Authority

[GraceSaves]

The Catholic view on evolution is one that is fully IS that of creation, but does not simply reject the laws of science. Science is real, and elements of evolution are real. The elements of evolution that Christians reject are those that eliminate the necessity and beauty of our Creator.

Now you're attacking things you really don't know anything about. Catholics do not believe in "evolution," the Darwinian logic that you are so obviously implying, but elements of evolution that we can so obviously observe. Things evolve, change, and grow for the better. This happens.

It doesn't mean we came from monkeys or that God didn't creat us...

[ March 19, 2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:

Now you're attacking things you really don't know anything about.

That is quite a presumptuous and judgmental statement you have made, seeing you don't know much about me, and what I do know.

 

[LaRae]

DHK,

You said;

quote:

That is quite a presumptuous and judgmental statement you have made, seeing you don't know much about me, and what I do know.
-----------------------------------------

Based on what you said about RCC teaching you dont know what you are talking about....or you would never of said the Pope said it was ok to believe evolution.

The Church teaches creationism.

LaRae

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by LaRae:

Based on what you said about RCC teaching you dont know what you are talking about....or you would never of said the Pope said it was ok to believe evolution.
The Church teaches creationism.

3. "Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions."

"In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points" (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).
(Pope John Paul II, October 22, 1996)
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

"But he didn't endorse Darwin. He said that evolution, so far as it concerns man's bodily origins, is really a theological non-issue. With certain qualifications such as God's ultimate role in man's creation, the direct creation of the human soul by God and man's inherent dignity as a person, the theory of evolution needn't be seen as contrary to Christian revelation."

"John Paul II apparently accepts the idea widely (but not universally) held among biologists that the scientific evidence corroborates evolution."
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html

I did not say that the Catholic Church does not believe in Creation. I did say, however, that the Pope declared that evolution was a valid science to believe in, and that there is no conflict between it and the Bible. This is what the Pope believes, as the above quotes point out. The Pope does not even hold scientific views that are universally held among biologists, according to your own Catholic writings. His evoultionary views are in definite disagreement with Creation.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

On Authority:

St. Augustine in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4:5, 5:6, written A.D 397:

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure,deed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:--'Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.' Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I donor believe Manichaeus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. ... for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichaeus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichaeus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichaeus."

http://www.catholicoutlook.com

God bless,

Carson

 

[Carson Weber]

To Whom It May Concern:

The children of God have great freedom in the family of God. The Church does not emphatically teach "creationism" or "evolution".

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

God bless,

Carson

PS - I believe (after extensive study of the text) that Genesis 1 gives a non-chronological, topical account of creation.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

I believe (after extensive study of the text) that Genesis 1 gives a non-chronological, topical account of creation.

In other words, Carson, you do not believe in the historical account of Creation as God has told it in Genesis one. You prefer not to believe the Bible the way Catholics traditionally believed the Bible before Pius XII. Why such a change in belief? God never changed? He is still the same. He never changes: the same--yesterday, today, forever.
Thus our authority, the Bible, never changes. His Word abides forever. Catholic doctrine may change at the whim of a pope. But the Word of God will abide forever. It is our fnal authority in all matters of faith and practice.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

Where does it say in Scripture that the Genesis account of Creation is to be taken in the absolute, most literal sense?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Where does it say in Scripture that the Genesis account of Creation is to be taken in the absolute, most literal sense?

You choose to disbelieve the historical account of creation if you wish. That subject is well debated in the creation forum. The issue here is one of authority. The Catholic Church chose to believe the hostorical account of creation before the time of Pius XII, and after the time Pius XII, many have changed their minds--even the current Pope. Catholics pride themselves in a catechism that they can rely on, a magesterium to make decisions for them, but in truth their doctrine changes because they have more than one source of authority.
We have only one authority: the Word of God. It abides forever. It will never change. Its Words are both eternal and living. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
DHK

 

[Deacon's Son]

Hi DHK,

I just wanted to respectfully respond to a few things in your last post.

You wrote:

The issue here is one of authority. The Catholic Church chose to believe the hostorical account of creation before the time of Pius XII, and after the time Pius XII, many have changed their minds--even the current Pope.

I, personally, don't view an acceptance of scientific evidence as a possible way to interpret the creation narratives in Genesis as a "change of mind." Although the evidence seems to me to be overwhelming that the formation of our universe took quite a bit longer than seven literal days (as we now measure them), I nor the Church has any problem with a pious belief in a literal seven-day creation.

After all, the Church has been wrong before on scientific issues (read Galileo).

