The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

That is your opinion based on what you have been taught within Catholic historical circles;

No, on the contrary, I was taught this in the Protestant Seminary I attended for three years while I was lapsed from Catholicism. It is historical fact, not just “Catholic fact”.

 for the term catholic was the common usage, not Catholic as in Roman Catholic Church.

How do you think it is different? I agree, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”, but the doctrines of the Church have not changed from the Apostolic times until now.

 But when you receive you education within the circle of Catholicism;

If a person has a well rounded education, no matter who provides it, all the perspecitves and biases will be explored. It is regrettable that your own Catholic education was abysmal. You have a chance now here on CAF to get it corrected, if you are able to open your heart to God’s call.

**

there is going to be claims and biases; yet if people were able to go back into time and actually speak to the Christians of the 1st and 2nd century; there would be a different consensus I am almost certain, **

And upon what do you base your certainty?

What makes your certainty more credible than the Word of God?

Pat_De:

but can’t be dogmatic and neither can you since neither of us can speak to these folks and just as Scripture is often twisted, bent and the like; so to are the words of the early church fathers.

I am glad you can see that the Early Fathers and the Scriptures do get twisted. This is exactly lthe reason they cannot be used as “final authority”. It is also the reason why we need the gift of infallibility. If Jesus did not preserve His Word in the Church where He placed it, then the Gospel would have become corrupted.

  what is the true church?  Scripture tells us quite a bit about it, but one statement alone in Scripture will kill any such notion as the Catholic church or the Mormon Church or the Jehovah Witness, or the Eastern Orthodox, which all claim as your church does to be the "true church"?

You are right, and in fact, this practice you describe is very common today. People will take one verse of scripture, remove it from it’s context, and use it to “prove” that a Truth infallibly preserved by the HS in the Church for 2000 years is “false”. It is a gross misuse of scripture,and a dangerous rejection of the Revelation of God.

 That is the problem with revelation outside of Scripture with no verifiable miracles to go with it, which is how God has always worked.

The fact that God has preserved revelation outside of Scripture is in itself a miracle, just as is the preservation of scripture.

I am curious to know what you consider to be a “verifiable miracle”? I am also wondering on what basis you accept the book of Genesis, since this is God’s revelation as it was preserved in Sacred Tradition for thousands of years, and most of that is not attested to with “verifiable miracles”.

 Then you have to contend with Jude when it comes to extra revelation; regardless of religious claims:

I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. Although Jude was written prior to Revelation; it is noted that many good theologians believe that Jude’s letter was widely circulated after Revelation was already widely circulated, which should not surprise us that God might work in that manner.

No, but what is surprising is that the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints (paradosis) was lost to the Protestants during the Reformation. The paradosis occurs through the Apostolic succession, and when people separate themselves from it, some portion of the Divine Deposit of Faith is lost. So much has been lost to Protestants over the last 500 years that many of you now believe the church “added” to the revelation, or put in “extra”, because they don’t even realize that what they received is an abbreviated version of the Deposit.

 

[PRmerger]

I am glad you can see that the Early Fathers and the Scriptures do get twisted. This is exactly lthe reason they cannot be used as “final authority”.

That, guanophore, is the most trenchant point on this thread.

:bowdown:

In fact, I think it bears repeating:
[SIGN]

I am glad you can see that the Early Fathers and the Scriptures do get twisted. This is exactly lthe reason they cannot be used as “final authority”.

[/SIGN]

 

[guanophore]

My first thought is: Who could READ the Bible at this time? What was the state of literacy?

There was actualy much more literacy at that time than there was during the MIddle Ages in Europe.

Furthermore what scripture? Was every new letter delivered by Paul immediately deposited into the 'scripture'? Or were they using the Old Testament alone as their leader?

It is true that the references to “scripture” for the most part in the NT are talking about the Septuagint. However, the Scriptures were never considered a “leader”. They are authoritative, since their author is God, but leadership is an activity of persons, not books, however Holy they may be.

