Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[PC_Master]

1. The church has a voice (" if he doesn’t listen even to the church…".). Now, let’s ask ourselves: has an unstructured assembly a voice ? How can I say: now the assembly has spoken, and I will listen. If you imagine an unstructured
   assembly, you will agree that it has no voice as such. There are many voices ( the members’) and no voice of the assembly as such. The oneness of the voice I have to listen to implies organization, roles, rules. Am I wrong ?

Obviously there needs to be some minimal organization to such meetings, but such organization need not have created an authority who could render a decision without the congregation.This is much as a moderator speaks in various sorts of meetings, but has no supreme control over the group himself.

So you do state that. Founding the statement on what ?

I simply see no evidence that shows there to have been an earthly organization. There were many believers, who were spread out through numerous congregations (based on their geographic location). There were those who held positions of leadership among those groups, but these were ordinary men who were thought to have greater spiritual understanding (much like Paul), and thus were entrusted with positions of authority.

But why must one assume that this necessitates an earthly organization with a head apostle to which all others were subject? I don’t see this view anywhere in the texts I’ve read.

We have to decide whether the requested submission is to authority or to understanding. For, authority we could acknowledge, and we then should know whom to obey.
In the latter case, I should not know how to follow this scriptural command. Because …I am given no ranking of my brothers
according to the spiritual understanding. And so, again, as for Matthew 18:17, without organization, here too I simply do not know whom to listen to.

How were the people able to select upstanding men to serve as deacons? How were congregations able to select men to send as messengers? Indeed, this is part of why the holy spirit is present – to help us discern godly wisdom and understanding.

As for the existence of offices, or ministries in the Church, Paul does tell us explicitly about that. See Ephesians 4:11

Paul writes of spiritual gifts which are to be used. Paul doesn’t write of authority, except that of God himself. Where does he say that those with the gift of teaching are to be leaders? No – Paul seems to say they should indeed teach, but he doesn’t mention that any are given the gift of leadership, or the episcopate. An odd omission, if the church was as structured as you claim.

He was asked to write by the Corinthians. Maybe in Greece they knew that precisely in Rome there was greater spiritual understanding. Anyway, chapters 42 to 44 speak just about ministries and appointments. Hard to fit into an unstructured church.

Let’s clarify one thing real quick – I’m not saying that there was no organization in the church. Rather, I’m saying there was no central leadership in Rome (or elsewhere). The church consisted of a collection of congregations of believers, and men were brought forth by God to impart godly wisdom to them.*1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
*Notice a few things:

1. Clement does not speak of any one leader in the passages you mentioned. He does not speak of his office as overseer of the whole church. He speaks of multiple persons, as would fit if there were leaders, not of the church at large, but of each congregation.
2. These are to be upstanding men, appointed with the consent of the whole church (that means all the people within the church, I think).
3. Clement qualifies that it is those who have ministered blamelessly. Apparently he considered the corruption of these leaders to be a possibility.

*A) Do you state we can judge the orthodoxy or etherodoxy of the sub-apostolic Church *leadership, their faithfulness to the deposit they directly received from the Apostles, by the Bible ( the Bible alone) ?

No. But I do believe it must be a primary source in evaluating such. There are some issues not completely specified in scripture, but it does speak to many things. It must take precedence over any subsequent tradition or teaching.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

*Just let’s consider this scenario. I have my Bible, read let’s say Ignatius, and then can tell you how he had gone astray.

Can I really do that ? I mean Ignatius and those guys had received the deposit from the Apostle’s very lips. I certainly did not. They had seen the Apostles, looked at their example,
asked them about possible doubts, about what the Apostles’ unique experience with the Lord had been like. All wonderful experiences and possibilities I do not have.
They were living at the very time when the Books that would go into our NT were being completed. They were the people who had started recognizing and delivering those Books as faithful written witnesses to the Tradition they had learnt from the living inspired source: the Apostles. It is those people who tell me
" Look, you can trust the NT, we know that !".
And now, just because I happen to have the Books selected and delivered by them and their successors, can I judge that those guys had misunderstood the Apostolic Tradition *?

