In this case, the agent is bound to the actions of the Principle. One cannot claim the authority of God without certain proof. Thus, "ye will know them by their fruits" (that doesn't mean there are gay people involved! ).
IF however the agent abuses his position, bad stuff gonna happen. But, as I have said, while to outsiders it may appear that we trust in men, what we trust is that God will guide certain men.
That, I will submit, is the very same thinking which bound people to the Pharisees. I see *no* creed or confession as being "the one and only" anything... There IS a "one and only," but it ain't found in such a thing.
The Temple of Yahweh, with it's anointed succession, was TWICE corrupted to the point of destruction. It should be a lesson.
Don't you think we know the apparent similarity? We do claim an explicit scriptural commissioning and promises.
I see *no* creed or confession as being "the one and only" anything... There IS a "one and only," but it ain't found in such a thing.
That may explain why we do not claim to have delineated and defined every possible aspect of the Faith. Crises come up, and then resolutions are arrived at -- as at Jerusalem, so at Vatican II
Old Reggie, I think it is, points out gleefully that there isn't an index of "infallible definitions." He also points out, not without some reason, that later decisions change the 'vibe' of previous decisions (or indecisiveness).
Certainly the nullus salus declaration has been unfolded in a (to me) good way which has had the salutory result of clarifying what we mean by being in the Church. The cynic may laugh and say that we got in too deep and had to back out. And I'm sure there's some of that in how the whole thing worked out. (By "I'm sure" I mean "I have no idea, but it sounds good to me.")
But while it seems to trouble the half-empty side of the aisle, I think it's a step forward to say that other "Ecclesial assemblies" include "separated brethren." It's good because of the obvious fact that there are some very holy people who ain't all the way in the Catholic Church. And it's good because it prompted the idea of "the fullness of the Church." rather than a kind of binary attitude which was a little too clunky to deal with the Truth of how God acts.
Leaving San Francisco aside for a minute, I'm inclined to be very careful in assessing fruits. It may be a drag that some people get themselves crucified on Good Friday out of a perverse misunderstanding of appropriate penance. But it beats the heck out of fighting each other on Good Friday because they have no idea that there might be better ways to spend the day.
It helps to be patient. It is required. Now in some allegedly catholic places they through babies on garbage piles. But in those same places some people are giving their lives to rescue as many of those babies as they can, and to find good homes for them. Who knows how many generations it will take to get from killing one another for kicks on Good Friday to establishing social structures and mores that make common chastity and obedience to the Christian injunction from as far back as the Didache NOT to kill newborns.
We can look at the mess that is Latin America and blame it on the Catholics. OR we can look at the mess it was BEFORE Catholics came to those shores. I think cannibalism has shown a marked decline. That's not such a bad fruit.
And at the same time, Catholics in the Caribbean and back in Spain were doing some critical work in establishing the idea that it was NOT cool to go kill the men and babies and rape the women (or enslave them all) just because the people were not Christian. Not such a bad fruit.