I would respectfully disagree that a beautiful hymn has the same hand of God behind it that the book of John does. Do you see all hymns composed, liturgies written, and cathedrals built as definitionally perfect? (Do you see the Bible as definitionally perfect?) It appears that you believe that God turned over His authority to select His written revelation to man, to the Church. I would say He retained His authority for Himself. Is the Church a greater authority than the Bible?
In the case of the New Testament we have clear signals that at least some of the books are writings for private consumption. Luke writes his gospel to Theofilus, who has already received instruction in the living Word to confirm him in his knowledge (Luke 1:1-4).
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but by this reasoning, aren't all Paul's letters written to specific audiences, and are thus not applicable to the rest of us Christians? Do we need to pay heed to anything in James since he only wrote to Jewish Christians?
Ultimately, the test of correctness is whether a holy work brings people to Christ.
If you and I met the same man, and we each gave him an opposite teaching, would you judge the correctness of the teaching by which of us convinced the man? That can't be right. We even define "coming to Christ" differently. I would say the test of correctness is whether God says it's true.
Protestant baptisms are valid (excepting some fringe denominations). In fact, in an emergency, anyone, even a non-Christian can perform valid baptism.
Thanks for your answer. It's funny, my wife and I are fans of the show "Lost". This situation just came up on their isolated island. If you're not a fan, someone had a vision that the baby needed to be baptized in case something terrible happened, so that the baby's soul would be safe. The only one available who claimed to be qualified did know some scripture, but was actually a hardened drug dealer, killer, etc., and was unconvincing as a Christian, but did have redeeming qualities. The sprinkling was done by the drug dealer, and the music told us that it was successful. Since the brother of the drug dealer actually was a legitimate priest (clarifying that this was supposed to be Catholic), I laughed with my wife on whether Catholics would like this portrayal or not. :) I honestly don't know.
Historically, the public school system in America was promulgated in 19 century in order to offset the influence the Catholic Church had in primary education.
Well, I don't know the history, but I can tell you that among non-Catholics, today, your best buddies in the world are evangelical Protestants in promoting faith-based education.
This pattern, that an individual can decide for himself what the Natural law in his heart says, follows the Protestant pattern where the individual can decide for himself what the Divine Law says. The apostolic churches believe that the Church is the deposit of Divine Law and is the only source of moral law, no matter what the democratic sentiment is at any moment.
I don't agree this is a valid criticism. Under communism, everyone is bound to follow the hierarchy. The will of the spirits of the people is subjugated to the State because only the State has the authority to proclaim truth. Violation of any doctrine of the hierarchy subjects a person to severe punishment. Therefore, it is clear that Catholicism is like communism. Have I treated you fairly? :) I also think NOT!
We do not believe that truth is determined by a vote of men. I could argue that is what you believe! We do not believe that we decide for ourselves what is truth. I understand that you believe that God has deposited "the truth" into the hands of a very select few men. We believe that God has done the same thing, but just to "more" men. :)
You asked in what sense God has authorship of the Bible, and I say that in both cases, of inspired inerrant scripture, and a hymn or an icon, God uses a human worker who receives an approval from the living body of Christ, the Church. Definitely there is a difference between canonical scripture and other works of the Holy Tradition, and that difference is defined by the Church: one is inerrant when interpreted through the eye of the Church, the other is a contribution to the inerrancy of the entire living Word that abides in the Church, but for some reason or another (how can a hymn be inerrant?) is not declared inerrant.
aren't all Paul's letters written to specific audiences, and are thus not applicable to the rest of us Christians?
This is not what I am saying. We should listen to Paul, but the fact that his, and most other, writings are written to correct errors and confirm historical facts for an audience that has already received the Word in the form of the Holy Tradition illustrates that it is the Holy Tradition, and not written scripture alone that is the Gospel of Christ.
If you and I met the same man, and we each gave him an opposite teaching, would you judge the correctness of the teaching by which of us convinced the man?
Again, this is not the right corollary of what I am saying. If Jake and Jim met a man and each spoke to him, and Jake sent him to Christ then Jake spoke the truth, even though Jim might have succeeded in sending him to Satan.
I understand that you believe that God has deposited "the truth" into the hands of a very select few men. We believe that God has done the same thing, but just to "more" men.
The issue is, which men. Protestantism encourages a democratic model, where not just more men, but everyone, decide moral issues for themselves. Communism says that the state decides. Catholicism says that the truth has to be historically tested and conform with the deposit of faith as preserved by the Church, an institution that persisted since Christ, before it can become social teaching, irrespective of what the state says and what the elections say.