It is clear that there would be heresy (and in fact there was) from the earliest days of the church. We also know that God uses fallible men to do extraordinary things.

God used Moses to bring the Israelites out of Egypt. And yet, Moses later struck the rock, disobeying God’s instruction to speak to it. Did God continue to use Moses after that? Yes, he did.

Also remember that it’s not one person alone on who you’re basing what you call scripture. Especially in the case of Paul’s letters and the four gospels, we know that a great many throughout the church treated them as scripture very soon after their authorship.

Multiple, independent attestations to truth seem to be a hallmark of God’s, to prevent any one fallible being from messing things up. That’s not saying that anything which has multiple attestations will be from God, but rather that it’s one thing he does to protect the truth.

Your criterion ( with some wise caveat) is clear: contradiction with ( my interpretation of ) Scripture = wrong doctrine. Why then all our problems and our present dialogue ? Isn’t that because there are so many interpretations of Scripture and therefore many belief systems, although Jesus established one ?

Indeed. I see your confusion, but let me clarify that I do believe in absolute morality. There is a certain correct answer to any question. It’s not as though, because I respect the right of others to follow God as they will, I actually believe they’re correct in their beliefs.

Only the guidance of the Holy Spirit can correct each of us of our errors in belief. The trick is that we must be willing to listen, just as one had to be willing to listen to Jesus himself to grasp what he was saying. Unfortunately, I’m imperfect, and am not completely open to the movings of the Holy Spirit, and thus I am not in the completeness of truth.

Think about it – if God had provided an earthly leadership that would expand so that the church encompassed such a huge portion of the world’s population as the RCC does, would there be need to say this… Matthew 7:13-14 Amplified
13 Enter through the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and spacious and broad is the way that leads away to destruction, and many are those who are entering through it.
14 But the gate is narrow and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it.

• Their doctrines, their practices, their organization, were significantly different from what the Bible teaches, even deviated from it, yet , while going on deviating, they fixed that very text, which would condemn them, as normative, for themselves and the future Church.*
  **
  Why ?**

I hope you see my problems.

I do understand where you’re coming from (at least, I think I do). However, one must remember that the text of scripture was not suddenly formed in the third and fourth and fifth centuries. In fact, it had a history stemming back to the apostles, and though I do believe that the supposed leaders of the church had begun to go astray at this point, it’s hard to deny entry into scripture of works which were at the core of Church practice from the beginning. As they were so deeply-rooted, there is no doubt that such works were still highly-valued, and I daresay their meaning better understood than by the RCC of today.

A gradual falling away, starting with one little bit, and then another and another, over the course of centuries, fits perfectly in with this.

 

[agangbern]

Think about it – if God had provided an earthly leadership that would expand so that the church encompassed such a huge portion of the world’s population as the RCC does, would there be need to say this…

Matthew 7:13-14 Amplified
13 Enter through the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and spacious and broad is the way that leads away to destruction, and many are those who are entering through it.
14 But the gate is narrow and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it.
​

Registration in the baptismal books of the Church does not necessarily mean that the baptized has already entered the narrow gate. Gate here does not refer to the Church, but to the thing that would cause man either destruction or life.That which would cause him destruction is wide, easy to pass through, while that which would cause him life is narrow (difficult to pass through).​

 

[PC_Master]

Care to elaborate on what the gate is?

 

[annem]

Is the Catholic church as an authority a circular argument?

But doesn’t this miss the historical evidence? From the very start, Paul appealed to “tradition” which had been passed on. This tradition was based on the eyewitness testimony and the authority of the apostles. Over and over again, all apologists of the early centuries appealed to this tradition and authority.

As for scripture, the bible canon wasn’t finished until centuries later.

God bless, Anne

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Let’s clarify one thing real quick – I’m not saying that there was no organization in the church. Rather, I’m saying there was no central leadership in Rome (or elsewhere).

But I thought that Clement actually did call for a centralized leadership from Rome? Wasn’t there an epistle from Clement to the Hebrews which called for a re-location of the Church leadership from the church in Jerusalem to the church in Rome?

