One of the reasons it took the Church 300+ years to put together Christian canon is precisely the fear that the books which seemed inspired may have been written by heretics. I mentioned earlier that over 200 such texts existed, all masquerading as "inspired" books. Of tese, 27 ended up in the Christian canon.
The Church fathers painstakingly researched, read and compared texts, debated their implications and message, and compared them to the teachings of Christ from texts known to be authored by the Apostles.
Anything that was written by an Apostle was considered inspired. However, the autorship of some of these was in dispute and still is. Many of the late Pauline, Petrine and other epistles were accepted on content and seamlessness of their message withr espect to the Church Tradition tat was kept alive in writing and by word of mouth from the beginning.
Thus, in your rant about traditions of men, you miss to note 2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
and 2 Thess 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
Apples and oranges...
The Church has made mistakes in the past
The Churhc may has engaged in some erroneous practices and beliefs and has steadfastly corrected them. The original Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, taught one and the same faith for 1,000 years and was defined by oral Tradition, the Scriptures and the Ecumenical Cuncils, all in perfect harmony. The Church of the seven councils never made an error in teaching or in weeding out what was not faith once delivered, unchanged. I can't vouch for the Latin side, but the Orthodox Church, which is the same Church of the seven councils, teaches exactly the same thing the Church taught from the beginning. The Latin side teaches some things we do not teach, but this seems to be more an issue of terminology and phronema (mindset) rather than error. I can guarantee you that if the Church, at a next ecumenical council, finds error in teaching in its ranks, the Church will reject that error, and call those who erroneously taught that which the Church did not believe from the beginning, to repent or be excommunicated.
The Churhc may has is a spelling not grammatical error; apologies.
The original Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, taught one and the same faith for 1,000 years and was defined by oral Tradition, the Scriptures and the Ecumenical Cuncils, all in perfect harmony
This was an awkward statement by me and does not reflect what I had in mind. What I wanted to say was: The Church taught one and the same theology for 1,000 years...then separated over the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, political and social disagreemnts, etc. The Church, both Latin and Orthodox teaches the same faith, now 2,000 years after Christ, with some variations in terminology, mindset, ecclesiology, etc. and which need to be ironed out. Until such issues are ironed out, and the faith refomulated in the mutually agreeable manner, by an ecumenical council, the Orthodox Curch cannot share the Eucharist with the Latins, because the Eucharist is not the means of achieveing union but an expression of such union.
Isn't it a tad bit odd to be formulating complete doctrines and policies for the Church on disputed text? What happens if someone "declares" 2/3 of the New Testament suspect. Are you going to throw out praying to the saints if that happens to be in the text? Are you guys going to shrug your shoulders and say, "Oops, guess we mess that one up."?
Honestly, this isn't some type of rant. When it comes down to it all, you really don't believe the Bible to be inspired. You have been brought up under a system that you are to listen to what the Church tells you and don't ask questions. You run back to 2 Thess and hide behind the Church fathers even through the early church fathers ran back to the scriptures. It is documented time and again in scripture about reading the text and you guy tell me you trace your lintage to Peter where the Church has forever been making all sorts of decisions; and then you tell me nobody knew what they were even preaching from. How disorganized.
The church fathers were wrong in some cases. They admitted they were wrong in some cases. But they always felt the scriptures were right. Something I hearing that you people really don't believe.