Postscripts From The Catholic Spitfire Grill

For Jesus and the Apostles the new day began with sunset on the evening preceeding; therefore, tonight's celebration of the Mass will begin the Easter Triduum and the Church's celebration of the passion, death, and resurrection of Our Lord. Although we may come and go from the church during this time, in reality this is one celebration. Just as Mass may be broken up into the Liturgy of the Word/Mass of the Catechumens and Liturgy of the Eucharist/Mass of the Faithful but it's all one Mass, the Easter Triduum may be broken up into Holy Thursday Mass, Good Friday Liturgy of the Word and Veneration of the Cross, etc. so that we know where we are in the celebration so to speak but it's all part of the Easter Triduum. If it's at all possible, don't miss any part of this one celebration.

The Institution of the Priesthood is celebrated at the Chrism Mass which for pastoral reasons (like allowing pastors to  be present in their parishes for Mass on Thursday evening) is often celebrated earlier in the week. At this Mass our priests renew their priestly vows. Even though the Chrism Mass may have already taken place in your diocese, it's a particularly good day to be in prayer for our priests and to pray for vocations.

Prayer for Priests

Divine Savior Jesus Christ, who has entrusted the whole work of redemption, the welfare and salvation of the world, to priests as your representatives, through the hands of your most holy Mother and for the sanctification of your priests and candidates for the priesthood, I offer you this present day wholly and entirely, with all its prayers, workds, joys, sacrifices, and sorrows. Give us truly holy priests who, inflamed with the fire of your divine love, seek nothing but your greater glory and the salvation of our souls.

And you, Mary, good Mother of priests, protect all priests in the dangers of their holy vocation and, with the loving hand of a mother, also lead back to the Good Shepherd those poor priests who have become unfaithful to their exalted vocation and have gone astray. Amen.

Pope Benedict XVI on his vocation....

It became clearer and clearer to me that there is more to the priestly vocation than enjoying theology, indeed, that work in the parish can often lead very far away from that and make completely different demands...The Yes to the priesthood meant that I had to say Yes to the whole task, even in its simplest forms.

Since I was rather diffident and downright unpractical, since I had no talent for sports or administration or organization, I had to ask myself whether I would be able to relate to people -- whether, for example, as a chaplain I would be able to lead and inspire Catholic youth, whether I would be capable of giving religious instruction to the little ones, whether I could get along with the old and sick, and so forth. I had to ask myself whether I would be ready to do that my whole life long and whether it was really my vocation.

Bound up with this was naturally the question of whether I would be able to remain celibate, unmarried, my whole life long...I often pondered these questions as I walked in the beautiful park of Fűrstenried and naturally in the chapel, until finally at my diaconal ordination in the fall of 1950 I was able to pronounce a convinced Yes. 

It's that forum I hang out on again. The topic of priestly celibacy has come up and the more I think about it the madder I get. I won't quote what's been said but I would like to adress the recurring themes I hear in this recurring conversation that I have with Protestant Believers who have "issues" with priestly celibacy. Why? Well I don't think I can say these things in that particular conversation and if I don't say them somewhere I am just going to explode and this is my blog so I'll say it if I want to....

First. Yes, I know Peter was married. Yes, I believe Peter was the first pope. That does not mean that the RCC has ever believed or taught that every single solitary aspect of Peter's life should be imitated in perpetuity. For instance, we really think that whole denying of Jesus three time things is something we should not seek to emulate. Although being married clearly does not fall into the same category as betraying Christ, it does not necessarily follow that it means we are required to accept his life choice as dogma.

Second. Yes I know the "husband of one wife" verse. Even as a Protestant, I never interpreted that verse as a positive requirement to marry. I have always wondered if the same people who attempt to bludgeon me with that verse over the priestly celibacy issue would fire a pastor if he was widowed? Or require a young youth pastor to marry in haste in order to qualify for a position? I suppose there might be denominations like that but when you get right down to it, doesn't it make sense that it would mean 'no more than one wife'? Especially in light of other scriptures and the words of our Lord himself?! To save time, I am just going to cut and paste from Scripture Catholic (scroll down the page to section IV):

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God's covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.

But what really bugs me, what is just setting my hair on fire is the attitude that celibacy is a discipline "imposed" on priests. First, that just mocks the voluntary and loving sacrifice that they have made to better serve the faithful. Nobody is forced to be a priest. Nobody gets them drunk or knocks them on the head only to have them wake up the next morning and be told that they made a vow of celibacy while they were unconscious. The Catholic Church is not shang hai'ing men into the priesthood. Second, to question the vow of celibacy taken by men who enter the priesthood is to treat them like children incapable of making up their own mind. Just like the Catholic Church isn't giving Rohypnol to unsuspecting Roman Catholic men and telling them in the morning that they made a vow of celibacy, they don't let 5 year olds into the priesthood either. The process is long and there are plenty of obstacles in the way. Men who enter the priesthood will tell you that they had to work hard for the privilege of making those vows and that plenty of people along the way tried to talk sense into them and put obstacles in their way to make sure the decision was made with care and prayer and much deliberation. 

Lastly, why does it seem to me that the most vocal critics of priestly celibacy are those on whom it isn't imposed? Why does it seem to rankle those who aren't Catholic or those who have no intention of entering the priesthood even if they could marry? I would just like to point out that the discipline of preistly celibacy is imposed on priests by priests (bishops) who have taken that same vow. They must think there is some deeper benefit! Don't ya think? 

When the priests themselves start telling me that priestly celibacy doesn't help them pastor their flocks more effectively THEN I think we'll have reason to re-think the whole matter.  

New Advent has an article which discusses the reasons and history behind the discipline of priestly celibacy. In case you want something more substantive than my venting.

Edit: I blogged about the comments to this post here.

The discussion in the Catholic Spitfire Grill this evening turned to the day's ability (or inability) to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). Several members we unable to receive the Sacrament today because the there were more penitents than the priest could hear in the allotted time. We need to pray not only for vocation to the religious life but also for those priests that they would have great fervor for those who desire the sacraments and for the strength and grace to administer them.

From St. Faustina:

Most Merciful Jesus, from whom comes all that is good, increase Your grace in men and women consecrated to Your service, that they may perform worthy works of mercy; and that all who see them may glorify the Father of Mercy who is in heaven.

Eternal Father, turn Your merciful gaze upon the company of chosen ones in Your vineyardupon the souls of priests and religious; and endow them with the strength of Your blessing.  For the love of the Heart of Your Son in which they are enfolded, impart to them Your power and light, that they may be able to guide others in the way of salvation and with one voice sing praise to Your boundless mercy for ages without end.  Amen.

I saw this question on Yahoo! Answers today.

Why does God punish gays for "leaving the use of women" but recompenses priests who take no use of women at all? : I mean the bible tells us clearly to take use (see verse below) of women and multiply and have kids. But both gays and priests reject women. According to the same bible, both are going against the nature. Gays reject women, and choose men. Priests reject both men and women (some choose boys) and choose celibacy.

Romans 27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error."

First, priestly celibacy is a discipline not dogma. In fact, not all Roman Catholic priests are celibate. When an ordained and married priest converts to the Roman Catholic Church from a religious tradition with a valid priesthood such as the Orthodox faith, they are still allowed to exercise their ministry in the Catholic Church. And tomorrow, the Vatican could lift the requirements of priestly celibacy just like they changed the pre-Communion fast requirements from midnight of day before to one hour before receiving communion.

I have frequently heard the argument that priestly celibacy is “not scriptural.” Some people look at Genesis 1: 28 "Be fruitful and multiply" as a scriptural argument against celibacy, but it s cleat that this is a general requirement for all of humankind and specific exceptions are not in violation of the admonition. Jeremiah is told by God not to marry (ch 16) and Jesus spoke favorably of celibacy:

Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God . Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Honestly I find this one verse to be a powerfully compelling argument for celibacy. How does anyone look at the words of Our Lord himself and then claim that celibacy is wrong? Or a "man made tradition"? Celibacy is a voluntary discipline encouraged by Our Lord himself. No man in the Catholic faith is required to be a priest and take vows of celibacy. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage or service to the church by married people. The Catholic Church however, does take he words of Our Lord in the gospel with great seriousness. Arguably with greater seriousness than many of orur separated brothers and sisters in faith. How many other Christian groups take the words of the gospel with such faith? Where else do we find so many people willing to follow Our Lord and renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God ? Ironically, the person who asked the question above quoted St. Paul and St. Paul explicitly spoke in favor of celibacy:

1 Corinthians 7:7-9  “Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.”  

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

In Revelation we again see consecrated celibacy in 14:3-4

“They were singing (what seemed to be) a new hymn before the throne, before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. These are they who were not defiled with women; they are virgins and these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been ransomed as the firstfruits of the human race for God and the Lamb.”

Then of course, there is the idea that somehow if a man is celibate he will become homosexual or a pedophile or some kind of sexual predator. I personally find this to be incredibly insulting to men in general. Those who posit this argument would have you believe that men are such weak creatures that voluntarily abstaining from sex would make them so unable to control themselves that the only possible solution is to prey on children. And frankly, the idea that abstaining from licit heterosexual relationships will make someone homosexual is completely without merit. Ok heterosexuals out there; raise your hands if you think that sexual abstinence would cause you to prefer sexual relations with a member of your own sex? Didn’t think so. Would sexual abstinence make you desire sexual relations with a child? Didn’t think so.  In fact a study in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported that "most of the middle-aged pedophiles have had significant adult sexual activity." Fifty-eight percent of the pedophiles in one study had at least one child, while other research indicated that "more than two-thirds of the married pedophiles in their sample had children, with an average of two to three children per subject." (cited here see footnotes 45 and 46)

Far from being unnatural, priestly celibacy imitates the state of life chosen by Jesus. It celebrates sacrifice for a greater good. It allows a priest to serve the church with minimal worldly distractions. The fact that some priests fall sort of the goal is to be expected. There are hypocrites and sinners everywhere. The fact that so many good and faithful priests triumph in this difficult sacrifice for the kingdom should be proof of God's grace in their lives. The kind of faith that allows such selflessness should be praised. This discipline is faithful to ALL of Sacred Scripture and stands as a positive witness that whenever Our Lord sets us a difficult task, He grants Grace in abundance.

Catholic Answers: How to Argue for Priestly Celibacy; Understanding the Priest Scandal

Tom Neyhart has stopped by again and left the following comments on this post here where you may read his remarks in their unbroken up form. (And may I just add, that I love it when someone says "Show me!"?):

Tom N. Sorry it has taken awhile to get back to this. I don't agree with everything ty23 had to say. As you have pointed out there are bad Catholics and I have know several (for lack of a better term) Christian Catholics who were very much Godly people but we do disagree over fundamental doctrine that skews our viewpoints.
When I speak about worship, I am not speaking about music. That is a huge misconception that drives me nuts, even among my own congregation. Worship is a lifestyle of service devoted to God.

Well as happy as I am to see that you do not believe that worship=music, I am curious where you come up with scriptural support that worship is a "lifestyle of service." You won't find me disagreeing that serving Our Lord is absolutely essential, but worship in the Bible is always about sacrifice. There was plenty of "lifestyle" associated with being a Jew but it was the sacrificial offerings that were worship. Where does that change in the New Testament?

Tom N: Now about congregational gatherings, the scripture you pointed out from Paul about holding to tradition can be used for all sorts of things. The traditions I hold true to include Prayer, Communion, giving of tithes, teaching, "not forsaking the gathering together as some are in the habit of doing" (Hebrews). My point was that new testament worship was based on worship in the temple and there are not many specific definitions in New Testament scripture that details what that was. There are a few, but not many.

Well for starters we know that the earliest church devoted themselves to the breaking of the bread and to prayers. (Acts 2:42) We know what the earliest Christians wrote about the "breaking of the bread" including St. Ignatius of Antioch (a pupil of St. John the Apostle...a man who was IN THE ROOM when Jesus said "This is my Body..." isn't what he thinks about this doctrine more persuasive than our own personal interpretation? As a Catholic, what I don't understand is why Protestants find their scholarly commentaries telling them that "This is My Body..." doesn't REALLY mean what it says more persuasive than the testimony of a man who sat at the feet of St. John the Apostle? And I am not pointing fingers here. I am a convert. I still do unot nderstand how I managed that little mental disconnect when I was a Protestant. How is it that I never sat down with these questions and really examined them?

Tom N: I think the real issue becomes two things that form the difference in our opinions. 1. I believe Scripture to be the ultimate authority and you believe The Catholic Church to hold a higher authority over the Scriptures based on your response above.

Yes. The Catholic Church exercises authority over Sacred Scripture. She's the reason you have a table of contents in your Bible. On the other hand, the Catholic Church doesn't exercise a "higher" authority than Sacred Scripture.  It's not either Scripture OR the Catholic Church it's a far more stable relationship of BOTH Scripture AND the Catholic Church and together they form the fidei depositum or 'deposit of faith.' The witness of what the Apostles DID and what they SAID (2Thes 3:15) is just as important as what they wrote. Jesus didn't write a book, He founded a CHURCH and He put the Apostles in charge. He didn't instruct His Apostles to write a book either or if He did, they were pretty darn disobedient going out and starting the Church and all before writing a book. For what purpose was the canon set in 397CE? What did the men (who were so full of the Holy Spirit that they could recognize was was Scripture and what wasn't) believe was the purpose of the Church and of Scripture? What did they believe about worship? What did they believe about Apostolic Authority? About the Eucharist? As for what the Catholic Church teaches about the interplay between Sacred Scripture and Tradition which together form the Deposit of Faith, here part of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches.

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."³²

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";³³

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".³⁴

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."³⁵ Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."³⁶

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."³⁷ "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."³⁸

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."³⁹

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."⁴⁰ Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".⁴¹

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."⁴²

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."⁴³

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."⁴⁴

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),⁴⁵ contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."⁴⁶

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."⁴⁷ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."⁴⁸

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",⁴⁹ the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

May I also suggest reading Dei Verbum which is an excellent exegesis of what the Catholic Church teaches about Scripture, Divine Revelation, and Tradition and the Catholic Church? It isn't as simple as saying "The Catholic Church just makes up things as it goes along...." Tradition in the capital 'T' sense which relates to Dogma such as the Trinity, the Nature of Christ, and the Real Presence ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS draws from Sacred Scripture and sometimes we also look to what the Apostles actually did and taught when we need to figure out if something is symbolic or literal.

Tom N: 2. We do have the ability to interpret Scripture Hebrews chapter 10 shows how Christ died and made the sacrifice as our High Priest, once and for all making us holy.

18 "And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,(Jesus Christ) 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

This passage from Hebrews assures us as believers we have access to the most Holy of Holies where once only the High Priest could enter in one time a year. If we are connected to God, and as in Acts, he pours out his spirit upon us, then we do have the ability to read and interpret Scripture.

First, you will notice I bolded the part about a "sincere heart." You've got one of those do you? (Don't answer that because if you do, I will just start coveting.) I am NOT disputing that Our Lord has cleansed me. I am NOT disputing that I am redeemed or that I have the Holy Spirit. What I am saying is that each of us as individuals has got "sin issues" just like St. Paul did when he wrote the following:

Romans 17:16-25 Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. Now if (I) do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin.

Consider also....

Proverbs 20:9 "Who can say "I have made my heart clean, I am cleansed of my sin?

1 John 1:8 If we say "We are without sin", we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

We. All of us....ok most of us and definitely ME...live in the flesh. I want to be obedient. I really and truly do. My father has a Border Terrier. Sweet dog. Willingly obedient. Right up to the moment he sees a squirrel, or a skunk, or a cat....then he's completely deaf! I confess to you that when my flesh gets in the way, I am every bit as deaf as that stupid dog and when idolatry has me, I am blind as a bat! And as long as I am in the flesh, my heart will be tainted by it. I work daily to die to my flesh and my fleshly desires but until they are all the way dead, I simply cannot rely on my purity of heart for making wise decisions. I am deeply grateful that the Lord has provided other temporal authorities to yank my leash when necessary. Scripture speaks to us as individuals and certainly the Holy Spirit works through Sacred Scripture to speak to us even when the flesh is working overtime. None of us alone can possibly hear the Holy Spirit perfectly which means that we can't even hear enough to know who is teaching the right thing. Fortunately there is a standard, an authority and that is the Church founded by the apostles. We are warned in Sacred Scripture about false teachers and those who preach a Gospel contrary to what the Apostles taught. Are YOU teaching what the Apostles taught? It isn't all in the Bible, the Bible says so. (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6, Acts 20:35 (A saying of Jesus not in the Gospels), John 21:25, 2 Tim 1:13, 2 Tim 2:2, etc.)The Bible was never set up to be a comprehensive exposition of the faith. Repeatedly in the early centuries the Church was called together in council to deal with heresies. Why call a council if the Scriptures were sufficient? The heretics used the scriptures to make their point....who among us hasn't had a frustrating conversation or two with a member of a cult using the Bible to make their point? Sure we can say they are interpreting Sacred Scripture incorrectly, but how do we know WE are not doing the same? Because we are so sincere? So pure?....do you SEE how seductive that reasoning is? It is very easy to ascribe sincerity and purity to ourselves and deny it to others because their mistakes in interpretation are so very obvious to us. We're right but him over there....bless his heart....I'll pray for him. But how is it that the ONE Holy Spirit leads so many sincere and pure Christians in so many different directions?....and all away from unity. It was the One Church that authoritatively interpreted and defined Sacred Scripture to oppose gnosticism, arianism, nestorianism etc. What ELSE did those same men who correctly defined the Trinity and correctly identified and fought off those heresies believe and teach?

The scripture that you quoted is often used by Protestants to "prove" that the Priesthood of the Believer has authority apart from the Church. The general idea is that in the New Covenant we have the Holy Spirit to guide us so that the authority of the church isn't necessary and I am really trying not to be excessively snarky here but if we are pure enough for the Holy Spirit to guide us personally to the Truth, what are we saying by default about our brothers and sisters in faith that disagree with us? It is Apostolic Authority that releases us for true charity toward one another. If I am right, it is only because I am submitted to the authority God placed over me not because I am holier than anyone else.  Beyond that, the Priesthood of the Believer is not unique to the New Testament it is prefigured in the Old Testament along with a seat of authority and a formal priesthood.

Exodus 19:5-6 Therefore, if you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people, though all the earth is mine. You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites.

Now even though Israel was called to be a kingdom of priests (foreshadowing the Priesthood of the Believer in the New Covenant) God still established the Levitical Priesthood.

Numbers 18:1 The Lord said to Aaron, "You and your sons as well as the other members of your ancestral house shall be responsible for the sanctuary; but the responsibility of the priesthood shall rest on you and your sons alone.

and

Exodus 28:1 among the Israelites have your brother Aaron, together with his sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, brought to you, that they may be my priests.

The Levitical Priesthood and their responsibilities foreshadows the Ordained Priesthood in the New Covenant. Just as the Israelites were a priestly people, we as Christians by virtue of the Sacrifice of Jesus share in their priesthood. Nevertheless, they were guided by authorities and Jesus confirmed that authority in the New Testament. Believers in the New Covenant are no less subject to the authority set out by God in the New Covenant than Israel was under the Old Covenant! The seat of Moses which Jesus tells us we must do what they tell us  and not follow an example of corruption (Matthew 23: 2-3) prefigures the Seat of Peter (and we Catholics do what we are told even when the *spit* Borgias *spit* corrupt it). The Keys Jesus handed to Peter in Matther 16 are prefigured in Isaiah 22 and the story of Joseph. Again and again we see that the things of the Old Testament are not swept away but transformed in the New Covenant. The sacrificial worship of both the sin and grain offerings in the OT combines with the symbolism and liturgy of the Passover, the sustenance of manna (that look like bread but rots and gets maggots like meat) and the bread and wine offering of Melchizedek PLUS the instruction of our Lord in John 6 (at minimum) to become worship (The Mass) in the New Covenant. We see the pre-figuring of so much that is to come in the Old Testament and it is Jesus and His ONE Church that is the key that turns ALL the locks. The Old Testament did not simply establish the need for a Messiah and give Jesus his prophetic bonafides, it also prefigured worship and the organization of the Church under the New Covenant. The early church had to call a council in Jerusalem solely to deal with the relatively small question of circumcision and kosher food!! I do not find it even remotely plausible that these same men would without ANY record of it, do away with formal liturgical and sacrifical worship AND the priesthood.

Tom N.: I do not discount all beliefs of the Catholic Church but I don't agree that the Church Authority has all the answers and are the only one's who can correctly interpret the Scriptures. If we really want to go down those lines the I must ask, show me in Scripture where the traditions of the Catholic Church are found, where Scripture says the Catholic Church is the only church and there traditions are to be upheld even in the changing tides of society.

Sacred Scripture says that there is only ONE church. (John 10:16, Eph 4:3-6, John 17:17-23, 1 Cor 12:13, etc. ) If it is not the Catholic Church, then what ONE church has a better claim? If it is not the Catholic Church, why NOT? What would the earliest Chirstians who suffered and were martyred and endured unimaginable hardships to pass the faith on to us say? Not what do you think they say because you have imagined it (I did a lot of that as a Protestant) but what did they write? What do we see in the worship services and art of the catacombs?  How did they worship? Did you know we have writings describing the earliest Christian worship services and these writings PREDATE many of the books of the Bible? Have you read St. Justin Martyr? A man who was likely taught by the Apostles themselves, how does he describe worship? Whose worship service looks like the what he describes? And if that worship service is, as the earliest students of the Apostles wrote, what Jesus commanded (Do this in memory of me.) then what does it say about substituting our own understanding?

Where did the Table of Contents in your Bible come from? By what authority was it given? If, as I have heard contended, Scripture is self-evident, why was it necessary to have several Church councils consider the issue? Why do we STILL have various splinter groups proffering various writings as "lost scripture"?

What does Sacred Scripture say is the "pillar and foundation of Truth"?

I'll give you a hint...it isn't our own understanding and it isn't Sacred Scripture.