How Do Catholics Form Doctrines?

[Evangetholic]

It seems, honestly, that the Bible is irrelevant to Catholic Theology. (This is an impression I'd be very glad to be talked out of.)

[Evangetholic]

And if anyone takes the bait it'd be interesting to know (and official teaching, even Dei Verbum, is unclear), does the Catholic Church affirm scripture as inerrant and infallible? (hint: this isn't about any particular translation--I and every Protestant who got past the third grade only believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant in its now lost original texts.)

[Aloysius]

to me, the idea that lost original texts that you'd have to be a student of ancient languages to decipher, and an expert in ancient cultures to fully understand, being the sole and only portion of the word of God is decidedly non-incarnational.  you basically need a few academic PhD's to really get to the root of what the "original text" said or meant, and even at that point there's a lot of guess work and disagreement.

 

the scriptures are held to be inerrant and infallible in what they were intended by the sacred authors to say--that's the extent of the Holy Spirit's inspiration.  God didn't just write them up himself, He inspired the intentions of the sacred authors so that the intended meaning was the Inspired Word of God.  but Christ came to become incarnate in the world and to lift it up to divinity, not give us some dead letter of a book for reference to settle questions.  the Church's teaching authority is just as much a part of the Word of God as scripture is; indeed, the canon of the New Testament rests entirely upon the 4th Century Church's teaching authority, as they picked some books but not others to be included liturgically as the inspired word of God.  and when it comes down to it, that's what the scriptures were always intended for anyway--liturgy, to be read in the assembly... that's what St. Paul's letters were addressed for and sent to, so that they'd be read aloud at the liturgical celebration, not read and studied for private interpretations (though private reading is good, prayer, private or communal/liturgical, with the scriptures is much better, they weren't an all out doctrinal outline, they're a compilation of spiritual texts meant to infuse the communal prayer life of the people with the inspired inerrant Word of God).

 

the Scriptures are hugely important, but doctrine is not established by proof-texting (which by its very nature can never be an in-context practice, because it is always outside the context of prayer or liturgy)... however, reference back to the Scriptures is made in texts talking about every Catholic doctrine you can think of, papal encyclicals are littered with scriptural references, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is full of them.  Because the Inspired Word of God infuses not just our spiritual prayer lives, it infuses our doctrine not as its skeleton, but as its leaven, breathing life into it from the Blessed Time when Our Lord and His Apostles walked upon the earth.  But it infuses something that's real and continuing, an incarnational body of Christ that is the Church that continues to express the Word of God through the teaching of the Magisterium.

[Evangetholic]

The Doctrines of the Christian faith can be taught from scripture without need of a PHD. The Bible in even a bad translation  teaches me that there is one God who expresses Himself as Three Distinct Persons, who are not alien to one another, who are somehow Three, but still ONE. It teaches me that the One of These Persons came to the earth to die and take away my sins and my shame. It tells me to repent and to be baptized. It tells me that if I belong to Him then He will cause me to stand and that I might expect His Mercy, His Kindness, and His Love--FOREVER.

[Fidei Defensor]

Sorry for the document dump, but here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Sacred Scripture:
 
 

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).
The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

The New Testament

124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church's beginnings under the Spirit's guidance.97

125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior".98

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."99

2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100

3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101

127 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:

There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds.102
But above all it's the gospels that occupy my mind when I'm at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I'm always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto.103

The unity of the Old and New Testaments

128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107

130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone."108 Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God's plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

V. SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."109 Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."110

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112

 

[Aloysius]

The Doctrines of the Christian faith can be taught from scripture without need of a PHD. The Bible in even a bad translation  teaches me that there is one God who expresses Himself as Three Distinct Persons, who are not alien to one another, who are somehow Three, but still ONE. It teaches me that the One of These Persons came to the earth to die and take away my sins and my shame. It tells me to repent and to be baptized. It tells me that if I belong to Him then He will cause me to stand and that I might expect His Mercy, His Kindness, and His Love--FOREVER.

that's all very good.  there are things over which disagreements can arise that just the scripture cannot solve, and the original meanings of many things in scripture are obscured by not just the translation but the complete lack of context as to what the sacred author was thinking when they wrote this or that thing, what cultural or social context they came out of.

 

the basics you describe there are great, you can get that from the scriptures, you can get that from scripture-filled liturgies (I again assert that the scriptures were written to be read aloud in liturgical prayer, that was the whole intention of all the new testament from the Gospels to the letters, they were all meant to be infused into liturgical prayer, and it is from that that most people would derive such truths as you describe them--through prayer infused by the scriptures)... once you have those basics and you engage with those realities, it's the start of something great and powerful.  it's all the more powerful when it's situated in the living Body of Christ with living successors to the Apostles and communal liturgical prayer and good works.  private reading of the scriptures can also be a good devotion, absolutely, and studying them can be a worthy pursuit, but there's much more to it than that--there is the scriptures standing alive within the context they were meant for, not in some leatherbound book, but spoken aloud in prayerful liturgy, taught from and through.

 

I'm sure much of what I'm saying is present in your church as well, but I'm pointing to it to point to the larger context in which I see the entire doctrinal magisterium as this organ of the living, breathing Word of God.

[Evangetholic]

that's all very good.  there are things over which disagreements can
arise that just the scripture cannot solve, and the original meanings of
many things in scripture are obscured by not just the translation but
the complete lack of context as to what the sacred author was thinking
when they wrote this or that thing, what cultural or social context they
came out of.

 

Give me one example of one of these things--these disagreements that God's word is deficient to handle. And does one imagine that the Protestant sits alone with the Book and gives no thought as to what might have gone into the writing of the words contained therein? Does one imagine that classical, learned, mainstream, magisterial Protestantism gives no wait to tradition when it goes to understand what the Book says? And further does one think the Bible, which describes itself in itself as "alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" in Hebrews 4:12 is some dry dead human work whose application and plain meaning may only be accessed by the wise? Where then shall we turn, for the Bible says that Christians are fools and that we've been chosen on account of our foolishness. In ten years of reading this book (or books about it) for at least one and one half hour each day, I have yet to come across any question about the divine will, the nature of man, or the reasonableness of the Christian faith we both affirm (those basics you spoke of that are the very difference between being alive and being dead, between burning in a fiery pit for an eternity or living with God for an eternity), and found it lacking. I've also yet to come across any one of its reasonable assertions that needs any help from man to convict the sinner, straighten out what is crooked, strengthen and encourage the saint and teach the truth about how the world operates. I stand in awe of God's work--and it is not deficient to purposes. If any man finds it deficient to his, then he must be about some business other than obeying Almighty God, rejecting his sins, and going to Heaven. My Bible does not need your Pope--at all.

And you (Catholics) are no more grafted into the Body of Christ than any other Christians. I do not exist outside of the Body of Christ. 

Edited February 14, 2013 by Evangetholic

[MIKolbe]

 

Give me one example of one of these things--these disagreements that God's word is deficient to handle.

 

polygamy, as it concerns a man with many wives.

 

Martin Luther was very educated, and was the first to assert Sola Scriptura, and he says this on the matter..

 

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

[MIKolbe]

also.. I think we believe that public revelation ended with the death of St. John, the Beloved Apostle.

 

where is that in Scripture?

 

 

 

 

Also, the books that make up the NT.  There were disagreements about that.  Many though Revelation should not be in, but the Shepard of Hermas and Some Other Dude's (Clement's I think) Letter to the Corinthians should be in.  Some reject Hebrews.  Some rejected anyone but Paul.  Some rejected everything from Paul. 

 

Yet, they couldn't turn to Scripture alone to find the answer.

 

Unless you believe the NT is an possibly errant list of inerrant books, you accept the Tradition of the Church (at least in one case).  If so, it seems a bit stutter-stepped to accept/submit to Tradition as it concerns the the makeup of the NT, but not fully accept its exegesis therein.

[PhuturePriest]

also.. I think we believe that public revelation ended with the death of St. John, the Beloved Apostle.

 

where is that in Scripture?

 

 

 

 

Also,
the books that make up the NT.  There were disagreements about that. 
Many though Revelation should not be in, but the Shepard of Hermas and
Some Other Dude's (Clement's I think) Letter to the Corinthians should
be in.  Some reject Hebrews.  Some rejected anyone but Paul.  Some
rejected everything from Paul. 

 

Yet, they couldn't turn to Scripture alone to find the answer.

 

Unless
you believe the NT is an possibly errant list of inerrant books, you
accept the Tradition of the Church (at least in one case).  If so, it
seems a bit stutter-stepped to accept/submit to Tradition as it concerns
the the makeup of the NT, but not fully accept its exegesis therein.

 

To build on this point, how do you think the New Testament was formed, Evangetholic? During the time that the books were being read and asked if they were truly inspired by God or not by the Bishops, there were over fifty different books of the Gospel. How did we come up with only four, and who on earth believed he had the authority to decide which ones were inspired and which ones were not? Before the New Testament was officially formed (Which happened in the fourth century), most people accepted the books of Clement and Shepherd of Hermas, but most rejected the book of Revelation because it was just so weird and no one believed it was inspired. How on earth were people taught for four centuries without the Bible, anyway? If Sola Scriptura is true and all we need is the Bible, how did we win anyone over? The successors of the Apostles didn't have vendors that sold the book of James and the book of John so people could read them and be enlightened. For four centuries, people were taught through oral tradition alone. Oral tradition is why the Church spread in the first few centuries, not the Bible.

