[HarleyD]

Many Protestants (and here I can use a mass grouping) are brought up on the pure anti-Rome propaganda and hence will instinctively condemn everything that is held by Rome.

Actually several of my closes relatives when I was growing up were Roman Catholics. I never heard any anti-Rome propaganda and actually admired their strict adherence to Catholic teaching. It really wasn't until I got out on this board that I discovered the wacky ideas Catholics have. ;O)

[Cronos]

Well, in your case and FK's, I don't see that level of "let's be against it BECAUSE the Papacy supports it!", that's why I pinged you!

[kosta50]

It really wasn't until I got out on this board that I discovered the wacky ideas Catholics have. ;O)

Okay, HD, I guess we do seem a little wacky to you and your Protestant kin. But You seem alien to us, and I don't mean it as an insult, personal or collective, nor as a disparaging remark about your faith.

I meant it as a collective understanding of something that has been with the Church since it was established by Christ on the Pentecost. If you think the Protestants are the first to behave like Protestants you are sadly mistaken. And if you think the first "protests" came from Luther and first Church reactions to such protests at Trent, you are way off the scale... again.

To bring you into the reality of what the Church did from the beginning almost, here are some quotes from St. Irenaeus (of Lyons, 2nd c. AD, I would say thta's quite close to the earliest Christinaity and how they undersood the faith) in his Against Heresies:

"But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?

For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another.

Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."

Sounds familiar? Well, heresies and human arrogance, assuming it can, on nothing but the merit of our limited intellect, understand the depth of Scriptures individually have been around even in very beginning of the 2nd century.

Fascinating revelation that nothing has changed! Yet Protestants think they invented the wheel by insisting on personal interpretation of the Scripture and questioning the authority of the Church!

One of the favorite arguments of the protesters of all kinds is that famous line — "tradition became corrupt," or "the Church was in error." What are we to do? Break up with the Tradition as the Protestants did?

Here is what St. Irenaeus says:

"But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear?

Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

He reiterates that the Church gets its authority from none other than our Lord's Apostles:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth...

Thus, the apostolitcity and catholicity guarantees that the faith once delivered remains unaltered.

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about... .

In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." [Against All Heresies, Book III, 2:2, 3:1, 3:3]