The early church fathers were good and holy men who led by example. Although they did not have the bible in it’s entirety they had the holy spirit guiding them into truth which was in agreement with the scriptures that were available to them. We can’t say that about all men who led the church after them.
Ron, I’m afraid your view is extremely simplistic, as if there were never any disagreements either before or after the canon of Scripture was finally established. And how were such disagreements settled without a canon? - as it continues to be today, through Scripture read in the context of Sacred Tradition, both of which are preserved as the means by which Our Lord entrusted the full Deposit of the Faith to Peter and all who are in union with him; you cannot - and neither could or did the Church Fathers - leave Peter out of the equation. It is his testimony through his successors that ultimately (as in the court of last resort) preserves the Deposit of Faith from corruption. Here are a few articles that may help you further understand the topic:
bringyou.to/apologetics/a44.htm
bringyou.to/apologetics/a47.htm
bringyou.to/apologetics/a48.htm
There has been so much added to the teachings of Jesus that a person could be a good Catholic by observing these various additional teachings without even believing the gospel message. You could be a good Catholic and not believe in Jesus.
Ron, this is blatant nonsense; you should know better than this. Yes, there are those Catholics who are devoid of knowledge in any depth of Who Jesus Is and the nature of His Church; there are even some who claim to be Catholic who actually deny His Divinity and/or His humanity. The first are usually of good heart - and trust implicitly in Christ with simple faith - and simply need sound instruction (too often lacking in parishes); the latter, however, are in no way “good” Catholics anymore than a scientist who believes that the moon is composed of green cheese is a good scientist!
I’m saying this because I know many who fall into this category and many who go to mass on Sunday and accept New Age teachings and consult mediums and whatever else is defined as spiritual beacuse they never were taught the heart of the message which is salvation by faith in the resurrection of Jesus. It was never supposed to be complicated and confusing.
Where is the confusion? The Church specifically teaches against such practices as your relate. Where’s the complication - that they refuse to follow Christ teaching through His Church? They may have been poorly instructed, or they may simply be following their own predilections rather than the truth they have been taught. You cannot assert, however, that with their “New Age” proclivities these are “good” Catholics, since, again, the Church itself strongly teaches against such practices as your describe.
They may in their own estimations be good Catholics, but they are no more good Catholics that those who explicitly deny one or more of any other known doctrines of the Church. What would add to their - and your - confusion is the inability to say with certainty that a given doctrine is taught explicitly or implicitly in Scripture or in Sacred Tradition and leave a free-for-all amongs believers (to wit, Protestantism and the various sects claiming Christian identity).
Here is what the early church did in Acts 15:24. . .
Yes, that is some of what the Church did in its first years, but what else did it do - and all in union with Peter? For what purpose were the chosen men sent? Did the Church teach the identity of Jesus Christ as God Incarnate? Did it celebrate the Eucharist? Did it eventually canonize the Scripture you quote here - and if so, by what authority? You leave out too much in your desire not to be “confused”.
Now, to accept the doctrine regarding Infallibility and any other official teaching of the Magisterium it does not always mean to understand it, and given that each person has his own way of understanding things he may not understand or may have a difficulty understanding what he is willing to accept, since he may easily have attitudes partially formed by the non-believing world of society that would contradict the attitudes of Faith assumed and expressed. In short, there would be no basis in the life of faith to reject this teaching of the Church, just as there would be no basis in the Faith to reject the Creed. But acceptance in faith does not automatically remove all difficulty for the mind. Faith, after all, does not require everything to be explained or it wouldn’t be faith, would it? But one is not free to reject the doctrine of Infallibility, whether one is uneducated in the Faith or a theologian, since there is one standard for all: acceptance of the Faith of the Church as promulgated and understood by the Church, rather than the individual. Fallible laymen simply accept what the infallible hierarchy proclaims and thus have the infallible belief of the Church as their own.
The difference between a living hierarchy with God’s authority to teach and a non-living text left for each fallible individual to come up with his best and figure it out for himself is that there is no obedience of faith in the latter, but each individual controls what he will accept, i.e., no surrender to another, only satisfaction of his own judgment. This not only fostering pride of mind, but it is unhistorical and inhuman. We learn about God’s Revelation from being taught by the Church, even that there IS a bible or what books are in it. An inert text can not speak to new circumstances and problems by itself. Someone needs to apply it to the subsequent times and places. If the fallible individual does that on his own (unheard of in the early Church - except by heretics!) error follows.