If, on the other hand, a Catholic chooses not to ignore the weight of science and looks upon the creation narratives of Genesis with a looser interpretation, the Church has no problem with that - as long as one does not lose sight of ten key points (taken from Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons? ):

1. All things were created by a loving God.
2. Man is made in the image of God, which means, among other things, that he is a spiritual being, with the powers of knowing and choosing.
3. Even if man's body evolved, God still created man, because God created the process of evolution and His providence guided it to give rise to the human race.
4. Whatever the origin of man's bodily form, his soul is a special creation of God, not the result of an evolutionary process. This is because spirit, unlike matter, is incapable of evolving, since it has no parts to evolve from one thing to another.
5. We all decended from one original set of parents.
6. Our original parents were created in a state of happiness.
7. Their obedience was tested and the transgressed the divine law at the prompting of the devil.
8. They lost the supernatural gifts given to the human race by God.
9. They passed on original sin to all mankind.
10. They were promised a redeemer.

We should remember that the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. I would also point out the fact that there are really, in theory, two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution.

Microevolution is the physical changes, over time, that take place within a given species as they adapt to their enviroment, etc.

Macroevolution is the change of one species to another over time.

I, personally, have no problem with the theory of microevolution. In fact, I think that it is quite obvious, even in humans. Macroevolution is another story... I just don't buy it because their are too many "missing links" for me and I think that it is problematic from a religious standpoint.

DHK, you also wrote that:

We have only one authority: the Word of God. It abides forever. It will never change. Its Words are both eternal and living. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

I assume that in this quote you are referring only to the Holy Bible. I'm especially interested in a prooftext for that last line. The absence of such is one of the factors that has led me to the Catholic faith.

But, we are united in our Christian baptism and, even though we may disagree on many things, DHK, we are one in Christ Jesus. Thanks be to God.

God Bless.

IOA,
Deacon's Son

 

[Briguy]

DHK, Thanks for defending God's Word, The Bible. This last discussion has been very eye opening. Anybody who would read the last several posts with honesty would see the Catholic responders on their heals because they are on sinking sand. It seems to me that "authority" in the Catholic church is whatever "men" say it is. If a pope says it is tradition then it is tradition, if for something else he says it is The Bible, then it is the Bible. Seems like authority is "evolving" as we speak in the RCC.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[GraceSaves]

The Catholics are holding their ground rather well. In fact, the term "final authority" that keeps getting thrown around has no Biblical basis, which makes the very concept of it man-made.

 

[GraceSaves]

I thought I'd test my logic skills, from my Logic class I'm taking...

Originally posted by The Briguy:
DHK, Thanks for defending God's Word, The Bible.

DHK is defending God's Word as you think it is correct to do so. I suppose you believe that the Catholics have been putting it down, trampling it, or throwing it away? Pick up a Catechism and read the first chapter about Scripture. This is extremely rude towards Catholics.

Originally posted by The Briguy:
This last discussion has been very eye opening. Anybody who would read the last several posts with honesty would see the Catholic responders on their heals because they are on sinking sand.

Unknown and Unsupportable Fact. I'm being very open and honest on these forums, and I don't see things happening as you see them, and I am by far not the only one. Furthermore, there is no justification for attacking the "Catholic responders" because you disagree with their arguements. This is a sign of losing the battle.

Originally posted by The Briguy:
It seems to me that "authority" in the Catholic church is whatever "men" say it is.

Based on what? Last I checked, all authority in the Catholic Church is spoken/written by men (just as the Bible was) under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, something you believe yourself to have. If you want to take this angle, then all of your church's doctrines are just the doctrines of men, and you can't prove me wrong.

Originally posted by The Briguy:
If a pope says it is tradition then it is tradition, if for something else he says it is The Bible, then it is the Bible. Seems like authority is "evolving" as we speak in the RCC.

There's no point to this accept to make fun of Sacred Tradition, which means you do not comprehend what Sacred Tradition is about. In fact, based on this statement, you either HAVE TO not know what Sacred Tradition really is, or you are purposefully making fun of it simply to aggrevate people on the board.

This post was counter-productive, Brian.

 

[Briguy]

GS writes: "DHK is defending God's Word as you think it is correct to do so. I suppose you believe that the Catholics have been putting it down, trampling it, or throwing it away? Pick up a Catechism and read the first chapter about Scripture. This is extremely rude towards Catholics."

GS, Had I thought my post would be taken the way you took it I would not have written it. If you have read my other posts you will see that most of the time I go out of my way to be nice. I really should have sent a private message to DHK rather then make a post out of my thoughts. I apoligize for anything in my post that was out of line. I try to avoid rudeness as I don't like it done to me.

