If doctrine is not based on the Bible, which was written by the apostles, then the Catholic Church is not listening to the Apostles. [/quote]
May I try to explain how Catholics see things so we can have a basis for discussion?
The Church already existed at the time of Christ’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension.
The Church were the Apostles, their followers, and their practices and beliefs.
The Scriptures were written down to record and codify what they were already doing and teaching - again, the Church.
Finally, we believe those Apostles are still among us in an unbroken line; and that Divine Truth continues to be revealed to us, albeit very slowly. This is, in part, what we mean by the “mystical body Christ,” including the Communion of Saints, etc.
And, nb: if the Scriptures were intended to be treated Sola Scriptura, then somewhere in the text, someone would have written: this is the law and the only law.
I am not trying to be an a-hole just trying to understand.[/quote]
Remember, some what Jesus “told us” was also revealed after his ascension. Both teachings and the meaning of those teachings were conveyed via the Holy Spirit. That is one of the last things Christ said - that they would be visited by the Holy Spirit and taught about how to go forward. Well, they went forward and continued to build the Church; that Church still exists and is still being “inspired,” as Saint Thomas Aquinas, among many others, were “inspired” to write theology that establishes a great deal of Doctrine.
Much of what Christ said and did - we are told in many places - was not written down.
You cannot escape interpreting Scripture in light of certain knowledge that has been passed down. You cannot just purely focus on Scripture. You are bringing “tradition” to your reading whether you know it or not.
Aquinas would (and I believe did, but I’d have to poke around to get references) say: Truth is one. Therefore, Doctrine and Scripture must be consistent. That, however, does not mean they’re identical. One might even say that each interpret the other.
[quote]I can understand what you are saying about the apostolic succession, but if the new pope who succeeded the previous pope never knew the previous pope then how does that work? How can there be a line if the person was not trained by that person? If this is true would not Pope Benedict be able to heal the masses? There are countless stories of the first apostles healing many people, but the most resent Popes do not have that ability.
This is very simplified and does not involve the supernatural of God, but are you saying that President Obama succeeded President Washington, and Obama has all the knowledge of Washington? [/quote]
To be honest, that’s a rather mechanistic and worldly understanding of Apostolic Succession: it is not a matter of knowledge per se; the Holy Sacrament of Priesthood is a mystical participation in a Communion that transects time and space. At the moment of the celebration of the Blessed Sacrament, there is no division between heaven and earth - and between Christ breaking the bread at the Holy Eucharist and the Priest before us doing the same, in the very same moment.
There is so much mysticism in the Catholic Church and it’s so beautiful - and felt to be so true - that it’s EXCEEDINGLY difficult for non-Catholics to understand it.