Hmmm…I’m going to have to look this one up further and come back to this, because I can’t remember this part for sure.

 

[annem]

Now, if we overall look at scripture, we see that the majority of it was agreed on by the middle of the second century, with the exception of a few works (Hebrews, John’s letters, Jude). We also see that God has made it such that every point of major doctrinal importance is confirmed by multiple attestations in scripture. He has taken steps to protect his teachings, and continues to work in the hearts of believers, so that the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Paul’s first epistles refer to tradition he and the other Christians have received from the eyewitnesses, the apostles. Scripture derives its authority from having been based on the same authority, the eyewitness testimony of the apostles. Isn’t this correct?

God bless, Anne

 

[PC_Master]

But I thought that Clement actually did call for a centralized leadership from Rome? Wasn’t there an epistle from Clement to the Hebrews which called for a re-location of the Church leadership from the church in Jerusalem to the church in Rome?

Hmmm…I’m going to have to look this one up further and come back to this, because I can’t remember this part for sure.

I’m not aware of any such letter, but I’m not extremely well versed in ECFs – I haven’t had the time to devote to such study. Please let me know what you find either way, as I would be interested to learn this information.

Paul’s first epistles refer to tradition he and the other Christians have received from the eyewitnesses, the apostles. Scripture derives its authority from having been based on the same authority, the eyewitness testimony of the apostles. Isn’t this correct?

Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment. However, there’s a difference between tradition of the gospel and tradition of man. Essentially, the gospels, and even Paul’s writings, could be seen as written forms of tradition, or perhaps more properly, history of the gospel. Paul wrote based on what he knew from the apostles, and from divine revelation.

The gospel authors wrote based on reputable accounts of what Jesus actually said and did. It’s a recording of history and fact. We believe today that Jesus was divine and died for our sins. This was held, exactly this way, from the first century. Scripture (this written tradition) bears it out, and is of the most antiquity we could expect to find regarding these issues.

Now, on the other hand, we have what I’ve termed “tradition of men”. Things like Marian devotions, the papacy, confession to a priest, and the Eucharist fall into this category. These things were not present in early centuries, and in later centuries, started to develop.

When you tell me of Marian devotions – it’s now a tradition of the RCC, and thus is considered valid by you. And yet, when we trace it through history, where did this tradition start? Do we see the gospel authors, or Paul, or Clement, or other early authors making mention of such devotions? No.

Do we see claims of the papacy in early centuries? No. Clement (a supposed pope) doesn’t even make such claims, though all current popes do.

If today a heretical sect (pick one) which existed in the earliest centuries of Christianity still existed, and still held to the same traditions as back when they started, would the tradition be valid? No! And why not? Because tradition, for tradition’s sake is meaningless. Holding the tradition of the divinity of Christ is valid, but only because the divinity of Christ is truth.

Tradition cannot be a justification. The Jews had practices in Jesus’ day, which they claimed, much like the RCC now does, came via tradition. They claimed them to be based on Torah. These traditions allowed for the sale of goods within the temple. Jesus went in and threw over the tables in righteous anger. Why? Because, though it was tradition, such actions were an abomination to God. Among God’s own chosen people heresy cropped up, masquerading as truth, justified as tradition.

Summary: Tradition which is the relation of facts and truth is fine, because facts and truth are fine. Tradition which is the relation of anything but facts and truth is not fine, because the contents of the tradition are such.

 

[annem]

Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment. However, there’s a difference between tradition of the gospel and tradition of man. Essentially, the gospels, and even Paul’s writings, could be seen as written forms of tradition, or perhaps more properly, history of the gospel. Paul wrote based on what he knew from the apostles, and from divine revelation.

Thanks for your reply. But what is the tradition of men and what is the tradition of the apostles? How do you judge?

Scripture has authority, you agree, but how did it derive its authority? Surely only under the guidance and approval of the church. Dogmas now believed in by almost all Christians that needed to be sorted out in early Christianity included the relationship of Jesus to God, the problem of Christ’s two natures and the Trinity. Are these what you would now call the traditions of man? If so, aren’t you accepting the authority of the early church?

