I come humbled and seeking advice. I took a theology class this semester in early Christianity. In it we did an entire section which in the course syllabus was described as " books extremely popular in early Christianity which were excluded from the Canon". These books which I read include the Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Didache, 1 Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, and the Protoevangelium of James. I realized reading these and historical context that these books were written during the same period as some New Testament books which were included such as Revelation to John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 and 3 John. So my question is how can we know that the right books are in the New Testament when we now know that some of these books were included in early manuscripts of the New Testament and quoted among early Christians such as Origin of Alexandria, Iraneus, and even Eusebius seems to have problems speaking of it in his Church History? I feel like I am lost and I shouldn’t be questioning the authority of the Church but I honestly am at times. I feel like the more I seek knowledge the more confusion I feel.
Let’s begin by answering this question: Can the Catholic Church ever teach error?
Infallibility Explained by Reasoning from the Scriptures
Excerpted from an article by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm
It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith – indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.
Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed “my” (Christ’s) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ’s absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master’s return is very much to the point.
Just as clearly, Peter’s authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means – eventually, election by the college of cardinals.
Moreover, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.
For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. This authority was exercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive.
The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ’s will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).
Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation – that is, in faith or morals.
Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ’s own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.
**Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error – else the powers of hell would prevail.
This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.**
Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible – the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.