You know early Jews kept the faith alive through word of mouth and it doesn't seem a huge leap of faith that the same was done for the early Christians. Word of mouth (the good news) and Old Testament scripture. Tradition AND Scripture kept the faith alive and later when the Bible was properly Canonized this SHOULD have continued. But, a thousand years later someone decided they knew better then Church leaders. :shrug:

One also has to wonder why those that don’t believe God can preserve His Word where He places it can accept the book of Genesis, also, since none of that material was in written form for thousands of years.

Good one.
We’ve never denied the Catholic role as hammer.
Maybe we feel LDS brought an Air Compressor & Nailgun to the job site

LOL. Without a doubt, the LDS defintely brough an air compressor and a nail gun to the site. It is difficult to find a more ready source of compressed air, or violent slinging of nails than what is found in LDS.

Why pay any mind to the Church built by Christ, when you can do a much better modern job of building your own?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Agreed, Paul gets His authority from Christ.

Don’t see any introductions in His letters that says By the Authority given to me by the Church who is Christ. maybe I’m just missing them.

OH well, I off to something more constructive.

the Church had just begun and St Paul saw Jesus and he was sent by Jesus to be part of His Church. you should notice here that St Paul was not to go out on his own to preach the Word of God. he came in into the Church and was instructed by the Apostles. unlike some who thinks that the Bible stear them away from the Church.
any way i dont know why is this of any benefit to your argument. in the contrary it only shows that the Church is one to teach and instruct all men.

 

[guanophore]

You have first off taken 2Timothy 2:2 out of context;

No, Pat. The context of the NT is Catholic. It is comprised of Catholic documents, written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic! That is why, when the NT is removed from it’s context (the Catholic Church) the meaning becomes distorted.

Paul is telling Timothy to preach what he, Paul, had preached to a multitude and is instructing Timothy to train others to do the same, which is what?  The message of the gospel.

Yes, but not the truncated version that is extant today among our evangelical fundamentalist brethren in modern times. When Paul commands Timothy to “guard what has been entrusted to you”, he is speaking of the Divine Deposit, that paradosis you cited in Jude. This is the whole gospel, with all the Traditions and Teachings together in a seamless garment.

Why would the mormons or JW's be any different after all Joseph Smith receive special golden tablets by an angel and gave him the translation and then the angel took the tablets back...quite the miracle only it wasn't in the presence of a multitude; just as the one's you mentioned were neither and yours have nothing to do with extra revelation; so you have several problems to overcome based on your own claims which you cannot defend outside of Catholic circles

I can understand why the whole gospel would seem like “extra revelation” to you, since you are in a tradition that has been separated from the paradosis for 500+ years. More and more parts of the One Faith get lost every generation, and every time a pastor decides to leave his congregation and start his own.

Why have they after 2000 year only interpreted a handful of Scriptures that are put into a context foreign to Scripture, but fit well with their bias?

This was done to prevent heresy, which has been based upon the misunderstanding of those scriptures.

The Church founded by Christ is not a “bible based” church, Pat. His Church was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The Catholic Church is founded upon the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.

The Reformers cut themselves off from that Church, forming their own ecclesial communities. Since they no longer had access to the Divine Deposit of faith as it has been faithfully handed down through the paradosis (preserved in the Aposotlic Succession) they used the only source of revelation they had left, which was the Holy Scriptures produced through that paradosis. Instead of recieiving the faith from those to whom it was committed, they chose instead to attempt to “extract” the faith from the pages of the book.

This is not how doctrine was designed to be taught.

Why is their not a verse by verse and book by book commentary on the entire Bible and the extra non-Biblical books?

Because this activity is disobedient to Jesus, and results in gross malformations of doctrine. It is a grievious sin, and the Church is not at liberty to sin.

This deposit of faith is foreign to Scripture and the early church just as Catholic is also foreign in the 1 and 2nd centuries; but catholic is not foreign; it is Catholic as in Roman Catholic that is foreign.

It is amazing that you yourself are the one who quoted a passage about the Divine Deposit of faith from the book of Jude, and yet, you are not able to see that it exists.

