The Scriptures themselves give testimony to the means of transmission of revelation God intended. That included the inseparability of Scripture, Church and Tradition…not Scripture alone. Historically the Church and Tradition predated the NT Scriptures which seems strange if the Scriptures were to be the only necessary rule of faith or norm. This isn’t the best analogy but since I work in healthcare I will use it…Doctors use authoritative texts and have to be licensed by authoritative state boards for a reason to ensure reliability and standardization of qualification and hopefully the practice of safe and effective medicine. The Scriptures without authoritative councils and interpreters would be as effective as laypeople reading medical texts tying to practice medicine.
As the old saying goes**: Putting on a cowboy hat doesn’t make you a cowboy. **
Without apostolic succession, there can be no certainty of faith. And without the charism of infallibility being conferred on Peter and his successors in the Pontificate, by which they are protected by the Holy Spirit from committing the Church to error in matters of faith and morals, and confirm what is to be believed as a divinely revealed truth by the Church or reject as heterodox, the most all believers can depend on is popular opinion. Yet the Divine truth is objective and as such requires a means of ascertaining which an appeal to popularity cannot provide.
Without Christ’s vicar on earth, the Church cannot be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The gift of infallibility that was conferred on the other apostles in their union with Peter hasn’t been transferred to individual bishops. This charism has been transferred only to Peter’s successors to his chair so that the Divine the truth can in fact be ascertained as Christ wills with necessity, since doctrine does develop over time. (Luke 22:32). Christ’s lambs are the laity, his sheep are the clergy ( John 21:15-16). The only valid Church Councils are the ones whose decisions have been approved by the popes.
The Bible certainly hasn’t served Protestants who regard sacred Scripture to be the final rule of faith. If it were, Protestantism would be unified in faith and morals. The Divine truth has been relegated to being subjective outside the Catholic Church. What might sound reasonable to the Presbyterian could sound unreasonable to the Southern Baptist, etc. The science of hermeneutics is objective in and of itself, but it’s often mishandled by Protestant theologians and ministers of various denominations by errors in judgment or abused because of some personal bias and religious sensibility. I watched a debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur over the question of infant baptism on You Tube the other night. Of course, both men appealed to sacred Scripture to support their opposing arguments. Meanwhile, they were both silent on the testimonies of the early Church Fathers on the Church practice of baptising infants and young children. This practise wasn’t an issue for debate in the early Church for it belonged to the Apostolic Tradition. The Church is the final rule of faith - not the Bible. And what must be believed and practiced has always been what the Roman Pontiff approves as a matter of universal jurisdiction and primacy of authority so that we may all be one as Jesus and the Father are one. (John 17:20-21). Christ’s vicar is the Father’s answer to his prayer. Now the Pope doesn’t receive personal revelations from God, but he has been appointed to teach and preserve what he judges ought to be believed and practised by the Church in accord with the sensus fidelium. The Holy Spirit guarantees that he doesn’t err in his judgments and rulings when acting as chief steward/shepherd of the universal Church.
PAX
:heaven:
