The difficulty started when the “workers in the vineyard”
‘assemblers’] claimed that they ‘owned’ the vineyard ! =
‘sole interpreter’ - ‘unerring’ in such capacity.]
reen, what you are really claiming is that the Scriptures have an existence independent of the Church. The Church, as you acknowledge, was the instrument of their production and the matrix of their meaning. Your hired-hand image of the Church discredits the Body of Christ. The Church is the Servant of the Word.
‘Workers in the vineyard’ is an image used by Christ Himself…Who told us to be servants of all.
And, in another context:
“The harvest is great, but the laborers are few.”
Matt. 9: 37
The Church was to be the “servant” of the Word, given to her.
And how “matrix of their meaning”?
The Scriptures were given to a group of Christians who then proceeded to give a ‘meaning’ that is not in Scripture…making the claim that these interpretations and Tradition were protected by the Holy Spirit.
Wonder what the eventually Christian Bereans would have made of papacy, sacraments, infallibility, indulgences, purgatory, dispensing graces, mediators…
Acts 17: 11
reen, what you are really claiming is that the Scriptures have an existence independent of the Church.
The Church is far broader than the CC.
In Christian Churches, all over the world, Scripture finds a
home - so that the scriptures do not have “an existence independent of the Church.”
This is the real point of disagreement, I think.
The Church, the Body of Christ, is far broader than the CC.
If one chooses to view the Scriptures as
infallibly interpreted by the CC, and accept that
all of Tradition is scripturally cogent - i.e., that
the magisterium has the protection of the Holy Spirit,
in stating doctrine that has no scriptural basis - I have no
difficulty with that. I just don’t agree with it.
[e.g. The Assumption]
This may or may not be the case, but to declare
same ‘dogma’ without a scriptual basis…