Edited February 14, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[Starets]

for a good overview of how Catholic doctrine is formed, how error is distinguished from legitimate formation and development, it is best to read Newman's Essay Concerning the Development of Christian Doctrine. it is not the easiest book to read, unless of course you LIKE 75 word latinate sentences, but once you get used to his writing style it is worth the effort.

 

in order to determine which ideas are legitimate developements and which are corruptions, Newman argues that there are seven signs. first is Preservation of Type. Second is Continuity of Principles, Third is Assimilation, fourth is Logical Sequence, Fifth is Anticipation of the future, Sixth is Conservtive action on its past, and seventh is Chronic Vigour. He backs up his arguments with a plenitude of historical examples every step of the way.

 

The downside is that it is a 400+ page book. It would make good lenten reading though!

[Evangetholic]

polygamy, as it concerns a man with many wives.

 

Martin Luther was very educated, and was the first to assert Sola Scriptura, and he says this on the matter..

 

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

 

"One flesh" anyone? I do not believe Luther was infallible--I also am aware of him making this statement to one of the German princelings. His response was not a Biblical response.

[PhuturePriest]

"One flesh" anyone? I do not believe Luther was infallible--I also am aware of him making this statement to one of the German princelings. His response was not a Biblical response.

 

Yes, but that's precisely the point: Going off his belief of Sola Scriptora, he concluded the wrong thing. If his theory that all you had to do was read the Bible and everyone would reach the same conclusion is correct, then he wouldn't have done that. We wouldn't have fifty thousand Protestant denominations in the U.S. alone if his theory was true.

[Apotheoun]

"One flesh" anyone? I do not believe Luther was infallible--I also am aware of him making this statement to one of the German princelings. His response was not a Biblical response.

I am sure that Luther was aware of the "one flesh" statements in scripture, and yet polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament.  Nevertheless, scripture speaks of a man being the husband of only one wife in connection with ordination.

Luther was holding to what scripture explicitly said on the issue.  Monogamy is the common interpretation of scripture, but scripture never uses the word, nor says that it alone is acceptable.  It is the Church that interprets scripture in that way.

[Evangetholic]

also.. I think we believe that public revelation ended with the death of St. John, the Beloved Apostle.

 

where is that in Scripture?

 

 

 

 

Also, the books that make up the NT.  There were disagreements about that.  Many though Revelation should not be in, but the Shepard of Hermas and Some Other Dude's (Clement's I think) Letter to the Corinthians should be in.  Some reject Hebrews.  Some rejected anyone but Paul.  Some rejected everything from Paul. 

 

Yet, they couldn't turn to Scripture alone to find the answer.

 

Unless you believe the NT is an possibly errant list of inerrant books, you accept the Tradition of the Church (at least in one case).  If so, it seems a bit stutter-stepped to accept/submit to Tradition as it concerns the the makeup of the NT, but not fully accept its exegesis therein.

 

If I believed in the Catholic caricature of Sola Scriptura then these would be valid questions. The Magisterial Reformers  did not reject tradition as such (to do so would be a violation of the plain meaning of many sections of the Bible and of common sense)--the Bible is the sole, infallible guide for the Christian faith. Not the only thing that matters, just the surest place to build your doctrine from--and not some collection of confusing vagueness either. The broad consensus of faithful Christians settled the Canon.

I am sure that Luther was aware of the "one flesh" statements in scripture, and yet polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament.  Nevertheless, scripture speaks of a man being the husband of only one wife in connection with ordination.

Luther was holding to what scripture explicitly said on the issue.  Monogamy is the common interpretation of scripture, but scripture never uses the word, nor says that it alone is acceptable.  It is the Church that interprets scripture in that way.

 

No reasonable reading of the Bible in light of Christian history and the plain meaning of words could allow for polygamy. People saying random things about the Bible does not render the Bible unclear, it just exposes man as sinful.
 

Yes, but that's precisely the point: Going off his belief of Sola Scriptora, he concluded the wrong thing. If his theory that all you had to do was read the Bible and everyone would reach the same conclusion is correct, then he wouldn't have done that. We wouldn't have fifty thousand Protestant denominations in the U.S. alone if his theory was true.

 

Separation between Christians is scandalous and upsetting. I still do not see what this has to do with anything. throughout Christian history there have been divisions and schisms (Chalcedonians vs non-Chalcedonians east vs west Donatists vs Catholics, etc). Nor do I see a meaningful and purposeful unity of belief within the members of any Christian denomination inclusive of Catholics.