God bless, Anne

\

 

[pneuma07]

Moreover, it’s better to consider that not everyone will be within this one belief system fully, or fully outside of it. It’s obvious from scripture that some will fall into heresy, but that doesn’t mean they’re without any knowledge of the truth. I’d argue that there’s not one alive, now or in history, who is completely

 

[pneuma07]

Obviously there needs to be some minimal organization

 

[pneuma07]

It is clear that there would be heresy (and in fact there was) from the earliest days of the church. We also know that God uses fallible men to do extraordinary things.

 

[agangbern]

The gospel authors wrote based on reputable accounts of what Jesus actually said and did. It’s a recording of history and fact. We believe today that Jesus was divine and died for our sins. This was held, exactly this way, from the first century. Scripture (this written tradition) bears it out, and is of the most antiquity we could expect to find regarding these issues.

Now, on the other hand, we have what I’ve termed “tradition of men”. Things like Marian devotions, the papacy, confession to a priest, and the Eucharist fall into this category. These things were not present in early centuries, and in later centuries, started to develop.

First, what do you understand by “Marian devotions”? What do you understand by “Papacy”? Both of them, and the Eucharist, properly understood, the Scripture bear them out too! But that would be a good discussion in another thread.

 

[agangbern]

Care to elaborate on what the gate is?

There are two groups of gates in this world. The group that would lead to destruction are called “the gates of hell” (Mathew 18:18) Many walk through those gates. The other is the “gate to heaven”. Jesus Christ is that “gate to heaven.” (John 10:7) As we can see, while the gates to hell are many, the gate to heaven is only one, Jesus Christ. How to enter the gate to heaven is a big challenge to every disciple. Jesus said, “No disciple is above his teacher; but when perfected, everyone will be like his teacher.” (Luke 6:40)

 

[PC_Master]

Thanks for your reply. But what is the tradition of men and what is the tradition of the apostles? How do you judge?

This is where the Holy Spirit comes in. I can’t give you a quantifiable answer, any more than a Roman Catholic can quantify how they know the RCC’s interpretation of history is fact. In the end, it comes down to a matter of faith.

We must use logic and reason as best we can – if we see something in current practice which is claimed to be tradition, and see no evidence of it in scripture (or other equally-antique documents), its validity is certainly questionable.

Scripture has authority, you agree, but how did it derive its authority? Surely only under the guidance and approval of the church.

Nope. The church (or rather, some of the members of Christ’s flock) were used in extraordinary ways throughout history to help preserve God’s truth. I believe the canonization of NT books was part of this. I don’t hold to such groups to be infallible, but I do hold that, like Moses, God made great things happen in spite of our human imperfections.

It sounds like you’re saying you either have to accept the infallibility of the RCC, or reject everything it teaches. This isn’t true, for even heretics believe some of the truth. Also, since the RCC was not really formed at that point, and the beliefs of that day were far closer to scripture than to modern Roman Catholic teaching from what I’ve seen, it stands to reason that there would be more working by God in that era, as relative to now.

Dogmas now believed in by almost all Christians that needed to be sorted out in early Christianity included the relationship of Jesus to God, the problem of Christ’s two natures and the Trinity. Are these what you would now call the traditions of man? If so, aren’t you accepting the authority of the early church?

Show me how any of these aren’t in scripture. If something is in the oldest history of the church, a later body recognizing it is hardly an example of that church’s authority.

certainly, there are infinite degrees of our possible knowledge about Divine revelation. As well as on our following or rejecting the one Church. And each of us is subject to the temptation to teach the Church rather than being taught by Her.

Hmm, and where does scripture say “the church will teach”. Where does scripture even use “church” to mean anything institutional? We are all taught by the Holy Spirit. The church (the flock of Christ) is taught.

I have to answer my own question. OK. Solascripturaists
( who BTW appear to be a group almost in extinction on this forum. ) have a verifiable not living source. You have, IMHO, a living not verifiable source. Both of these ways cannot tell me whether I am following Jesus’ voice. They are producing more and more different views. What if we accept the idea of a living verifiable source as possible, and as the expectable one to be able to deal with all of that ?

