[huijzer]

There are many Christians very fervent opponents of listening to such authorities and stick to the Bible itself. Nowhere in the Bible for example it is written that one can pay off sins by giving money to some authority. But someone had to pay for the Saint Peter’s Basilica so there was an incentive to adjust scripture.

[eru]

Well, that's about as valid as listening to sovereign citizens' interpretation of the US constitution. (At least from the Catholic point of view as far as I can tell.)

> Nowhere in the Bible for example it is written that one can pay off sins by giving money to some authority.

I'm no expert but doesn't James 2:26 says "Faith without works is dead."?

Surely giving some money (that you had to work hard for!) to the greatest charity in the world (the Catholic church) should count as a good work?

(But I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I don't know what their official reasoning is.)

[aleph_minus_one]

> Well, that's about as valid as listening to sovereign citizens' interpretation of the US constitution. (At least from the Catholic point of view as far as I can tell.)

From an "axiomatic perspective" this means accepting much more encompassing axioms than the holy scripture; such a "proof" requires much more than "the Bible/Quran says" as huijzer implicitly used in his argument "That’s why the Bible and Quran are against usury.", but more like "the Bible says and we additionally accept the following axioms that imply that the Pope's interpretation of the Bible is the correct one".

[eru]

Nah, you can start from the Pope, and you only care about the Bible insofar as the Pope says you should care about it. Very simple 'axiom'.

[aleph_minus_one]

But then you should not argue that the Bible says something, but that the Pope does. :-)

[eru]

In principle, yes, but the Pope can't answer every question I have 24/7, so he and his assistants have prepared some literature for my perusal.

And it's not like what the constitution says or what the bible says is completely useless, it's just that when it comes to conflicting interpretations, you look to the courts or the church for guidance.

The Catholic church's official position is a bit more nuanced. The Pope can declare things infallibly under special circumstances, but they place great importance on ecumenical councils, too. (And in fact, to avoid circular logic, Papal infallibility was declared at one of these councils. They might be dogmatic, but they ain't stupid.)

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. Culturally, I grew up in the heartland of the Protestant Reformation where Luther himself went around and preached; and philosophically I veer between being a dirty atheist and a cowardly agnostic, depending on how I feel on the day.

I just treat the theological discussion like Lord of the Ring fans or Warhammer 40k would treat lore discussions.

You might like the chapter 'When God is the Legislator' in David Friedman's 'Legal Systems Very Different From Ours' available for free at http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsCo...