Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[schaick]

The early Church was sacramental, liturgical, visible, authoritative, and had the power to reconcile and forgive sinners. It was priestly, based on apostolic succession, believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, infant baptism, etc. Read the Didache, the Fathers, etc.

How does one reconcile that to an extremely loose band of folks who believe everything from soup to nuts about authority, the bible, no sacraments except baptism, vague theories about holy communion, and open rejection of the things the fathers taught about episcopacy and sacraments, etc.?

As tomalin said, the same Church that defined what is Scripture and not Scripture, what was not apostolic and what was, the same Church that defined the Holy Trinity and the Creeds, the same Church that shot down Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism, Docetism, Monophosytism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc. existed in authority prior to the assembling of the New Testament. This Church preached, baptized, reconciled, led, confirmed, and fought for Christ when Scripture wasn’t even close to canonized or even finished being written. Why should we then switch from confidence and respect for the One Church in favor of the Bible and try to prooftext and try to reconstruct a church and praxis that never existed? Sola scriptura makes no sense.

…

The early Church never stated that the Mary Dogmas were required for your salvation. That doesn’t mean that in believing the Dogmas you are not saved.

Today the Catholic Church says belief in the Mary Dogmas is required.

Catholics say it is all about authority but, binding and loosing can not go against GOD’s already estblished Law. Humans can not decide to “develop” a requirement not already laid out by GOD.

 

[GKC]

Although Catholics can exaggerate the facts (by no means making us unique) I have never heard a catholic say we invented academies. The only thing I have heard espoused is that the CC, and the Vatican in particular, is responsible for creating the present day college system. Vatican chartered schools (and there were many) were the first to allow people that received degrees from universities to teach at other schools by right. The pope also gave protections to the students similar to those the clergy enjoyed so as to promote dialogue and cooperation between the schools. Also they had very diverse curriculums where as Greek and Muslim academies usually only focused on a single school of thought and were very secretive and suspicious of other schools. At least this is what I have gathered from my own studies. The question is not so much whether the CC invented universities but whether the CC created the first schools that qualified as modern universities by definition. Do you deny the role CC played in developing western education?

As for Lewis? What can one say? He was an odd cookie. He was a man that claimed to be protestant yet seemed friendly to ideas like purgatory and works/faith based justification. In Mere Christianity he said he wasn’t Catholic because of fear of having to accept any doctrine defined in the future and not so much that he had a problem with the ones in the present. I have never seen a work from him on why he was not catholic. Do have sources? I would be interested in reading these? However, as to what you said I have never heard anyone say he “really wanted to be Catholic”. I have hear it said that he would have become one or that he was called home before he could convert so as to draw protestants into the Church (Peter Kreeft. If you are not familiar with him please look him up).

You seem to be searching for the truth with great fervour and you have my respect for that. However, you say you despise exaggerations but in this particular post you seem to be exaggerating a little yourself. I apologize in advance. This was not intended to be a rebuke or anything. I know you are willing to give the Church credit when you think its deserving, I just happen to love Lewis and the contributions the CC has made to the world and feel you may have sold us short in this particular post. However if Catholics have said this they are wrong or just failed to clarify what they meant.

You have my best wishes and my prayers.

Lewis is (say it with me, Gurney) one of my hobby areas. Been reading/collecting him for near on 50 years, man and boy.

Your source may be found (primarily) in THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF C. S. Lewis (ed. Hooper), Vol II, pp. 645-647, in a letter to a H. Luman Stebbins, dated 8 May 1945. The primary point was the issue of authority, and whether the RCC differed from apostolic Christianity.

Lewis, when he returned to the faith, did so as a more or less centrist Anglican, though not a sectarian one. As he aged, he moved more toward the Anglo-Catholic side of Anglicanism, though again without becoming a partisan. He was a believer in purgation and the Real Presence, used auricular confession and a spiritual director and generally accepted most of moderate Anglo-Catholicsm.

This topic most often takes the form of asking “Why didn’t Lewis become a RC?” and is a commonplace on such forums as this. From the RC standpoint, Pearce’s C.S. LEWIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the best treatment of it I know of.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[tomarin]

So you are saying the Church was formed first then the disciples started telling the message? Where did they get it ?

I think the formation of the Church (ecclesia) is detailed in Acts. I would say it began when followers of Christ began to meet and share the Eucharist – so in theory at the Last Supper. But I’m (obviously) no theologian or even church historian. Gurney?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thin, Michael. I like and respect you A LOT and normally your reasoning is rock solid. This time I think your unwillingness to acknowledge the achievements and contributions of the papacy is showing in spades. Of course I’m saying that we should be grateful to the pope that icons exist. That’s a no-brainer. But you deduce from that that I am saying ONLY the pope. That’s a stretch. If I told you, thanks to the Russians we won World War II, would I be wrong? No. But does that mean the Americans, British, and the rest of the allied troops were chopped liver? Of course not. But if someone gets angry at the statement and tries to minimize the Russian contributions to the victory, and they give no credit to them and just focus on all the other players, it becomes obvious that the person is hostile to Russians and just not being intellectually honest about it.

Obviously the other pro-image bishops played a tremendous role. Of course St. John of Damascus was important in the crisis! And it’s obvious that the pope can NEVER win alone. He leads. He emboldens, he builds up, he strengthens, and applied the influence and power he had to fight this foolish iconoclasm. But sadly, some in the East are embarrassed to think that today in 2010 Orthodoxy is laced and laden with images and icons are their central artistic triumph and yet a Roman pontiff played a key, central role in ensuring that. Some people are embarrassed to admit leadership might have come from Rome. Intellectual honesty should inhibit such a reaction though.

But that is essentially what you said!

I couldn’t get over your comment, “that was just a letter.” WOW. What can I say. A letter to an emperor admonishing him for something dangerous and making known the orthodox opinion on the matter, showing leadership and an unwillingness to cave in to politics, not “just” a letter.

When Reagan said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” I guess that was just a statement. Or calling the Soviets an “empire of evil” just words. Or John Paul II’s writings and statements about communism just talk. But boy as a team it’s amazing what those words and statements can do. But I shouldn’t mention JP2, I suppose as a pope I’ll hear from the East that he played no real role in bringing down the Iron Curtain

We shuuld be grateful to the Pope that we have icons! How else am I supposed to read that?
There was a lot of great leadership from the sidelines, where it was safe, Saint John of Damascus was another. The crises had to be dealt with where the police power of the emperor could reach people and hurt them.
gurneyhalleck1;7139119:

If you look at iconoclasm, it was the Byzantine Emperor Leo III who went into an iconoclastic rant and agenda. It was Pope Saint Gregory II who came out swinging hard in the fight against his policies regarding images. In the autumn of 727 the pope convened a synod to discuss this crisis. The synod supported the use of images. Gregory then issued this amazing letter to the Emperor with heaps of courage and guts telling him his admonitions against iconoclasm and the dignity of iconographical use. This is his letter:

***Ten years by God’s grace you have walked aright, …

---

]quote] That is just a letter.

It really didn’t do anything. It didn’t stop iconoclasm in the east. It didn’t even prevent iconoclasm fromerupting in the west.

Saint Gregory s a fine saint, an Orthodox saint, he is loved by the Orthodox, but he does not get the creditfor ending the iconoclastic controversy.

This was at a time when the empire was a mess in Italy. The Lombards had invaded, the empire was bankrupt or nearly so. The Arabs had reached the Bosporus and that was where the army was (this was actually the reason iconoclasm erupted in the first place).

The Byzantine emperor had no significant power in Italy, it’s presence was a mere formality at that point, the Arian Lombards had been already running loose for some time and the Byzantine provinces were in rebellion. The Pope was in no danger from the emperor of the East Romans, he was snug as a bug under the Franks and Lombards.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Jeez you beat me to it, GKC. I was just about to refer the poster to you as you’re INFINITELY more knowledgable about Lewis than most of us, especially yours truly! And honestly the links/sources you sent me long ago helped me change my position on Lewis. I had the “he’d be a Catholic if he lived in 2010!” approach to him as well. Problem is, I wasn’t and still am not well-versed in him to make such claims. You provided good info to help inform me of it.

Lewis is (say it with me, Gurney) one of my hobby areas. Been reading/collecting him for near on 50 years, man and boy.

Your source may be found (primarily) in THE COLLECTED LETTERS OF C. S. Lewis (ed. Hooper), Vol II, pp. 645-647, in a letter to a H. Luman Stebbins, dated 8 May 1945. The primary point was the issue of authority, and whether the RCC differed from apostolic Christianity.

Lewis, when he returned to the faith, did so as a more or less centrist Anglican, though not a sectarian one. As he aged, he moved more toward the Anglo-Catholic side of Anglicanism, though again without becoming a partisan. He was a believer in purgation and the Real Presence, used auricular confession and a spiritual director and generally accepted most of moderate Anglo-Catholicsm.

This topic most often takes the form of asking “Why didn’t Lewis become a RC?” and is a commonplace on such forums as this. From the RC standpoint, Pearce’s C.S. LEWIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the best treatment of it I know of.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity: that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit co-equal, was not an official doctrine for a few hundred years yet the Church defined it at Nicaea. I wonder why you accept that “development?” Or what about Jesus having two wills instead of one will? That took centuries to come to the fore. Was that ‘innovation’ to be discarded?

No Catholic is saying that the Christians from day one until the 1800’s couldn’t be saved since they didn’t know the Marian dogmas. What they are saying is that the Church has finally definitively decided the matter and now that it’s decided it should be believed and respected.

I personally have never had trouble believing these dogmas. I think they only enrich my appreciation for God and better understand His plan.

The early Church never stated that the Mary Dogmas were required for your salvation. That doesn’t mean that in believing the Dogmas you are not saved.

Today the Catholic Church says belief in the Mary Dogmas is required.

Catholics say it is all about authority but, binding and loosing can not go against GOD’s already estblished Law. Humans can not decide to “develop” a requirement not already laid out by GOD.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Than-you .Good stuff. You hit hard .I still shake my head as an ex-catholic as to how stark the truth is .Hard to believe some of this stuff. Just curious though ,are you really considering Catholicism ? Doesn’t Anglicanism and Orthodox have a lot of similarities to Catholicism ? I mean they do not go far enough in “reform”.

david ruiz,

There is a great deal of good in Catholicism. And as gurney has pointed out many times, historically Popes have done a pretty good job of safeguarding against heresy. But, as we can see from examples given on this thread–that is not always the case.

It’s the infallibility issue that keeps me from bolting toward Catholicism. And — there are days when I do feel like bolting–especially in light of liberal moves away from orthodoxy plaguing the Anglican Communion. But, then that’s not the right reason to convert to Catholicism. Catholicism is truly an all or nothing package. I wouldn’t convert unless I could truly, with all my heart, accept all of Catholicism.

Anglicanism and Orthodoxy do have similarities to Catholicism. TEC is a good example of what can go wrong without a Pope. Orthodoxy is an example of what can go right without a Pope. There are wide variations within the Anglican Communion–some lean heavily toward Protestantism and some lean heavily toward Catholicism. For example, those in the Parish I attend will tell you they are Catholic and do not think of themselves as Protestants.

The infallibility issue reaches beyond whether or not Popes have ever given fallible teachings or made fallible decisions that turned out to be wrong. There is also the question of whether or not there is a “supreme power” over the Church, other than Christ Himself. I still have not found solid historical proof that the early Church saw Peter and his successors as holding this “supreme power.”

I’m leaning toward agreement with a more Orthodox position of “Eucharistic ecclesiology” (Fr Afanassieff.)

Fr. George Florovsky: “The Sacraments constitute the Church. Only in them does the Christian Community transcend its human dimensions and become the Church.”

Rev. Emmanuel Clapsis:

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523
Papal Primacy
Eucharistic ecclesiology affirms the catholicity of the local church, and allows no room for the categories of “parts” or “whole.” It is the very essence of this ecclesiology that the universal Church subsists in toto in the local church.[38] **This kind of ecclesiology excludes the idea of primacy, understood as power over the local church and its bishop. **The local churches, however, are not self‑sufficient monads but are united with each other, not in terms of “parts” and “whole”, but with regard to their identity of order, faith and gifts of the Holy Spirit which make each one and all of them together the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

The OP has asked if we can name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I.

