As we near the closing of this thread, I think it’s important to kind of rehash some things. First of all, thank you, eazyduzit, benhur, and In His Grace for providing your perspectives - along with all other non-Catholics who replied to this thread. See, part of the point that we Catholics have been making is that the Bible is inerrant, but, without guidance through our magisterium, one cannot know for himself or herself if his or her own interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. This is especially true if someone emphasizes some chapters and verses of the Bible over others. For instance, both abolitionists and slave owners used the Bible to support their positions. Even today, people who support same-sex “marriage” twist the Bible to support their position. Many heresies - most notably Arianism (which has come back under the guise of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), adoptionism, modalism, monophysitism, Donatism, and even Pelagianism - came about due to misunderstandings of scripture - or debates on what should be considered scripture. In fact, the Gospel of John was specifically included in the canon of scripture to help combat early heresies. Why? Because without the Gospel of John, which specifically states that Jesus is, in fact, God, but is not the Father.
Regardless, when someone accepts the canon of scripture (most notably, the New Testament), then that person accepts the Ecumenical Councils of Hippo and Carthage (the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils - which is why the canons of the Oriental Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian churches are vastly different, especially in the OT, as these councils convened after the Oriental Orthodox were excommunicated by both Rome and Constantinople after the council of Chalcedon for not rejecting monophysitism). If one accepts the councils of Hippo and Carthage, then one must, by proxy, accept all councils that came before Hippo and Carthage, including Nicea I, Constantinople I, Constantinople II, and Chalcedon. Why? Because the first thing done at every council is the reaffirmation of all dogma defined at previous councils. This, of course, was before the Catholic/Orthodox split, but regardless - how can one say that the Church used to have authority, but no longer does? When did the Church lose its authority? And if it lost its authority before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, how do you accept that the Church was correct in determining the body of scripture? There were, after all, hundreds of Christian writings and highly circulated pseudo-Christian writings that never made scripture. If the Church lost its authority after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, how and when was the authority lost? Can you point to a time where the Church came up with new teachings out of whole cloth? And if you cannot point to a time where the authority of the Catholic Church was lost, then the Church must still retain authority. And if the Catholic Church retains authority, then the Church retains the Truth. And if the Church retains the Truth, then why don’t you belong?