In an earthly sense, yes, your source is verifiable…but how do you verify that it’s really the correct source? How do you verify that the papacy is not just heresy? If the papacy/church magisterium gets its info from the Holy Spirit, then it too has a living, but not verifiable source. Thus, while you can verify the desires of your source (the RCC), you can’t verify that they are truly the desires of the one you worship (God).

But is the Holy Spirit how God wished to work in mankind? I’d say yes…*Jeremiah 31:31-34 Amplified
31 Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, says the Lord.
33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, says the Lord, I will put My law within them, and on their hearts will I write it; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
34 And they will no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they will all know Me [recognize, understand, and be acquainted with Me], from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will [seriously] remember their sin no more.
*Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

I’ll assume I don’t have to get in to explaining how we’re a part of the house of Israel (which would certainly be best left for another thread). There’s another passage somewhere which says “I will dwell in the midst of them”, but I can’t find it at the moment.

Is the Holy Spirit the source which is most comforting and recognizable to mankind? No. But it is how God said he’d do things. The Old Covenant employed hierarchal earthly leadership – the New Covenant is not like that one.

For all we say…this passage is unique. Unless we can see another person receiving the same words precisely for himself, and not for a group.

So because we don’t have recordings of it being said, or being applied to someone else, we must assume that it does not? Why? Where does it say that it only applies to Peter, or that it doesn’t apply to anyone else?

Should we likewise assume that the letters of Paul are only meaningful for those they were written to? I hope not.

We certainly suppose all of the Eleven would love Jesus.
And Jesus initial words are not a simple “Do you love me ?”, but:
“Do you love me more than these ?”

And yet Peter’s reply is not, “Yes Lord, you know I love you more than these.” In fact, he doesn’t even use the same word for “love”. He uses a lesser form of love, as would be used for a friend (more akin to “like” than “love”), as opposed to Christ’s question of an undying and complete love.

BTW What is “maturity in Christ” ? Do you know who is mature, and in what degree ? Can I know that too, can everyone of us ?

You can know that by their accord with the workings of the Holy Spirit. However, to have that, you have to listen to the Holy Spirit first. It’s not easy, but it is what Christ said he’d do. He said the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. He didn’t make exception and say “You, as church leaders, will be led by the Holy Spirit, and everyone else must be led by you.”

In fact, at Pentecost, we see that they taught that whoever followed Christ received the Holy Spirit. If it is not for the purpose of guiding us into the truth, what then, is its purpose?

I do believe you can somehow explain away every single piece of evidence. My doubts are only about how plausible AND workable the general picture coming out of all these ways out can be.

Admittedly, it can be done. I see much the same in Roman Catholic explanations of things. However, what I’m getting at is this – you are coming at every question from the point of view of “Why shouldn’t we accept the RC perspective?” I’m asking, instead “Why should we?” If we’re to favor a particular method of thinking, there must be a reason for it.

You personally can have exceptional gifts. No question. But leaving for a moment aside exceptional gifts, direct divine miracles, long opinion ( or “soul”) polls and so on … why are we explaining away the simplest possibility ? Ie that each of us can know in principle who belongs to His Church and who is in charge in the local church. It’s just enough having a visible organized Church.

Because it’s not the simplest explanation. The working of the divine in the life of each person who wishes to listen is far simpler.

However, even in spite of that, there’s another key point. We can’t know who belongs to the church according to Roman Catholic theology – not on any practical level. Who can tell me, aside from God, that you will end up in heaven? How about me? No matter which of our belief systems is right, there is no earthly certainty of it.

No, in fact, what the RCC offers which I think must be that which you find appealing, is a codified set of rules and interpretations. You can be certain, through an earthly authority, that you’re doing things right. I do understand the appeal of this – it’s what brought me here in the first place. But, that doesn’t mean God chose to do it that way.

To say that he did requires evidence. What is there in scripture or early church history that requires an earthly leadership and what is there that proves that it couldn’t have evolved from not existing, to existing, in later centuries?