GS, what I meant to say about God's word was that there seems to be a picking and choosing going on in the Catholic church in terms of the Bible. I do understand that you believe authority and God's word is both from the Bible and from Tradition. I guess it boils down to what I see from my perspective, which is that tradition is used to back up beliefs that aren't in the Bible. This just seems convienent to me. That is all I was trying to say, please accept my apology. I may address other things you wrote a little later.

Thanks for the kind rebuke.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[DojoGrant]

Apology accepted, and please accept mine if I went overboard.

I just don't think that this should be treated as a competition, where one side or the other wins or loses, and that's how it felt things were going.

 

[DojoGrant]

Oh, Brian, and I seriously do recommend reading the whole section on Scripture and Tradition from the Catechism. It can be read online, so you don't have to buy a book. It's right at the beginning, and is extremely informing on what the church believes regarding both.

Actually, I'll go ahead and say that the Church teaches that they are not separate entities, but one, complete deposit of the Word of God. Tradition is inseperable from Scripture. Scripture is inseperable from Tradition. It's all one unit.

 

[Gloria1]

Originally posted by DHK:
You prefer not to believe the Bible the way Catholics traditionally believed the Bible before Pius XII. Why such a change in belief? God never changed? He is still the same.

There never was a change in belief but only a change in what you think Catholics believed. You just do not know what Catholics believed then and you do not know what Catholics believe now . . . or maybe you only know what some Catholics believe(d) then and now.

For example, I believe that heaven and earth were created 6000 years ago when heaven was first juxtaposed with earth on the planet we call earth. To research Catholic theology requires interpretation and that is where we fail if we do not agree. It is just as simple as that and you are welcome to disagree.

 

[DHK]

Every Bible-believing Christian believes the Bible to be their authority. It indeed is our final authority in all things. Over and over again did Christ make His appeal to the Scriptures: whether it was in answer to Satan in the temptation, or in answer to the Pharisees. Search the Scriptures, He said.

2Pet.1:9 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pet.3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pet3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Consider just these few verses from just one book of the Bible, much less from every other book of the Bible. Peter says we also have a "more sure word of prophecy." What was it? It was the very Word of God that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was the apostolic writings that were already considered as Scripture. In Chapter three and the first two verses he reminds his hearers to be mindful not only of the words spoken of by the Old Testament prophets, but also of the apostles. He puts the words of the apostles on the same level and importance of the Old Testament prophets. They were the inspired words of God. No tradition was ever inspired as those words were. In verses 15 and 16 he recognizes the writings of Paul as Scripture, as is indicated in verse 16. Unlearned men wrest the words of Paul in his letters as they do also the other Scriptures. Paul's letters were just as inspired as other Scriptures. The early believers obviously knew which books made up the New Testament canon, and which did not. When John wrote the book of Revelation the New Testament canon was closed. That fact became evident by Rev.22:18., and also be the cessation of the sign gifts which were no longer needed. The believers now had a completed, "closed" canon. The problem with the Catholic Church is that throughout the ages she has refused to acknowledge that revelation is closed. If the canon of Scripture is closed, revelation is closed. But not according to Catholics. Our authority is based solely on that revelation, that is, the canon of Scripture.

The Catholics have three Traditions.
1. A Primary Tradition--the Bible. They do accept the Bible as we do, albeit theirs includes 13 extra books known as the Apocrypha.
2. A Secondary Tradition--Papal decrees and traditions handed down by the magesterium. This is where you get the odd doctrines such as purgatory, kissing the pope's feet, etc.
3. A Third Tradition--Apparitional and visionary. The Catholic church also accepts as revelation those things which are handed down by certain individuals in apparitions or visions, such as what happened at Lourdes, and other recent visions. In this they are very much like the Charismatics and have an open revelation. One can have a vision or an apparition, and it can then be made a part of revelation. To put all of this in perspective. If you want to study the revelation of God in the Catholic Church you would have to hunt down every vision and apparition that every person has ever had, make sure that it has been recorded properly, find out what it was teaching; find out what all the traditions, papal decrees, magesterium decisions, decisions made by various councils, and put them together and research through all of them and study them; and after having done all of that you still have all of the Bible to study.

I am thankful that we have simply the Bible as our guide.
Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

Again, you assume to much. From the Catechism:

There will be no further Revelation
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."[28] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
Every Bible-believing Christian believes the Bible to be their authority.

Indeed they do. The Bible is our authority.

It indeed is our final authority in all things.

