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.
Your whole misunderstanding of the development of the Canon stems on your inability to understand the word DEVELOPMENT. The Church of 200 AD didn't just wake up one day and universally say "Hey, we got 27 books that are inspired by God". There was a gradual process of acceptance. The KEY to this acceptance is whether a writing WAS indeed from an Apostle or a close acquaintance. However, this was a rule of thumb, not set in stone. As in other Catholic development of doctrine, you will find a gradual understanding in a particular belief by the faithful - which leads to a clash between this understanding and one who disagrees with it (e.g. Arius vs. Church). In the same manner, the Church was compelled to define what was Scripture in an official sense.
Much of your idea regarding 2 Peter, for example, is destroyed, considering that the Church of 100-250 AD did NOT universally accept Peter's authorship of 2 Peter. For example, Eusebius writes about Origen:
"...And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail' (Matt. 16:18), has left one acknowledged Epistle; possibly also a second, but this is disputed. (6.25.8)
Isn't it clear that the greatest Church historian of the day noted that it was DISPUTED as late as 250 AD??? Eusebius further writes in the Canon of Eusebius:
These, then, [are to placed] among the recognized books {Eusebius had listed some NT books}. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another of the same name.
Seems you are incorrect regarding the ability of people to agree on what WAS Scripture... 5 of 27 are disputed here, and Revelation in a following quote. That is 20% of the letters that are found in TODAY'S NT Bible were questioned by people. Also, this same writer questions other writings that some accept, but are later rejected by the authority of the Church.
Eusebius continues...
Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache] , as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems right. (This last as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.)
And finally, he continues:
Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical, but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings.
Look carefully at the last quote. Note, there are some writings that CLAIM to be from Apostles, but are not recognized. They are not spurious, but HERETICAL. In the Scriptures, Paul HIMSELF warns others to beware of forgeries and false writings purported to be from him, such as 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thes 2:2; 2 Thes 3:17. The early Church, then, had to deal with such problems as false writings. Just because someone stamped "Peter" on it doesn't mean it was accepted. The Church compared the writings to what teachings they had received from the Apostles. If they didn't match, the writings must have been heretical and were to be discarded. Isn't that clear enough?
Once the Church sat down at the various Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, the Canon was determined by the Church - infallibly so at Trent, reaffirming the earlier Councils. When the Church speaks infallibly, there is no "when if we messed up". NO ONE is going to declare that 2/3 of the NT is suspect - whom we will listen to.
We certainly believe that the Bible is inspired! But first, the Church must RECOGNIZE God's teachings among the writings. How? They compared it with what they had been taught. The Apostolic Tradition encompassed both the writings and the oral teachings of the Apostles. They MUST match - they must teach the same things, either explicitly or implicitly. Thus, with the Body of Teaching that they had, they were able to discard spurious or heretical books. They did this under the form of a Council, protected by the Holy Spirit. If we believe that Christ promised to protect the Truth of the Faith of the Church for all time, then we believe the determination made by these councils. Future "what about's" are pointless - God is Truth, His Church is the pillar of this truth, Christ being the foundation. (Eph 2:20).
Rather than accuse Catholics of not being faithful to the inerrancy of the Scriptures, their inspiration from God (which we certainly do), you should consider why you do not trust the promise made by Jesus Christ to believe that He gave the truth of the faith to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5; Mat 16:18; 2 Tim 2:2; and so forth). Why do you think Christ lied to His Church?
Regards
Well, isn't it a bit odd for someone to believe in a book whose authorship is not absolutely known for sure? The authorship of some of the books in the New Testament is not certain to this date. That's just the way it is. And yet we believe in every word in that book! Then if we believe in every word, why not formulate doctrines based on it?
Obviously, the Church looked at the content of those books and, while it could not establish the authorship with absolute certainty, it established that what the books were saying was in harmony with a known author's previous books and teaching of the Church from the beginning. Thus, the books are inspired and they speak the truth.
Why do we believe them? Because they say they are true?
How do we know that was John who wrote that? How do we know that what the author wrote is really true as he claims? It's called faith. There is no hard and unshakable evidence that it is. We choose to believe it based on what we know through faith.
What is faith, Helrey D? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [Heb 11:1]
The evidence of things not seen. Some evidence! Try that in court. We believe because faith gives us hope of ever-lasting life (cf Titus 1:2). Take that factor out of the equation and see how many will believe. We believe because we choose to believe, because we hope to get something out of it. And that is no true faith, I say. Unless we believe for the glory of God and for nothing that concernes us, (if we really believe we are worthless), then it is not for the glory of God.
If we believe the Bible speaks he truth, than we can formulate doctrines based on what's in it. Individual authroship is not important. (After all wh are the authors of the Old Testament? What proof do we have of their authenticity?). It's all based on blind faith.
I don't think I can add anything to what Jo Kus and Kosta posted in response. The entire Holy Tradition is infallible. The written Bible is a subset of it. As a part of the Tradition it is inerrant, and, as a small example of our beleif in its inerrancy, others and I took great pains even on this thread to illuminate the scripture to you. If the scripture is torn out of he Holy Tradition as a whole, it has lead great many to error, most notably for us, Luther.