Did Jesus recount the Annunciation, or did Mary? I suppose that it's possible that Jesus could have done it given his Divine nature. But two problem exists. First, the Gospels largely record Jesus' public ministry. This indicates that the writers were depending upon their own memories and those of their contemporaries. Only a handful of events prior to Jesus' public ministry are recorded. Secondly, Scripture does not record a command from Jesus to His disciples to record His life and teachings in writing. It was not until many years after Jesus' death, in some cases decades, that the disciples, realizing that the Second Coming would not be immediate, determined to set into writing the events of Jesus' life. This lapse of time would allow memories to fade. It seems more than probable that the Gospel writers would have depended upon the memories of others, as well as their own, divinely inspired of course, to recount the events of Jesus' life. In other words, Jesus didn't directly dictate the words of the NT, nor did He command the compilation of the NT. Both were the inspired work of His Church.
"The Church enjoys this special charism as "the pillar and foundation of truth."
But you must change scripture to make that statement. Certainly you must realize that there were churches before the Catholic church.
No, there were not. The Kingdom that Christ proclaims is His Kingdom, His Church, and He established Its ecclesial structure with the selection of the 12 Apostles with Peter as His vice-regent.
"The Church enjoys this special charism as "the pillar and foundation of truth." Assigning a role to the church does not make it infallible. Christ gave similar roles to His disciples, but they made errors and were not infallible. Not even Peter.
Similar roles, but not the same. Only Peter is given the keys of the vice-regency. Again, the Church that Christ established is "the pillar and foundation or truth." How do we know when the Church is teaching infallibly? When the Church tells us so.
"So Jesus tells us to take our disputes to churches other than the one that He founded?"
Yes.
Fallible churches, correct? Then why would Jesus (who is Truth itself) issue a divine command, with concommitant divine sanctions, to His followers to obey without qualification the pronouncement of a fallible church? He would be knowingly commanding His followers to obey false teachings.
Because at the time, He had not founded His church. He assigned that role to His disciples to accomplish after His death. And while you say Matthew 16:18 makes it clear Christ isn't speaking in the future tense, why does He say "...on this rock I will build my church"? Clearly, His church has not yet been built. You state you believe "the Church" was existent before Christ's death. Where is it? Why did He specifically task His disciples with building something that already existed?
The selection of the 12 Apostles who are given the power to bind and loose along with the selection of Peter as the vice-regent of His Kingdom is obviously a break with Judaism. Jesus states repeatedly throughout His public ministry that the Kingdom is at hand, His Kingdom, with Peter as His vice-regent.
Clearly, some events recorded in the Gospels happened before the writers of the Gospels could have witnessed them. But those events make up only a tiny fraction of the Gospels. That is why we have so few details of Christ's life before He called His disciples. They did not write much about what they did not witness. Let's take a look at the Gospels. There are 28 chapters in the book of Matthew. Jesus calls His disciples in chapter 4. There are 16 chapters in the Book of Mark. The disciples enter in chapter 1. There are 24 chapters in Luke. The disciples appear in chapter 5. There are 20 chapters in John. The disciples appear in chapter 1. CLEARLY, almost all of what they recorded happened while they were with Christ to witness it.
"It seems more than probable that the Gospel writers would have depended upon the memories of others, as well as their own, divinely inspired of course, to recount the events of Jesus' life."
That is a little different than your original statement that much of their knowledge had been passed to them orally. But I still disagree that the Gospel writers had to "depend" on the memories of others to write the Gospels. Think for a second. You live for three years with one of the most amazing people you've ever met. You drop everything you own to follow Him and listen to His teaching. You eat with Him and sleep with Him. You witness His death on the cross, and then witness His resurrected spirit. You dedicate the rest of your life to faithfully spread the word of the good news that Christ brought into this earth. But then, when it comes time to write your memories of those three years, you "depend" on the memories of others to recall what happened?
"In other words, Jesus didn't directly dictate the words of the NT, nor did He command the compilation of the NT. Both were the inspired work of His Church."
I don't think anyone would argue that Jesus dictated the words of the NT. But I agree with the doctrine of the Catholic church, which states, "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." If you believe they are the inspired work of the Catholic church, you are in opposition to your own church.
"No, there were not. The Kingdom that Christ proclaims is His Kingdom, His Church, and He established Its ecclesial structure with the selection of the 12 Apostles with Peter as His vice-regent."
No. You are just flat wrong here. Again, your statement is not only Biblically incorrect, it does not match the doctrine of your own church. Read John 18:36. Christ says, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." And in Luke 23:42, the penitent thief calls to Jesus saying; "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" To which Jesus replies "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
"Only Peter is given the keys of the vice-regency."
Which you have argued gives him the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals. Yet, moments after receiving the keys, Peter immediately declares Christ would never be killed and resurrected. And days later, he denied ever knowing Christ at all. How could the keeper of the keys be infallible on matters of faith, yet so obviously demonstrate he was anything but infallible.
"How do we know when the Church is teaching infallibly? When the Church tells us so."
Whew. That is a tangled web.
"Then why would Jesus (who is Truth itself) issue a divine command, with concommitant divine sanctions, to His followers to obey without qualification the pronouncement of a fallible church?"
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If it is Matthew 18:17, then for the umpteenth time, you have wildly misquoted the verse and yanked it from the context provided by Jesus Christ Himself. For your sake, let me repeat Matthew 18:15-17 here, as it appears in The New American Bible.
"15 If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."
Using your distorted interpretation, one could say Christ issues a "divine command" for His followers to solve their "disputes" OUTSIDE of the church. That is, after all, the very first step of His multi-step approach to addressing a brother who sins. Now certainly you do not believe Christ's individual followers are infallible. Yet, Christ's first command is that His followers solve their problems without involving the church. Aquinasfan, can you not understand how wrong it is to so grossly distort the words of Christ. I just can't understand why you insist on doing it.
"Jesus states repeatedly throughout His public ministry that the Kingdom is at hand, His Kingdom, with Peter as His vice-regent."
No. He does not. Twice He says the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Twice He says the Kingdom of God is at hand. NEVER does He say His Kingdom is at hand. The Catholic church VERY CLEARLY teaches that the Kingdom of God has yet to come. Again, your own beliefs fall outside of scriptural truth and Catholic doctrine.