All I can say is, there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. If you think the Church of the first and second centuries was not Catholic, then you must have some very strange ideas about the Catholic faith. I have observed this in your previous posts. How would it affect your faith if you had to admit that the early church really was Catholic?

 

[guanophore]

The Bible warns about paying attention to genealogies as in I am from Paul or from Appollos or of Cephas.

Indeed. Yet, the Divine Deposit of Faith is transmitted through Holy Orders, which has nothing to do with geneology.

I am familiar with the function of the magisterium and it wasn’t till recent history the Pope was able to speak ex-cathedra or considered the vicar of Christ.

It is true that the titles are more recent, but it seems difficult to miss that Peter is speaking this way in the NT.

The early church always referred to the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ.

You don’t seem to have a difficulty with this concept. Your difficulty seems to be with having confidence that the HS can and does work through people.

Now we see the Catholic church, as well as the Protestant church’s being infested with liberalism where in the Protestant churches are being designed by popular culture and the gospel is is neither preached or is partially given.

I think this is the most accurate statement in your whole post.

But Jesus did warn that there would be wolves among the sheep, so this phenomenon should not surprise us. He promised to guide His Church into all Truth. This promise cannot be claimed by those who separate themselves from His Church.

Whereas the Catholic pre Vat II was dogmatic about you must be part of the Catholic church to be saved and Protestants were apostates damned to hell and now Protestants are “separated brethren” and can have a path to heaven by being Catholic and not really know it; yet they affirm the Council of Trent - double speaking and I have watched this dialogue between yourselves in other “Catholic only” forums. So even amongst those here recognize their is a problem.

Granted it has been a struggle for some to understand how it is that Jesus only has One Church, and so that all who are saved are members of it. However, the writers at Trent could not envision the gross departures from the Apostolic faith that exist today among “bible churches”. It would never occur to any of them to try to extract the faith from the pages of the Holy Scripture. This practice has produced believers in the tradition of Apollos.

If you come across a Latin only and Vatican I only Catholic and ask them to explain why they consider Vatican II as invalid, you will get an ear full…they are a minority within Catholicism.

Well, technically speaking they have placed themselves outside of Catholicism, since they are rejecting the Teachings of the Church. In that sense, they are no different than those who justify contraception.but on the other end of the scale (ultra-conservative as opposed to ultra liberal).

The greatest number of Catholics are among the cafeteria variety, which some Catholics here would not consider them as Catholic amongst themselves and some are even bold enough to say it openly.

You are right. They are lapsed Catholics, or apostate Catholics, and Catholics living in mortal sin.

This is why **all things** are to be measured against the Word of God - Sola Scriptura.

What happens when this method is used, since scripture itself does not “measure” (this is an activity of persons, not writings, however Holy) is that the person doing the measuring becomes their own Pope/Magesterium/standard of belief. This is a practice that the Apostles vigorously opposed.

You will find the breaking of bread in the early church as a feast!

Yes, the context of the Eucharistic celebration is Passover, which was indeed, a feast. Within the celebration of Passover, Jesus took bread and wine…

However, the Sacrifive of the Body and Blood was separated from the Love Feast very early (as we can see in the book of I Cor. ). The believers were instructed to eat at home, not to get drunk, etc. because it was a profanation of the sacrifice.

No mass is mentioned in the 1st and 2nd centuries unless a bent in made in translation./quote]

This is also an accurate statement, since the term “Mass” evolved from the Latin Rite, which did not develop until the third century. In the early years, the Liturgy of the Eucharist was in Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek. It was (and still is) called Divine Liturgy.

However, the basic structure of the Mass as it is today is evident in the NT and the writings of the Early Fathers. I wonder how it would change your faith if you had to admit this is true?
Pat De;7089424:

If you want a real look into early church, then get this title Eusebius: The Church History

It is not bias because it is a rewrite into modern English of the journals of Eusebius and I would also suggest “Works of Flavius Josephus”

These are good books to read, but all history is biased. It is written according to the point of view of the one writing it. These writings are taken together with the practices that were handed down to us from the Apostles, and the writings of the disciples of those Apostles. All these sources testify that the Catholic Church of today is the same as the one that was founded as it is recorded in the NT.