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

I am happy. You do accept a form of organization. Although, peculiarly so, “minimal”. I wonder whether in general you consider “organization”," institution", and ( that word !) “authority” as an evil. And, if so, where you got this concept: authority=evil.

Authority isn’t evil. But evil can be in authority (at least on earth). Institution and organization such as the RCC has could be great – the question is whether God did it this way, and I’m not yet convinced he did.

Devices are not good or evil in and of themselves. What makes them good or evil is how the affect my pursuit of the truth. If an authority, say the RCC (or pick another group of your choice), teaches me heresy, then they are doing evil, and hindering my growth toward God. Thus, it is imperative to be sure that any authority I submit to will help me achieve my goal. Do you follow what I’m saying?

Then you do see “positions of authority”. And guys who were entrusted with them. By whom ? How ?

By whom? It seems that the consent of the whole church (or at least the local congregation) was required. How? Well, with deacons, the apostles said they should select men from among them, so it implies some sort of congregational nomination and election, I would think.

Regarding bishops – perhaps the outgoing bishop would have selected another, but it seems this wasn’t a unilateral selection process, given that the ECFs make note of the church (congregation) having to approve of it. Less formal than you’d like, I know, but it seems that this is how it happened.

Again, you need rules. And don’t we see the succession issue cared about in the early Church ? And where is any authority in the Church from, if not from Christ through the Apostles ?

Where is there a centralized leadership that rules authoritatively on situations found in scripture or very early church history?

As for authority – no man has authority. Only God holds true authority. Yes, men, usually in congregation-sized groups, made decisions about themselves, but such actions, taken by truly-God-following people are fine. The Holy Spirit can guide those who listen.

Paul does certainly speak about gifts. He does certainly speak about succession issues too. You do not succeed in gifts, you succeed in offices. I hope I have your assent on this. Doesn’t Paul speak about succession specifically to his “children” ( “call no man father” ) ? Do offfices and succession contradict the presence of the Holy Spirit and His assistance to the Church ?

Yes, Paul wanted to ensure there were those who continued to teach the faithful, but this was not a formalized, hierarchal office as such. And even if it were, where does it show a centralized authority? Paul wrote as one who initially brought them the gospel. He was their friend and mentor in the faith. He wasn’t a bishop or overlord as such.

The Holy Spirit assists Christ’s Church in guarding the deposit of Divine Revelation. Paul is not saying "No matter whether you forget Christ’s message, my dear child, I know the HS will come in the future to restore it. " No. The task is guarding the deposit of Divine Revelation delivered once for all by the Word made flesh. With the help of the Holy Spirit.

That doesn’t explain any centralized church authority. It also doesn’t allow for evolution of doctrine. If you’re to guard what you have, you’re not necessarily to develop it further.

We have some organization then.
But no central leadership ever. Then you are telling me that the decisions of the Council we see in Acts 15 are NOT issued by a central leadership. Are you ?

It’s not a decision. The church (in Antioch, if I recall) had a dispute between Paul and Barnabas and some men from Judea. Paul and Barnabas and some others decided to go to Jerusalem (where the men apparently came from) to confer with (not appeal to, or request judgment from) others they knew to be spiritually mature. The elders in Jerusalem (including several apostles, most likely) convened, and discussed the situation. Many people, including Peter and probably Paul spoke on the subject. James suggested a final solution and course of action, which the group apparently agreed to.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

We see no authority of Peter here. We see no “X rendered the decision and it was final” here. We also don’t see that they said “We, as the head church, say you must do this”. Instead, we see that the church in Jerusalem was concerned for the well being of their brethren. They sent a letter to encourage their brethren and clarify that they (1) did not instruct the men who had previously come down to teach as they did and (2) that they didn’t believe it was within the desires of the Holy Spirit to make such requirements.

Clemens does not speak of his office. He exercises it.

So Paul was a pope too, then? After all, he wrote to many churches to solve matters of dispute. Why wasn’t Peter doing this?

Do we agree that we are speaking of apostolic succession here, Apostles appointing bishops who will have to be succeeded in their turn ?

