbid Christians access to the OT. Whole Luther is not all that well liked in the church he had some points that many would see as valid (letting people read the entire Bible being high on the list). I’ve yet to see anything aside from catholic tradition that says the catholic have a monopoly on the words of Gods prophets from ancient times.

Actually, the Jews DID read the scriptures within a carefully protected context – In fact, the Prophet Ezra first organized the Scribes whose office was to interpret the Law to the people.

You have bought into the myth that Catholics are not permitted to read the Bible. I do not know how this fairy tale persists since all Catholic Bibles have a notice at the beginning declaring that special spiritual benefits are conferred upon those who prayerfully read the Scriptures.

You seem to view the ancient Prophets as not part of the Church. We do not, since Scripture tells us that the faith of Abraham – and by extension those who followed in his path – "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. When Catholics pray the litany of the Saints, we ask for the prayers of all the ancient Patriarchs and Prophets.

Moreover, the Church does not “forbid” the Scriptures to all but Catholics. However, she does read them in a deeply contemplative, comprehensive, and cogent way that I never found before I became Catholic. Oh, BTW, I was seminary trained for the ministry in a protestant denomination.

 

[JRKH]

Just a couple of clarifying points. The Roman Rite of the Catholic Church did not exist at the time the canon was formed.

Secondly, there is only ONE CHURCH. The Bible as we have it was assembled by, for, and about the Catholic Church. It was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. Once it is separated by those who reject the ONE CHURCH founded by Christ, errors abound.

Thanks for that clarification re: the Roman Rite.
Being a member of that group I do tend to write from that perspective. The Fact does remain though that, as you said, the bible was never intended to be used outside of the tradition that produced it.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The idea that the Bible can’t be used or understood outside the Catholic church argument could be used by Jews to forbid Christians access to the OT.
Whole Luther is not all that well liked in the church he had some points that many would see as valid (letting people read the entire Bible being high on the list). I’ve yet to see anything aside from catholic tradition that says the catholic have a monopoly on the words of Gods prophets from ancient times.

Mercygate did a good kob of answering your post. I just want to add that, if you take some time to study real, neutral, authentic historic data, you will find that the Catholic tradition is THE tradition that goes back to Christ. All other Christian traditions are splits from that.
Naturally these others would not say that the Catholics have a monopoly.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

According to the RCC required understanding, there is no such thing as by “Grace alone” through “Faith alone” in “Jesus alone” according to the “Bible alone”.

You are somewhat correct. The Church teaches that we are saved by God Through Christ who gives us Sanctifying Grace to affirm and strengthen our Faith according to the teachings and sacraments administered by His One Holy Catholic Church, of which the bible is a central part.

There does however, seem to be such a thing as “Keys alone”, which gives the “RCC alone” “all rights and powers of the Holy Spirit alone” to dispense with God’s grace.

Jesus Gave the Keys to a Steward to guard and guide His Church. Therefore the “keys” belong to Peter and his successors as it was the will and good pleasure of Christ to do so. The Holy spirit works with and through the Holy Catholic Church to guide and teach the faithful. The Holy Spirit ALSO guides each individual in grace toward heaven. So you see the Spirit is working on many levels within the Church.

Whatever happened to the sovereign Will of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus spoke of when talking to Nicodemas?
Have those claiming to possess “keys alone” now “dispensed” with the Holy Spirit’s previous “rights and powers alone” of being the sole dispenser alone of His sovereign Will?

The Sovereign Will of the Holy Spirit is intact and active at any number of levels within the Church. As mentioned above, the Spirit acts with and through individuals to help them grow in grace and witness. I’m sure you’ve seen this in your own life. The Spirit is also active with and through communities, parishes and dioceses to feed the spiritual needs of those specific groups. The Spirit is especially active at the megesterial level where it provides guidance to the Holy Father and the congregations on questions of ever increasing complexity in our world.

The RCC would have us believe that the Holy Spirit must now do His sovereign work only through their own RCC timing and will.

Not at all. The Spirit is not harnessed to the Church as you seem to think, but rather the Church is harnessed to the Spirit.

They are not feeding the sheep the simple gospel of Jesus Christ anymore, as Peter was commanded. They are preaching themselves as being a necessary part of that saving gospel.

The Church is a necessary part of salvation. The Catholic Church has been teaching the same basic Gospel for nearly 2000 years. Suppose there had never been any Church Heirarchy developed in the first centuries before the NT canon was codified? How would the earliest heresies have been combated? How would the Church have even survived long enough to develop the NT if it weren’t for the visible church structure? The truth is it wouldn’t have. Jesus and The Holy Spirit knew full well what they were doing when they established the visible Church. God knew the challenges the faithful would face and further knew that the people needed a visible, authoritative organization to defend the faith and settle spiritual issues down through the centuries.

This makes them a lord, rather than the servant they falsely claim to be, of the gospel.

Not at all. Have you ever heard of political office holders as being the servants of the people? The same may be said of the church. Granted there is a great deal of pomp (which I suspect the Holy Father wishes he could do away with), but all in all the Church stands to minister to Christ’s faithful disciples, and She and Her discipline are vital elements for protecting both the faith and the faithful.

The RCC does not follow what Paul preached in (2 Corinthians 4:5):
“For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.”

I’m afraid this only demonstrates a poor understanding of what the Church teaches and believes.

We all are given those same keys of understanding the Truth once the Holy Spirit permanently indwells us, after we are born from above. Only God does the dispensing of those keys, not any man or group of men. We have no business preaching ourselves as a necessary ingredient of the simple gospel. We are told to preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ alone.

On a personal level, you could be right. There is nothing preventing the Spirit from guiding an individual to the correct understanding of scripture. However the odds of it are very slim indeed. Not because of the Spirit’s limitations, or the Churches limitations but because of the limitations of the individual.

The information contained in the Bible is at least 1900 years old. The people they were writing to, the languages used, modes of communciation, methods of expression are all things that make independent understanding of the scriptures very difficult indeed. I know, because I did this myself. In my years away from the Church I studied the Gospels and came to a number of conclusions that were either completely erroneous, or at least partly so. I do believe the Spirit was guiding me because I never came to any conclusion that was directly contrary to Christian Faith, but I did not possess the capacity to fully understand what I was reading.

The Church provides that safety net to prevent our straying too far afield in our studies and interpretations. The surest proof of this in my opinion is that there have been very few splits within the Catholic Church (Roman, Orthodox, Byzantine etc.) in 2000 years, but literally thousands of splits within the Protestant Churches in just 500 years or so.

Peace
James