And none of them were Sola Scriptura.

 

[guanophore]

Using that logic then Peter cannot be the first Pope, which of course he isn’t since it is an invention of man,

My dear beloved Pat. Your hostility toward Catholicism is blinding your basic ability to reason. Even if the office of Pope were and invention of man, how does that mean it does not exist?

The term “Pope” is a Latin word of affection (papa) that did not develop linguistically until the Latin Rite was developed. The Church was founded in Jerusalem, and they still use the Aramaic term for “papa”. It then spread East to Syria, where they use the Arabic term for “papa” for their prelates.

You sentence is like saying “the Constitution of the United States does not exist, becuase it is an invention of man”. It does not make any logical sense. The office of the Pope exists, as history and your senses in observation of the daily news will testify. Catholics believe the office was Divinely Instituted by Christ, but even if you believe otherwise, to say it does not exist makes you appear as if you are flailing to deny reality.

since Paul said he would not build on another’s foundation and that is exactly what his intent was concerning Rome; don’t you read the Scriptures?

Peter and Paul made an agreement. Peter would go to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. Neither of them knew at the time that Peter would be arrested and dragged off to Rome. Did you expect Peter to stop preaching the Gospel, just because he found himself among Gentiles?

***I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you ***also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. {Romans 1}  It  would not concern Paul had Peter been there and if Peter were to go there and stay; he would be in direct violation and rebellion against the command given to him by God to the Jews - don't you read the Scriptures?

We read them, we just understand them differently. We understand them in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught, and the testimony of history. Peter and Paul labored together to build up the Church in Rome. The reason that Rome became the center of doctrinal authority is because of this divine deposit of faith.

Then Paul tells us in chapter 15:

20 And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was {already} named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation;
Again; don’t you read the Scriptures?

Perhaps I am missing your point? Perhaps you are trying to prove that Peter never went to Rome?

The Presidency? That is new

No. Presider is a word that is used by the Early Fathers. It is hardly “new”.

Who did the apostles call on, Jerusalem and who knew the truth? The apostles.
The Greeks called on Rome? They called on the person who was at the church in Rome whom they had faith in concerning the knowledge of the Scripture. If that person had been somewhere else, then they would have still called on that person, not because of location, but because of knowledge although they may have agreed to meet in Rome as it being a good location. See the difference?

Yes. But God chose Rome as the city in which He would build the center of doctrine and authority that was needed to guide the fledgling Church.

The catholic church; not the Roman Catholic Church - see the difference?

I see that you think there is one, but I am not sure why. It appears you have some sort of passionate and illogical animosity toward “Roman” Catholicism that results in an inability to apply logic.

Who is everyone and everywhere? Other church overseers had good reputations and were conferred with as well, but Rome being a central LOCATION was more of a convenience if a meeting in person was necessitated. Don’t you see the difference?

I don’t see a contradiction, if that is what you mean by “difference”. I see that God chose Rome as the center of the hub of the known world. I think this was part of His plan to bring His Son “in the fullness of time”. He waited until there was a common currency, common language, common polity, ability to travel and bring news to the corners of the world.

 

[guanophore]

As I indicated I cannot be dogmatic and nor can you because we cannot ask them what exactly they meant by what they had said; just as men from all generations have distorted the Scripture the same has been done with the words of the efc's.

I agree with you that history is full of distortions. This is a very good testimony to the reason the Church needs the gift of infallibility. The only Way that God can guide the Church into all Truth is supernaturally. We are not capable of this by ourselves.

Tell me how you define the true church of Jesus Christ and then I will answer your question. The true church is doing very well and is united in almost every way; so what is the true church as you are taught?

Jesus taught that there were no divisions in His Church. Unity is complete. Those who depart from His Teaching have departed from the Unity that exists in Him.

That is an opinion and erroneous at that for it is the Author of Scripture which brings us Scripture and He chose to use men to bring it together, which man calls the canon of Scripture and is now published in books.

As your own sentence here testifies, Pat, it is not an opinion that the Catholic Church determined the canon of scripture. The men He chose to bring it together were Catholic. They did so on the basis of the Catholic faith that was preserved through Sacred Tradition, as it was handed down infallibly from the Apostles. It seems that you are unable to trust God to preserve His word where He places it.

Your bias is on Roman Catholic because you are Catholic and for no other reason.  What does this prove?  Nothing.

Pat, I know your hostility may prevent you from being able to accept this, but I am going to state it anyway for the sake of others reading who may be more open to the Truth. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. People who receive and practice the Catholic faith stand in the Sacred Tradition (Apostolic Teaching) that was lost by those who departed from the One Faith passed down from the Apostles.

The Church is not Catholic because of any one person’s personal bias. It is Catholic because that is the way God made it.

It is my prayer that God will heal the wounds that have caused you to be so resistant to His Church.

 

[guanophore]

All of the writers were of the notion that Scripture was sufficient for all things concerning faith and practice.

If this were true, don’t you think the Scriptures themselves would indicate this, and the writers would actually teach this, instead of teaching that scripture is “profitable” in the hands of those who have been given the authority to use it?

Why would Jesus waste His time establishing a Church, if Scripture was sufficient for all things concerning faith and practice? Why did He not spend His time writing instead of training men?

Why did He instruct them that the Church is the arbitor of disputes, rather than the Scriptures?

As I indicated I cannot be dogmatic and nor can you because we cannot ask them what exactly they meant by what they had said; just as men from all generations have distorted the Scripture the same has been done with the words of the efc's.

I agree with you that history is full of distortions. This is a very good testimony to the reason the Church needs the gift of infallibility. The only Way that God can guide the Church into all Truth is supernaturally. We are not capable of this by ourselves.

Tell me how you define the true church of Jesus Christ and then I will answer your question. The true church is doing very well and is united in almost every way; so what is the true church as you are taught?

Jesus taught that there were no divisions in His Church. Unity is complete. Those who depart from His Teaching have departed from the Unity that exists in Him.

That is an opinion and erroneous at that for it is the Author of Scripture which brings us Scripture and He chose to use men to bring it together, which man calls the canon of Scripture and is now published in books.

As your own sentence here testifies, Pat, it is not an opinion that the Catholic Church determined the canon of scripture. The men He chose to bring it together were Catholic. They did so on the basis of the Catholic faith that was preserved through Sacred Tradition, as it was handed down infallibly from the Apostles. It seems that you are unable to trust God to preserve His word where He places it.

Your bias is on Roman Catholic because you are Catholic and for no other reason.  What does this prove?  Nothing.

Pat, I know your hostility may prevent you from being able to accept this, but I am going to state it anyway for the sake of others reading who may be more open to the Truth. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. People who receive and practice the Catholic faith stand in the Sacred Tradition (Apostolic Teaching) that was lost by those who departed from the One Faith passed down from the Apostles.

The Church is not Catholic because of any one person’s personal bias. It is Catholic because that is the way God made it.

It is my prayer that God will heal the wounds that have caused you to be so resistant to His Church.

Jesus in particular.

Jesus demonstrated the scriptures to be authoritative, because their author is God. But He is the final authority, not the Scriptures. He labored hard to point out where people had misunderstood and misapplied what was taught. He affirmed the Sacred Tradition, as attested by His support of obedience to those who sit in the Seat of Moses.

He told the pharasees you search the Scriptures because in them you believe you will find salvation , but I tell you they speak of me (paraphrased).  Jesus was telling them that what they are searching for in Scriptures, salvation, is right before their eyes.

Indeed He was.

He was not pointing to the Scriptures as the final authority and Source, but to Himself. The Scriptures also point to Him. He commissioned His Apostles with His One Authority,

… the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.

Indeed, The Apostlew were appointed preachers and aposltes. It is from them that we are to receive the gospel. We are out of order if we attempt to extract the gospel ourselves from the pages of the Holy Writings.

Tell me where else will one find the Gospel? Scripture alone anyone?  That is correct it is in the Scripture alone and it is what has always been the rule of faith and practice for the man and woman in Christ.

Yes, the gospel of the Catholic Church is reflected in the Scriptures, since they were written by, for, and about Catholics. What makes you think the gospel Jesus committed to the Church disappeared because portions of it were written down?

It is true that the Scriptures have always been profitable as a source of faith and practice for Christians (and Jews before us). But they were never intended to be separated from those who were appointed by Him to preach and to teach with them.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

How 'bout the fact that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired but the Gospel of Thomas is not?

Don’t you feel that’s essential to know?

And, of course, that’s an extra-biblical discernment that was revealed…

not through Scripture…

but

through

Sacred Tradition.

We have the bible, we know it’s inspired, the facts essential to our salvation are contained in it. (Sola Scriptura) The knowledge that the gospel of Thomas is not inspired is not essential to our salvation.

 

[Cat_Herder]

We have the bible, we know it’s inspired, the facts essential to our salvation are contained in it. (Sola Scriptura)

Then stop going to your church building on Sunday because that’s not in the Bible.

Actually, that’s a bad idea, because you are supposed to:

[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]

Time to face the music and admit where you got your unwritten Tradition of Sunday worship from.

 

[PRmerger]

The knowledge that the gospel of Thomas is not inspired is not essential to our salvation.

And how do you know that, Richard? What Scripture verse tells you this: *Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. * is not inspired?

That is, you cannot use circular reasoning to determine that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired. “It’s not inspired because it’s not in the Bible” and “It’s not in the Bible because it’s not inspired.” :whacky:

[SIGN]You only know the Gospel of Mark is inspired–and the Scriptures itself do not say that the Gospel of Mark is inspired- because the CC told you it is theopneustos. [/SIGN]

 

[SyCarl]

It is no more circular thaN saying only the Catholic Church can tell us what is scripture because the scripture tells us we do.

 

[Cat_Herder]

It is no more circular thaN saying only the Catholic Church can tell us what is scripture because the scripture tells us we do.

Jesus rose from the dead and set up a Church. It is from Jesus, not the Bible, that the Church has authority. But naturally, the books composing Scripture make reference to that authority.

 

[Dokimas]

Jesus rose from the dead and set up a Church. It is from Jesus, not the Bible, that the Church has authority. But naturally, the books composing Scripture make reference to that authority.

The question isn’t where the church Jesus founded has authority. The question is is that church the CC? A second question: does the church have all the authority the CC says it has been given it by God?

 

[Cat_Herder]

The question isn’t where the church Jesus founded has authority. The question is is that church the CC? A second question: does the church have all the authority the CC says it has been given it by God?

The Church is divinely protected against apostasy, and no Protestant church is less than 600 years old.

Yes to the second question.

 

[SyCarl]

Jesus rose from the dead and set up a Church. It is from Jesus, not the Bible, that the Church has authority. But naturally, the books composing Scripture make reference to that authority.

Other than the Church saying it has authority, how do we know it does?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Other than the Church saying it has authority, how do we know it does?

If you don’t want to pick up the Bible for fear of circular argumentation, we can look at the Church Fathers, or at the direct evidence–not one doctrine changed, ever.

 

[PRmerger]

It is no more circular thaN saying only the Catholic Church can tell us what is scripture because the scripture tells us we do.

No, Carl. That is not a circular argument; rather, it is a spiral argument.

We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. *That indeed would be a circular argument! *What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired. Source

 

[SyCarl]

If you don’t want to pick up the Bible for fear of circular argumentation, we can look at the Church Fathers, or at the direct evidence–not one doctrine changed, ever.

I am merely saying that the Church can’t prove its authority without using the Bible. Yet we can’t know the Bible until we know the Church has authority.

Nobody contends that the Church fathers were infallible.

As for never changing a doctrine, Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception as presently defined yet he is a saint and doctor of the church. Are you required to believe the Immaculate Conception? If you are but Aquinas wasn’t, how is that not a change in doctrine?