I’m wondering if the answer to the OP’s question is that the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff made a fallible decision by proclaiming itself infallible. This is the ultimate issue for me in considering Catholicism.

So, to answer your question, yes I am considering Catholicism. Some days I’m close to embracing Catholicism. Other days I think my conversion would take something akin to St. Paul’s “Damascus Road” experience.

Anna

 

[Hesychios]

Thin, Michael. I like and respect you A LOT and normally your reasoning is rock solid. This time I think your unwillingness to acknowledge the achievements and contributions of the papacy is showing in spades.

Scott, let me make this perfectly clear, it was not an acheivement. The bishop of Rome did not have authority east of the Adriatic, and the letter to the emperor did not end iconoclasm.

Saint Gregory was a fine man, no one is taking away anything from his efforts, we honor him not just for these things but his ‘Dialogues’ as well, but it did not end the iconoclastic controversy. Why can’t you see that?

Of course I’m saying that we should be grateful to the pope that icons exist. That’s a no-brainer.

But that is just about what you said.

It’s a strange thought, Orthodox should be grateful to the West for icons!

Which is simply not true.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And the error you’re making, brother Michael, is saying that I am claiming the letter “ended” the controversy. I don’t think you fully read my original post about this? I stated clearly that it was a part of the solution, not all of it, and that the pope emboldened other bishops, one of whom I named to you, the Patriarch of Contstaniople, to fight back. I also discussed the pope’s unwillingness to recognize the new Patriarch of Constantinople because that new candidate was an iconoclast and that the emperor threatened the pope’s life and the pope continued to support and bolster the other eastern bishops opposed to iconoclasm. You’re trying to change my argument.

I’m blown away that you say “which is simply not true” when I say the East should thank the pope for the fact iconoclasm ended. I won’t speculate as to your motivation but I have frequently observed a stubbornness in Orthodoxy to recognize contributions or achievements by popes and the West. And it’s a main turnoff for me, the lack of intellectual honesty I see in the East, and the prideful stubornness in remaining so narrow-visioned about Christian history. At times people who are excessively pro-papal can do the same to the East. I dislike that as much.

I showed you that the popes played a part in leadership, in rallying the troops, and taking a stand. If you contend that we shouldn’t thank them for their part in making sure you have your icons, I am utterly bewildered and unable to respond. It’s just illogical, with all due respect (and I DO respect the heck out of you, Michael, you know that!). Like I said, it’s like saying we should thank the Russians for winning world war II. And you say “that’s simply not true!” I present to you the way the Russians stood up to Hitler with his invasion, name the strikes against German positions to you, show the body count of Nazis slain, and then the fact that the Russians were able to enter and take Berlin with Hitler committing suicide, surrounded by all sides and then you still say, “ah, but the British and Americans did x, y, and z!” Does that negate what the Russians did? Shouldn’t we thank the Russians? Shouldn’t we thank the British? Shouldn’t we thank the Americans? We should thank each that made a contribution, right? When then must we pass over Gregory? Answer is simple: he’s a Western Pope, can’t give them credit.

Scott, let me make this perfectly clear, it was not an acheivement. The bishop of Rome did not have authority east of the Adriatic, and the letter to the emperor did not end iconoclasm.

Saint Gregory was a fine man, no one is taking away anything from his efforts, we honor him not just for these things but his ‘Dialogues’ as well, but it did not end the iconoclastic controversy. Why can’t you see that?

But that is just about what you said.

Which is simply not true.

 

[ron77nyc]

No Catholic is saying that the Christians from day one until the 1800’s couldn’t be saved since they didn’t know the Marian dogmas. What they are saying is that the Church has finally definitively decided the matter and now that it’s decided it should be believed and respected.

And whoever doesn’t believe or respect it will incur the wrath of Almighy God. That’s a lot harsher than what you say it is.

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
November 1, 1950

1. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

44….by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

I am not questioning the truth but should the punishment attached be considered an infallible decision? Is that punishment also binding on those who lived before the proclamation was made?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I understand what you’re saying and how you feel; I’d simply say that if someone joins the Catholic Church, accepts the teaching that the pope is infallible, cannot err when speaking ex cathedra, represents the entire Catholic Church and that anathemas and serious consequences are tied to official infallible dogmas, then why would a faithful Catholic be unwilling to just accept the Marian dogmas (since they are officially pronounced infallible!) and see them as being useful to salvation and understanding the role of Mary in salvation history? The Church apparently thought them important enough that the popes ruled on them and attached infallibility to them. So, if a Catholic believes popes infallible, an infallible ruling made, then why not accept it?

Of course the Church doesn’t retro-punish people for not abiding by rulings that didn’t exist at their time in history.

And whoever doesn’t believe or respect it will incur the wrath of Almighy God. That’s a lot harsher than what you say it is.

I am not questioning the truth but should the punishment attached be considered an infallible decision? Is that punishment also binding on those who lived before the proclamation was made?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I would consider any Pope that developes a dogma or doctrine claiming it needs to be believed for you to be saved that does not have biblical evidence to be a heretic.

The Bible is very clear on what is needed- adding anything extra into the equation is preaching a false Gospel.

If the bible were very clear then we wouldn’t have multiple contradictory dogmas being proclaimed as biblical truths by various denominations.

Jesus didn’t write a book, he started a Church and he gave the Church authority to teach his message.

 

[Anna_Scott]

If the bible were very clear then we wouldn’t have multiple contradictory dogmas being proclaimed as biblical truths by various denominations.

Jesus didn’t write a book, he started a Church and he gave the Church authority to teach his message.

CHESTERTONRULES,

I agree with you. The Bible isn’t all that clear on a number of issues, and many things are not addressed at all.

At some point during 2009, I had to release Sola Scriptura and many other Baptist teachings. If Scripture is all a persons needs, Protestant ministers would not need to take 45-plus minutes to explain the meaning of a few lines of Scripture to their congregations.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re right! And looking back with the mindset that the Church was the source of truth and authority and guidance before the Scriptures were even completed was a real epiphany for me back when I was younger and always said, “if isn’t in the Bible, phooey!”

CHESTERTONRULES,

I agree with you. The Bible isn’t all that clear on a number of issues, and many things are not addressed at all.

At some point during 2009, I had to release Sola Scriptura and many other Baptist teachings. If Scripture is all a persons needs, Protestant ministers would not need to take 45-plus minutes to explain the meaning of a few lines of Scripture to their congregations.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

You’re right! And looking back with the mindset that the Church was the source of truth and authority and guidance before the Scriptures were even completed was a real epiphany for me back when I was younger and always said, “if isn’t in the Bible, phooey!”

gurney,

Epiphany is the right word–I’ve had many of them here on CAF. Needless to say, I’ve learned a lot from Catholics.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You and I both, Anna. We can all debate and use historical arguments and exegesis but the bottom line is faith is a major part. Belief.

For example, I trust and believe that Augustine got the atonement, grace, original sin, and salvation right. I tend to really appreciate and believe his approach and insights. So as a result, I don’t even consider Orthodoxy. I also look at history and don’t accept sola scriptura. So that eliminates most Protestant bodies. In the end, faith and our guts play a strong role despite all the intellectual protestations we make in our pride and arrogance.

gurney,

Epiphany is the right word–I’ve had many of them here on CAF. Needless to say, I’ve learned a lot from Catholics.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

You and I both, Anna. We can all debate and use historical arguments and exegesis but the bottom line is faith is a major part. Belief.

For example, I trust and believe that Augustine got the atonement, grace, original sin, and salvation right. I tend to really appreciate and believe his approach and insights. So as a result, I don’t even consider Orthodoxy. I also look at history and don’t accept sola scriptura. So that eliminates most Protestant bodies. In the end, faith and our guts play a strong role despite all the intellectual protestations we make in our pride and arrogance.

And so the pendulum swings: toward Catholicism and away from Catholicism; toward Catholicism and away. . . . .toward. . . . .

I’m really quite exhausted. :frighten:

 

[guanophore]

I think the formation of the Church (ecclesia) is detailed in Acts. I would say it began when followers of Christ began to meet and share the Eucharist – so in theory at the Last Supper. But I’m (obviously) no theologian or even church historian. Gurney?

Some say the Church was born out of the side of Christ on the Cross,when blood and water spilled out, purchasing our redemption.

Some say when “He breathed upon them” and said “receive the HS”.

Some say the Church was born in the upper room, either at the Last Supper, or on Pentecost.

If it is one, or all of the above, we know that by the time Peter preached the first sermon on Pentecost, the Church had been born, as 3000 “were added” that day.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well my pendulum is definitely not swinging toward the East. Their views on the Atonement are an enormous turnoff for me. I don’t like their Original Sin views either. And the stubborn refusal to acknowledge papal moments of greatness and success drive me nuts. But I’m not sold on Rome either. Like you said, exhausted! I give credit to the Catholics for being a lot closer to the proper view of the atonement, original sin, etc. than the east. But I’m just a bit too stubborn about imputation and grace and justification through faith vis a vis Romans, don’t like indulgences and Honorius and the language of Lumen Gentium, etc. So where does that get us, Anna? Back to square one!

And so the pendulum swings: toward Catholicism and away from Catholicism; toward Catholicism and away. . . . .toward. . . . .

I’m really quite exhausted. :frighten:

 

[david_ruiz]

The early Church was sacramental, liturgical, visible, authoritative, and had the power to reconcile and forgive sinners. It was priestly, based on apostolic succession, believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, infant baptism, etc. Read the Didache, the Fathers, etc.

How does one reconcile that to an extremely loose band of folks who believe everything from soup to nuts about authority, the bible, no sacraments except baptism, vague theories about holy communion, and open rejection of the things the fathers taught about episcopacy and sacraments, etc.?

As tomalin said, the same Church that defined what is Scripture and not Scripture, what was not apostolic and what was, the same Church that defined the Holy Trinity and the Creeds, the same Church that shot down Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism, Docetism, Monophosytism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc. existed in authority prior to the assembling of the New Testament. This Church preached, baptized, reconciled, led, confirmed, and fought for Christ when Scripture wasn’t even close to canonized or even finished being written. Why should we then switch from confidence and respect for the One Church in favor of the Bible and try to prooftext and try to reconstruct a church and praxis that never existed? Sola scriptura makes no sense.

The Church is not just a bunch of folks who like to study the Bible and read it or preach it, it’s about authority handed down apostolically in a visible Church that is holy and authoritative. It’s built on the apostles, sacramental, priestly, and Scriptural.

Hello again.St Ignatius would agree with about half your list of descriptive terms of the early church . Again , how early is early, for your entire list ?.. Consubstantiation (?) is as explicit at theory as transubstantiation…some Fathers have disagreed on episcopacy, I believe…Sacraments, yes, two , really three if you count being married before God…Most denominations have one teaching on authority. Yes , there are many denominations (6-7 main ones), of which , to the world and other religions, Catholicism is just one of them. …Are you sure all those falsehoods you listed were dealt with without Holy Scripture ? I see the Fathers using tons of scripture , as Timothy suggests, for correction. I do believe scriptures were fully assembled before some on your list. Anyways , some on your list could be combatted with the O.T. and only several new testament books, I think…After the church gloriously rose , thru the apostles and prophets , why would you then not rest on their inspired writings ? What could be more natural and logical .That is no “switch”. The switch is then resting on conjecture and extra-biblical tradition, the same mistake the Jews made (partly -they at least had freedom to differ on much ,yet remain Jewish, e.g.-Sadducees,Pharisees)…Sola scriptura made perfect sense to one Catholic , Luther .He had no problem at first with his beloved church, including heirarchy ,and councils and early fathers and sacraments etc .It is just that he became enlightened to believe they could be wrong from time to time ,and that scripture was the best point of reference, benchmark , guideline , even authority for the pope and bishops and councils etc. …Thanks for letting me respond .It’s late gotta go.