Accept no verse in Scripture says that it is final.

Over and over again did Christ make His appeal to the Scriptures: whether it was in answer to Satan in the temptation, or in answer to the Pharisees. Search the Scriptures, He said.

Christ also said many new things that would be incorporated into later written Scriptures (the New Testament). John says Christ did so many other things that it would take all the books in the World to fill. This doesn't lessen the value of Scriptures by any means, but again, the fact that Christ quoted Scripture does not make it the "final" authority.

2Pet.1:9 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pet.3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pet3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Great Scripture. Thanks!

Consider just these few verses from just one book of the Bible, much less from every other book of the Bible. Peter says we also have a "more sure word of prophecy." What was it? It was the very Word of God that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was the apostolic writings that were already considered as Scripture. In Chapter three and the first two verses he reminds his hearers to be mindful not only of the words spoken of by the Old Testament prophets, but also of the apostles. He puts the words of the apostles on the same level and importance of the Old Testament prophets. They were the inspired words of God.

All good stuff. But it doesn't pertain to the Bible being the "final and only authority."

No tradition was ever inspired as those words were.

Says who? There are many verses when Paul tells his readers to hold fast to the traditions that were passed down to them, either by word of mouth or letter. You have no basis for this sentence.

In verses 15 and 16 he recognizes the writings of Paul as Scripture, as is indicated in verse 16. Unlearned men wrest the words of Paul in his letters as they do also the other Scriptures. Paul's letters were just as inspired as other Scriptures.

Indeed they were.

The early believers obviously knew which books made up the New Testament canon, and which did not.

You have good stuff above, but not a bit of it proves this point. Because Peter knew, when he wrote his letter, and the people who received this letter knew, did ALL the early believers know? Did they ALL have access to these letters? How do you know this for a fact?

When John wrote the book of Revelation the New Testament canon was closed. That fact became evident by Rev.22:18., and also be the cessation of the sign gifts which were no longer needed. The believers now had a completed, "closed" canon.

Absolutely true.

The problem with the Catholic Church is that throughout the ages she has refused to acknowledge that revelation is closed.

Fundamental misunderstanding. Read my quote above, which says exactly the opposite, straight from the horse's mouth.

If the canon of Scripture is closed, revelation is closed. But not according to Catholics. Our authority is based solely on that revelation, that is, the canon of Scripture.

And Sola Scriptura was invented by the reformers in the 16th century. You still fail to understand what Sacred Tradition really is.

The Catholics have three Traditions.

Just want to get a source from you on this. Something official that says the Catholic Church has three sources.

1. A Primary Tradition--the Bible. They do accept the Bible as we do, albeit theirs includes 13 extra books known as the Apocrypha.

So you admit that the Bible is our primary source? I guess this means you can't say that we elevate Tradition above Scripture anymore.

Furthermore...13 books? Please name all "13" of these books. And you conveniently forget the Council of Hippo...again.

2. A Secondary Tradition--Papal decrees and traditions handed down by the magesterium. This is where you get the odd doctrines such as purgatory, kissing the pope's feet, etc.

Talk about Ad Homenim. You don't agree with them, so you call them odd. If you want to earn someone's respect, this is not the way to do it. Furthermore, "kissing the pope's feet" is a doctrine? ....?

3. A Third Tradition--Apparitional and visionary. The Catholic church also accepts as revelation those things which are handed down by certain individuals in apparitions or visions, such as what happened at Lourdes, and other recent visions.

No basis for this. Rather, it is an outright lie. Read my excerpt from the Catechism. You made this up to suit your needs.

In this they are very much like the Charismatics and have an open revelation. One can have a vision or an apparition, and it can then be made a part of revelation.

Again, a lie. Catholics believe in a closed Revelation. You have a misunderstanding of that.

To put all of this in perspective. If you want to study the revelation of God in the Catholic Church you would have to hunt down every vision and apparition that every person has ever had, make sure that it has been recorded properly, find out what it was teaching; find out what all the traditions, papal decrees, magesterium decisions, decisions made by various councils, and put them together and research through all of them and study them; and after having done all of that you still have all of the Bible to study.

Sure, if you want to be the Church's ultimate Historian. Have you read the entire Bible several times, and understand every tiny facet of it? I doubt it; few have. Does that mean your faith is "shakey?" No, and so in the same manner, a Catholic doesn't have to be a scholar to understand his or her faith. This is absurd.

I am thankful that we have simply the Bible as our guide.
Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
DHK

And I'm thankful I have a teaching body that I know and trust will never lead me astray. Thanks be to God that we are both in love with the Word of God!