Not as a sort of monarchal line, no.

So you and I were told by … the early Church leadership.

You mean, individuals in the early church who were led by God to write certain things? Yes, indeed. You have to demonstrate that there actually was a centralized leadership before you can make claims of what it said.

Disobeying and preaching error are different. Aren’t they ?

Both are disobeying God.

OK. Let’s suppose that the leadership back in the second century tells you the Corpus Paulinum ( except Hebrews) is Word of God.

(BTW  Do we see that we do need  something like a central leadership to have a Canon or a first core of it ? )

A formalized canon – perhaps. But then again, I don’t adhere to the concept that there are no other works which might be of spiritual value. I hold that scripture is certainly among them, and contains all important truths, but still.

We certainly don't see a formalized leadership defining the four gospels and works of Paul as being canon -- and yet we see that they are commonly read and used in churches before the middle of the second century. It seems God uses more than just hierarchies to establish his truth.

1. Those guys, established/developed the monarchich episcopacy.

False. Those guys and their successors over many generations established the monarchist papacy.

1. I condemn the leaders of the II century for deviating from the Word of God. I know they were wrong.
   
   My question: can we assume what this non-fictional procedure implies ?

Simple – that they were human beings, capable of erring. Fortunately, God knows that people can (and do) mess up, and manages to preserve his truth in spite of this. Scripture was already fairly well established at this point, and the concept of church tradition and magisterium had not yet become a major influence, so the extent of heresy is less than what we have today.

On accepting as criterion my own interpretation of Scripture

I fail to see a specific answer here. Maybe you will explain with other words. .

I’m not sure how to better explain my position. Perhaps you could tell me what’s confusing you or seeming nondescript?

As already observed, being a member of the one Church gives you no automatic assurance about being safe.

Noted.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Their doctrines, their practices, their organization, were significantly different from what the Bible teaches, even deviated from it, yet , while going on deviating, they fixed that very text, which would condemn them, as normative, for themselves and the future Church.
Why ?

See above. The ancientness of scripture, the fact that a great many churches were using most of it, and the lack of the influence of the papacy, magisterium, and tradition up to this point limited the amount of variation that could happen.

Yet, in any stage of the process of canonization (II to V century), I have to believe that there was a leadership contributing to the canonizations of texts which would condemn their own practices and teachings.

Even now, Roman Catholics manage to jump through hoops to explain contradictions between scripture and church teaching. Consider that the errors were far more minor at this point (given the distance between then and Christ as compared to now – less time for heresy to develop). The differences could very easily be explained away, and were I living in that day, perhaps some of the differences might have been so subtle that I wouldn’t have noticed them. This is the point of gradual evolution of heresy. It didn’t just spring into being fully-formed one day.

…or who even would not understand what it says

Minor misunderstandings == minor heresies.
Building on minor misunderstandings with more minor misunderstandings eventually yields major heresies. All this without a single sudden “boom, there’s where the heresy came in” event.

…AND that its teachings can be on the contrary apparent without interpreter to an average believer in 2007 ?

Who said we didn’t need an interpreter? We don’t need an earthly interpreter.

First, what do you understand by “Marian devotions”? What do you understand by “Papacy”? Both of them, and the Eucharist, properly understood, the Scripture bear them out too! But that would be a good discussion in another thread.

Indeed -- better for another thread.

There are two groups of gates in this world. The group that would lead to destruction are called “the gates of hell” (Mathew 18:18) Many walk through those gates. The other is the “gate to heaven”. Jesus Christ is that “gate to heaven.” (John 10:7) As we can see, while the gates to hell are many, the gate to heaven is only one, Jesus Christ. How to enter the gate to heaven is a big challenge to every disciple. Jesus said, “No disciple is above his teacher; but when perfected, everyone will be like his teacher.” (Luke 6:40)

Uh, okay, and how do you equate this to being the RCC?

 

[pneuma07]

Hmm, and where does scripture say “the church will teach”. Where does scripture even use “church” to mean anything institutional? We are all taught by the Holy Spirit. The church (the flock of Christ) is